ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Efficacy and safety of voriconazole and caspofungin for the treatment of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients in China.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare and analyze the efficacy and safety of different antifungal drug treatment regimens for patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with IPA in the ICU in two grade-A tertiary hospitals from January 2019 to January 2024 using the HIS system and compared the clinical efficacy, incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and all-cause mortality at discharge among different antifungal treatments, such as voriconazole alone, caspofungin alone, and a combination of voriconazole plus caspofungin. Results: A total of 151 patients were enrolled, including 129 in the monotherapy group (with 92 in the voriconazole subgroup and 37 in the caspofungin subgroup) and 22 in the voriconazole plus caspofungin combination group. Conclusions: Voriconazole is still the preferred treatment for critically ill patients with IPA, and caspofungin has good clinical efficacy and safety and can effectively replace voriconazole for these patients. However, the combination treatment with voriconazole and caspofungin did not improve the all-cause mortality rate of critically ill patients with IPA, is associated with increased total ADR and pancytopenia incidence and is not recommended as an initial treatment plan.
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.