Isavuconazole Versus Caspofungin in the Treatment of Candidemia and Other Invasive Candida Infections: The ACTIVE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isavuconazole was compared to caspofungin followed by oral voriconazole in a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multinational clinical trial for the primary treatment of patients with candidemia or invasive candidiasis. METHODS: Adult patients were randomized 1:1 to isavuconazole (200 mg intravenous [IV] three-times-daily [TID] for 2 days, followed by 200 mg IV once-daily [OD]) or caspofungin (70 mg IV OD on day 1, followed by 50 mg IV OD [70 mg in patients > 80 kg]) for a maximum of 56 days. After day 10, patients could switch to oral isavuconazole (isavuconazole arm) or voriconazole (caspofungin arm). Primary efficacy endpoint was successful overall response at the end of IV therapy (EOIVT) in patients with proven infections who received ≥1 dose of study drug (modified-intent-to-treat [mITT] population). The pre-specified noninferiority margin was 15%. Secondary outcomes in the mITT population were successful overall response at 2 weeks after the end of treatment, all-cause mortality at days 14 and 56, and safety. RESULTS: Of 450 patients randomized, 400 comprised the mITT population. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Successful overall response at EOIVT was observed in 60.3% of patients in the isavuconazole arm and 71.1% in the caspofungin arm (adjusted difference -10.8, 95% confidence interval -19.9--1.8). The secondary endpoints, all-cause mortality, and safety were similar between arms. Median time to clearance of the bloodstream was comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate non-inferiority of isavuconazole to caspofungin for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis. Secondary endpoints were similar between both groups. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00413218.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".