MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987507623 · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15702

Effect of Caspofungin vs Fluconazole Prophylaxis on Invasive Fungal Disease Among Children and Young Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2019· article· en· W2987507623 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian T. Fisher, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Christopher C. Dvorak, Michael L. Nieder, Danielle M. Zerr, John R. Wingard, Colleen Callahan, Doojduen Villaluna, Lu Chen, Ha Dang, Adam J. Esbenshade, Sarah Alexander, Joseph M. Wiley, Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCaspofunginFluconazoleInternal medicineAspergillosisNeutropeniaMyeloid leukemiaRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyImmunologyAntifungalDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207