Trial reportMycoses2026
Rezafungin Versus Caspofungin in Candidaemia and Invasive Candidiasis: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Phase 2 and Phase 3 Trials.
Trial report in Mycoses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Intravenous CD101 vs Intravenous Caspofungin Followed by Oral Fluconazole Step-down in the Treatment of Subjects With Candidemia and/or Invasive Candidiasis
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Rezafungin for Injection vs. Intravenous Caspofungin Followed by Oral Fluconazole Step Down in the Treatment of Subjects With Candidemia and/or Invasive Candidiasis
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of rezafungin in invasive candidiasis (IC) and candidaemia was demonstrated in the Phase 2 STRIVE and Phase 3 ReSTORE trials, and an additional cohort of patients in ReSTORE from China (ReSTORE China).
objectivesThis post hoc analysis is the first time that combined data from all double-blind, randomised Phase 2 and 3 rezafungin trials have been evaluated. Outcomes were comprehensively assessed across a large, diverse population.
methodsData were assessed from adults with candidaemia/IC in STRIVE (NCT02734862) and ReSTORE (NCT03667690) (including the China extension cohort) who received weekly rezafungin 400/200 mg or daily caspofungin 70/50 mg for ≤ 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed in the modified intent-to-treat population. Endpoints were Day 30 all-cause mortality (ACM, primary), mycological response at Days 5 and 14 (secondary) and time to negative blood cultures (TTNBC, secondary). Treatment-emergent adverse events were assessed in the safety population.
resultsOverall, 372 patients were included (rezafungin 179; caspofungin 193). Day-30 ACM was 20% (33/161) for rezafungin versus 22% (39/178) for caspofungin (weighted difference, -2.4% [95% confidence interval -11.2 to 6.4]). Day-5 and Day-14 mycological eradication rates were 73% and 70% for rezafungin versus 65% and 68% for caspofungin, respectively. Median TTNBC was shorter for rezafungin than for caspofungin (23.1 versus 36.7 h, respectively; p = 0.0073). Adverse-event profiles were generally similar across treatments.
conclusionsThis pooled analysis of Phase 2 and Phase 3 data, including the China extension cohort, supports the efficacy and safety of rezafungin. Rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin, with earlier mycological eradication.
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.