Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39468640›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2024

Rezafungin versus caspofungin for patients with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit: pooled analyses of the ReSTORE and STRIVE randomised trials.

Patrick M Honoré, Massimo Girardis, Marin Kollef, Oliver A Cornely, George R Thompson, Matteo Bassetti, Alex Soriano, Haihui Huang, Jose Vazquez, Bart Jan Kullberg and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Brazilian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults and children.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Patrick M HonoréICU Department, CHU UCL Godinne Namur, UCL Louvain Medical School, Namur, Belgium. patrick.honore@chuuclnamur.uclouvain.be.ORCID 0000-0002-6697-4890
Massimo GirardisDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and University Hospital of Modena, Largo del Pozzo, Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2453-0829
Marin KollefWashington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Oliver A CornelyFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Translational Research, Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases (CECAD), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9599-3137
George R ThompsonUniversity of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, CA, USA.
Matteo BassettiUniversity of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Alex SorianoHospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, CIBER of Infectious Diseases (CIBERINFEC), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9374-0811
Haihui HuangInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3803-5877
Jose VazquezMedical College of Georgia/Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
Bart Jan KullbergCenter of Infectious Diseases and Department of Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6813-8167
Peter G PappasUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Nick ManamleyMundipharma Research Ltd, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-9325-0323
Taylor SandisonCidara Therapeutics, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
John PullmanMercury Street Medical, Butte, MT, USA.
Saad NseirMédecine Intensive Réanimation, Inserm U1285, CNRS, UMR 8576-UGSF-Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle, CHU de Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7618-0357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRezafungin is an echinocandin approved in the US and EU to treat candidaemia and/or invasive candidiasis. This post-hoc, pooled analysis of the Phase 2 STRIVE and Phase 3 ReSTORE trials assessed rezafungin versus caspofungin in patients with candidaemia and/or invasive candidiasis (IC) in the intensive care unit (ICU) at randomisation.

methodsSTRIVE and ReSTORE were randomised double-blind trials in adults with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidaemia and/or IC in blood or a normally sterile site ≤ 96 h before randomisation. Data were pooled for patients in the ICU at randomisation who received intravenous rezafungin (400 mg loading dose then 200 mg once weekly) or caspofungin (70 mg loading dose then 50 mg once daily) for ≤ 4 weeks. Outcomes were Day 30 all-cause mortality (primary outcome), Day 5 and 14 mycological eradication, time to negative blood culture, mortality attributable to candidaemia/invasive candidiasis, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

resultsOf 294 patients in STRIVE/ReSTORE, 113 were in the ICU at randomisation (rezafungin n = 46; caspofungin n = 67). At baseline, ~ 30% of patients in each group had impaired renal function and/or an Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 20. One patient (in the caspofungin group) was neutropenic at baseline. Day 30 all-cause mortality was 34.8% for rezafungin versus 25.4% for caspofungin. Day 5 and 14 mycological eradication was 78.3% and 71.7% for rezafungin versus 59.7% and 65.7% for caspofungin, respectively. Median time to negative blood culture was 18 (interquartile range, 12.6-43.0) versus 38 (interquartile range, 15.9-211.3) h for rezafungin versus caspofungin (stratified log-rank P = 0.001; nominal, not adjusted for multiplicity). Candidaemia/IC-attributable deaths occurred in two rezafungin patients versus one caspofungin patient. Safety profiles were similar between groups. Overall, 17.4% (rezafungin) versus 29.9% (caspofungin) of patients discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events. Rezafungin exposure following the initial 400-mg dose was comparable between patients in the ICU at randomisation (n = 50) and non-ICU patients (n = 117).

conclusionsRezafungin was well tolerated and efficacious in critically ill, mainly non-neutropenic patients with candidaemia and/or IC. This analysis provides additional insights into the efficacy and safety of rezafungin in the ICU population.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsCandidemiaCandidiasis, InvasiveCaspofunginEchinocandinsIntensive Care UnitsLipopeptidesAdultAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAntifungal AgentsCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptidesRezafunginCandidaemiaIntensive care unitInvasive candidiasisRezafungin

Identifiers

PMID39468640
PMCPMC11520665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.