Micafungin alone or in combination with other systemic antifungal therapies in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe herein 98 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with invasive aspergillosis (IA) (refractory in 83) who received micafungin either alone (8 patients) or in combination with other licensed antifungal therapies (OLAT) (90 patients). Of the 8 monotherapy patients, 4 were failing OLAT, received de novo micafungin, or were intolerant to prior OLAT (2 patients each). Of the 90 patients treated with combination, 7 had de novo IA and 83 had refractory infection. Most patients (81) had pulmonary IA, 42 (43%) had graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and 26 (27%) were neutropenic (absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/mm(3)) at onset of treatment. Successful response was seen in 25/98 (26%); an additional 12 patients achieved stable disease. Response was seen in 2/9 (22%) in de novo treatment, 21/87 (24%) in refractory patients, and 2/2 (100%) in toxicity failure patients. Additionally, response was seen in 22 of the 90 (24%) patients treated with combination therapy, and in 3 of 8 (38%) patients who were treated with micafungin alone. No significant differences in responses were found based on type of HSCT, GVHD status, site of IA, or Aspergillus species, and no significant toxicity was seen. Micafungin was well tolerated, even at high doses, and is a reasonable option for treatment of IA in this high-risk patient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".