Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27634140›Full record

Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2016

Micafungin versus anidulafungin in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis: a retrospective study.

Patrick J van der Geest, Nicole G M Hunfeld, Sophie E Ladage, A B Johan Groeneveld

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical Outcomes of Micafungin and Anidulafungin inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick J van der GeestDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. p.vandergeest@erasmusmc.nl.
Nicole G M HunfeldDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sophie E LadageDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A B Johan GroeneveldDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn critically ill patients the incidence of invasive fungal infections caused by Candida spp. has increased remarkably. Echinocandins are recommended as initial treatment for invasive fungal infections. The safety and efficacy of micafungin compared to caspofungin is similar, but no comparison is made between anidulafungin and micafungin concerning safety and efficacy. We therefore performed a retrospective study to assess these aspects in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis.

methodsAll patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with invasive candidiasis, who were only treated with anidulafungin or micafungin, between January 2012 and December 2014 were retrospectively included. Baseline demographic characteristics, infection characteristics and patient courses were assessed.

resultsA total of 63 patients received either anidulafungin (n = 30) or micafungin (n = 33) at the discretion of the attending intensivist. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, suggesting similar risk for developing invasive candidiasis. Patients with invasive candidiasis and liver failure were more often treated with anidulafungin than micafungin. Response rates were similar for both groups. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality, but 90-day mortality was higher in patients on anidulafungin. Multivariable cox regression analysis showed that age and serum bilirubin were the best parameters for the prediction of 90-day mortality, whereas APACHE II, Candida score and antifungal therapy did not contribute (P > 0.05). None of the patients developed impaired liver function related to antifungal use and no differences were seen in prothrombin time, serum transaminases and bilirubin levels between the groups, after exclusion of patients with liver injury or failure.

conclusionMicafungin can be safely and effectively used in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis. The observed increased 90-day mortality with anidulafungin can be explained by intensivists unnecessarily avoiding micafungin in patients with liver injury and failure.

Indexed as

AnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsAPACHECandidiasis, InvasiveCritical IllnessEchinocandinsFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLipopeptidesLiverLiver Function TestsMaleMicafunginMiddle AgedRegression AnalysisAnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsEchinocandinsLipopeptidesMicafunginAnidulafunginCritically illInvasive candidiasisMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID27634140
PMCPMC5025542
OpenAlexW2520685850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.