A Randomized Trial of Caspofungin vs Triazoles Prophylaxis for Invasive Fungal Disease in Pediatric Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are at high risk for invasive fungal disease (IFD). METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, open-label trial planned to enroll 560 children and adolescents (3 months to <21 years) undergoing allogeneic HCT between April 2013 and September 2016. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to antifungal prophylaxis with caspofungin or a center-specific comparator triazole (fluconazole or voriconazole). Prophylaxis was administered from day 0 of HCT to day 42 or discharge. The primary outcome was proven or probable IFD at day 42 as adjudicated by blinded central review. Exploratory analysis stratified this evaluation by comparator triazole. RESULTS: A planned futility analysis demonstrated a low rate of IFD in the comparator triazole arm, so the trial was closed early. A total of 290 eligible patients, with a median age of 9.5 years (range 0.3-20.7), were randomized to caspofungin (n = 144) or a triazole (n = 146; fluconazole, n = 100; voriconazole, n = 46). The day 42 cumulative incidence of proven or probable IFD was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3%-5.4%) in the caspofungin group vs 1.4% (95% CI, 0.4%-5.5%) in the triazole group (P = .99, log-rank test). When stratified by specific triazole, there was no significant difference in proven or probable IFD at day 42 between caspofungin vs fluconazole (1.0%, 95% CI, 0.1%-6.9%, P = .78) or caspofungin vs voriconazole (2.3%, 95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%, P = .69). CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric HCT patients, prophylaxis with caspofungin did not significantly reduce the cumulative incidence of early proven or probable IFD compared with triazoles. Future efforts to decrease IFD-related morbidity and mortality should focus on later periods of risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01503515.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".