OUP accepted manuscript
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combination therapy may be an alternative therapeutic approach for difficult-to-treat Candida infections with the aim of increasing efficacy of antifungal therapy. Whether isavuconazole, an extended-spectrum triazole, possesses synergistic activity in combination therapy with echinocandins or polyenes for the treatment of invasive candidiasis has not been studied. We used Bliss independence drug interaction analysis and time-kill assays to examine the in vitro interactions of isavuconazole with amphotericin B or micafungin, an echinocandin, against strains of Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis, and Candida krusei. The Bliss independence-based drug interactions modeling showed that the combination of isavuconazole and micafungin resulted in synergistic interactions against C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. krusei. The degree of synergy ranged from 1.8% to 16.7% (mean %ΔΕ value) with the highest synergy occurring against C. albicans (⊙SYN% = 8.8%-110%). Time-kill assays showed that the isavuconazole-micafungin combination demonstrated concentration-depended synergy against C. albicans and C. parapsilosis. The combined interaction by Bliss analysis between isavuconazole and amphotericin B was indifferent for C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis while for C. glabrata was antagonistic (-2% to -6%) and C. krusei synergistic (3.4% to 7%). The combination of isavuconazole-amphotericin B by time-kill assay was antagonistic against C. krusei and C. glabrata. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that combinations of isavuconazole and micafungin are synergistic against Candida spp., while those of isavuconazole and amphotericin B are indifferent in vitro.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.835 | 0.796 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".