Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for pediatric patients with invasive candidiasis: substudy of a randomized double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Invasive candidiasis is increasingly prevalent in premature infants and seriously ill children, and pediatric data on available antifungal therapies are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a pediatric substudy as part of a double-blind, randomized, multinational trial to compare micafungin (2 mg/kg) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg) as first-line treatment of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was defined as clinical and mycologic response at the end of therapy. Statistical analyses were descriptive, as the sample size meant that the study was not powered for hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population; and 98 patients-48 patients in the micafungin group and 50 patients in the liposomal amphotericin B group-in the modified intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Overall, 57 patients were <2 years old including 19 patients who were premature at birth; and 41 patients were 2 to <16 years old. Most patients (91/98, 92.9%) had candidemia, and 7/98 (7.1%) patients had other forms of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was observed for 35/48 (72.9%) patients treated with micafungin and 38/50 (76.0%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions adjusted for neutropenic status was -2.4% [95% CI: (-20.1 to 15.3)]. Efficacy findings were consistent, independent of the neutropenic status, the age of the patient, and whether the patient was premature at birth. Both treatments were well tolerated, but with a lower incidence of adverse events that led to discontinuation in the micafungin group (2/52, 3.8%) compared with the liposomal amphotericin B group (9/54, 16.7%) (P = 0.05, Fisher exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

Micafungin seems to be similarly effective and as safe as liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis in pediatric patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106288).

Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis.

METHODS

We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288.

FINDINGS

264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89.6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89.5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0.7% (95% CI -5.3 to 6.7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events--including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation--with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B.

INTERPRETATION

Micafungin was as effective as--and caused fewer adverse events than--liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Dose-Response Study of Micafungin Compared with Fluconazole for the Treatment of Esophageal Candidiasis in HIV-Positive Patients

BACKGROUND

Severely immunocompromised individuals are highly susceptible to Candida infection of the esophagus. This randomized, double-blind study assessed the dose-response relationship of the new echinocandin antifungal, micafungin, compared with that of standard fluconazole treatment.

METHODS

A total of 245 patients (age, > or =18 years) with a prior diagnosis of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and esophageal candidiasis, confirmed by endoscopy and culture, were randomized to receive micafungin (50, 100, or 150 mg per day) or fluconazole (200 mg per day). Both agents were administered once per day by a 1-h intravenous infusion for 14-21 days. The primary efficacy end point was endoscopic cure rate, defined as endoscopy grade of 0 at the end of therapy.

RESULTS

The endoscopic cure rate (grade 0) was dose-dependent with 50, 100, and 150 mg of micafungin per day at 68.8%, 77.4%, and 89.8%, respectively. Symptoms improved or resolved rapidly (3-7 days of treatment in the majority of patients). The endoscopic cure rate for 100 and 150 mg of micafungin per day (83.5%) was comparable to that for 200 mg of fluconazole per day (86.7%; 95% confidence interval for the difference in endoscopic cure rate, -14.0% to 7.7%). The overall safety and tolerability was acceptable, with no important differences between micafungin (all doses) and fluconazole.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-response findings demonstrate a greater efficacy with micafungin at 100 and 150 mg per day than at 50 mg per day. This study also indicates that the efficacy of micafungin (at dosages of 100 and 150 mg per day) was comparable to that of fluconazole, suggesting that micafungin represents a valuable new treatment option for esophageal candidiasis in HIV-positive patients.