Comparison of Caspofungin and Amphotericin B for Invasive Candidiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caspofungin is an echinocandin agent with fungicidal activity against candida species. We performed a double-blind trial to compare caspofungin with amphotericin B deoxycholate for the primary treatment of invasive candidiasis. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had clinical evidence of infection and a positive culture for candida species from blood or another site. Patients were stratified according to the severity of disease, as indicated by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, and the presence or absence of neutropenia and were randomly assigned to receive either caspofungin or amphotericin B. The study was designed to compare the efficacy of caspofungin with that of amphotericin B in patients with invasive candidiasis and in a subgroup with candidemia. RESULTS: Of the 239 patients enrolled, 224 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Base-line characteristics, including the percentage of patients with neutropenia and the mean APACHE II score, were similar in the two treatment groups. A modified intention-to-treat analysis showed that the efficacy of caspofungin was similar to that of amphotericin B, with successful outcomes in 73.4 percent of the patients treated with caspofungin and in 61.7 percent of those treated with amphotericin B (difference after adjustment for APACHE II score and neutropenic status, 12.7 percentage points; 95.6 percent confidence interval, -0.7 to 26.0). An analysis of patients who met prespecified criteria for evaluation showed that caspofungin was superior, with a favorable response in 80.7 percent of patients, as compared with 64.9 percent of those who received amphotericin B (difference, 15.4 percentage points; 95.6 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 29.7). Caspofungin was as effective as amphotericin B in patients who had candidemia, with a favorable response in 71.7 percent and 62.8 percent of patients, respectively (difference, 10.0 percentage points; 95.0 percent confidence interval, -4.5 to 24.5). There were significantly fewer drug-related adverse events in the caspofungin group than in the amphotericin B group. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin is at least as effective as amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and, more specifically, candidemia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".