Trial reportScientific reports2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of topical caspofungin 0.5% and voriconazole 1% for fungal keratitis: a pilot clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanovesicular Spanlastics Thermosensitive Gel for the Ocular Delivery of Voriconazole: Development, Ex Vivo Transcorneal Permeability, and In Vivo Evaluation in a Rabbit Model of Fungal Keratitis.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Article
- Evaluation of corneal intrastromal voriconazole injection as an adjuvant approach in recalcitrant fungal keratitis.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the efficacy of topical caspofungin 0.5% with topical voriconazole 1% in patients with fungal keratitis. In this pilot clinical trial, thirty-four eyes from 34 patients diagnosed with fungal keratitis, confirmed by positive smear or culture results or in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM), were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive either topical caspofungin 0.5% or voriconazole 1%. The primary outcome measure was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of healed ulcers, time to healing, and scar size. After 3 months of treatment, the mean BSCVA was1.17 ± 0.85 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) units in the caspofungin group and 0.49 ± 0.56 LogMAR units in the voriconazole group and the difference between two groups was 0.18 LogMAR (95% CI, -0.14 to 0.51 P = 0.276). The final mean scar size was similar between the caspofungin group (2.47 ± 2.1) and the voriconazole group (3.09 ± 1.11) (P = 0.254, 95% CI, -1.88 to 0.50 mm). The percentage of cases healed was 70.6% (12/17) in the caspofungin group and 100% (17/17) in the voriconazole group (P = 0.060, Hazard ratio ,2.06 95% CI,0.97 to 4.37). Fusarium species were the most common species (9/34; 26.5% cases). Complete stromal healing occurred in all 5 patients infected with Fusarium species who were treated with voriconazole 1%. one out of 4 patients in the caspofungin group showed complete healing (P = 0.048). The patients in caspofungin group had large mean infiltration size 4.81± 1.60 mm, (P = 0.255) than 2.90± 1.60 mm in voriconazole group and deeper infiltration depth 25 ±13% than 15± 9%voriconazole group (P = 0.120). This study indicates that topical caspofungin 0.5% may be effective as topical voriconazole 1%, making caspofungin 0.5% a viable primary treatment option for patients with fungal keratitis.
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.