ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2024
Initial micafungin treatment does not improve outcomes compared to fluconazole treatment in immunocompromised and critically ill patients with candidaemia.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCandidaemia is associated with poor outcomes including high mortality rates. Controversy remains regarding whether fluconazole or an echinocandin is the optimal choice for initial candidaemia treatment, particularly among high-risk patients such as the immunocompromised or critically ill.
objectivesTo understand optimal initial treatment of candidaemia.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of immunocompromised or ICU adult patients with candidaemia from 2010 to 2014. Patients who received ≥3 consecutive days of initial treatment with fluconazole or micafungin were included. The primary outcome was complete response at day 14, defined as clinical improvement and blood culture sterilization. Secondary outcomes included microbiological and clinical success, survival and recurrent candidaemia.
resultsA total of 197 patients were included; 76 received fluconazole and 121 received micafungin. There was no difference in complete response between the fluconazole and micafungin groups (ICU: 38% versus 40%, P = 0.87; immunocompromised: 57% versus 59%, P = 0.80). Secondary outcomes including survival were also similar. In multivariable analysis, among ICU patients, Pitt bacteraemia score < 4 (P = 0.002) and time to antifungal (P = 0.037) were associated with meeting the primary outcome; white blood cell count > 11 cells × 103/µL on day 0 (P < 0.001) and Candida isolated from a non-blood site (P = 0.025) were associated with not meeting the primary outcome. Among immunocompromised patients, white blood cells > 11 × 103/µL (P = 0.003) and Candida isolated from a non-blood site (P = 0.026) were associated with not meeting the primary outcome.
conclusionsThese data suggest that among ICU or immunocompromised patients, severity of illness rather than initial antifungal choice drove clinical outcomes.
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.