ArticleMycopathologia2020
Anidulafungin Versus Micafungin in the Treatment of Candidemia in Adult Patients.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Micafungin and Anidulafungin inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacies of the three echinocandins for Candida auris candidemia: real world evidence from a tertiary centre in India.Medical mycology · 2024Article
- Short Course of Antifungal Therapy in Patients With UncomplicatedOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEchinocandins are recommended for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. However, there are few studies comparing anidulafungin and micafungin in terms of efficacy and safety. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety between anidulafungin and micafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study performed on adult candidemia patients diagnosed from January 2006 through December 2018 at a tertiary medical center. The study subjects included adult patients ≥ 19 years with candidemia who were only treated with anidulafungin or micafungin for ≥ 3 days. Clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed. Hepatotoxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0.
resultsA total of 98 patients with candidemia were treated with anidulafungin (n = 52, 53.1%) or micafungin (n = 46, 46.9%). There were no significant differences in age, sex, source of candidemia, and comorbidities between the anidulafungin and micafungin groups. Although there were more patients with abnormal baseline liver function test (LFT) in the anidulafungin group, the rate of clinical response (51.9% vs. 46.7%), mycological response (76.9% vs. 67.4%), and mortality (30-day mortality 26.9% vs. 21.7% and 90-day mortality 78.8% vs. 73.9%) was similar between the anidulafungin and micafungin groups. Also, there was no significant difference in terms of hepatotoxicity, even among the patients with abnormal baseline LFT between the two groups.
conclusionsOur results suggest that clinical efficacy and safety may be similar between anidulafungin and micafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.