Effect of Caspofungin vs Fluconazole Prophylaxis on Invasive Fungal Disease Among Children and Young Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Children, adolescents, and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia are at high risk of life-threatening invasive fungal disease with both yeasts and molds. Objective: To compare the efficacy of caspofungin vs fluconazole prophylaxis against proven or probable invasive fungal disease and invasive aspergillosis during neutropenia following acute myeloid leukemia chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial enrolled patients aged 3 months to 30 years with newly diagnosed de novo, relapsed, or secondary acute myeloid leukemia being treated at 115 US and Canadian institutions (April 2011-November 2016; last follow-up June 30, 2018). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned during the first chemotherapy cycle to prophylaxis with caspofungin (n = 257) or fluconazole (n = 260). Prophylaxis was administered during the neutropenic period following each chemotherapy cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proven or probable invasive fungal disease as adjudicated by blinded central review. Secondary outcomes were invasive aspergillosis, empirical antifungal therapy, and overall survival. Results: The second interim efficacy analysis and an unplanned futility analysis based on 394 patients appeared to have suggested futility, so the study was closed to accrual. Among the 517 participants who were randomized (median age, 9 years [range, 0-26 years]; 44% female), 508 (98%) completed the trial. The 23 proven or probable invasive fungal disease events (6 caspofungin vs 17 fluconazole) included 14 molds, 7 yeasts, and 2 fungi not further categorized. The 5-month cumulative incidence of proven or probable invasive fungal disease was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-7.0%) in the caspofungin group vs 7.2% (95% CI, 4.4%-11.8%) in the fluconazole group (overall P = .03 by log-rank test) and for cumulative incidence of proven or probable invasive aspergillosis was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.1%-3.5%) with caspofungin vs 3.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.9%) with fluconazole (overall P = .046 by log-rank test). No statistically significant differences in empirical antifungal therapy (71.9% caspofungin vs 69.5% fluconazole, overall P = .78 by log-rank test) or 2-year overall survival (68.8% caspofungin vs 70.8% fluconazole, overall P = .66 by log-rank test) were observed. The most common toxicities were hypokalemia (22 caspofungin vs 13 fluconazole), respiratory failure (6 caspofungin vs 9 fluconazole), and elevated alanine transaminase (4 caspofungin vs 8 fluconazole). Conclusions and Relevance: Among children, adolescents, and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia, prophylaxis with caspofungin compared with fluconazole resulted in significantly lower incidence of invasive fungal disease. The findings suggest that caspofungin may be considered for prophylaxis against invasive fungal disease, although study interpretation is limited by early termination due to an unplanned interim analysis that appeared to have suggested futility. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01307579.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».