2005•Alimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsRequires access

A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs. fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis

N. T. E. De Wet, Andre J. Bester, J. Viljoen, Frederico Almeida Baptista de Oliveira Filho, Jamal Muhamad Abdul Hamid Suleiman, Eduardo Ticona, E. A. Llanos, C. Fisco, Wendi M. Lau, Donald N. Buell

Open publisher page 146 citations

Abstract

AIM: To determine efficacy and safety of intravenous micafungin vs. intravenous fluconazole in the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. METHODS: A total of 523 patients > or =16 years with documented oesophageal candidiasis were randomized (1:1) in this controlled, non-inferiority study to receive either micafungin (150 mg/day) or fluconazole (200 mg/day). Response was evaluated clinically and endoscopically. Post-treatment assessments were performed at 2 and 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. RESULTS: Median duration of therapy was 14 days. For the primary end-point of endoscopic cure, treatment difference was -0.3% (micafungin 87.7%, fluconazole 88.0%). Documented persistent invasive disease at the end of therapy was reported in 2.7% and 3.9% of patients, respectively. Both 84.8% of micafungin and 88.7% of fluconazole patients remained recurrence free at 4-weeks post-treatment. The overall therapeutic response rate was 87.3% for micafungin and 87.2% for fluconazole. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was 27.7% for micafungin and 21.3% for fluconazole. Six (2.3%) micafungin- and two (0.8%) fluconazole-treated patients discontinued therapy; rash was the most common event leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Intravenous micafungin (150 mg daily) is well tolerated and as efficacious as intravenous fluconazole (200 mg daily) in the primary treatment of oesophageal candidiasis, achieving high rates of clinical and endoscopic cure.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: To determine efficacy and safety of intravenous micafungin vs. intravenous fluconazole in the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. METHODS: A total of 523 patients > or =16 years with documented oesophageal candidiasis were randomized (1:1) in this controlled, non-inferiority study to receive either micafungin (150 mg/day) or fluconazole (200 mg/day). Response was evaluated clinically and endoscopically. Post-treatment assessments were performed at 2 and 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. RESULTS: Median duration of therapy was 14 days. For the primary end-point of endoscopic cure, treatment difference was -0.3% (micafungin 87.7%, fluconazole 88.0%). Documented persistent invasive disease at the end of therapy was reported in 2.7% and 3.9% of patients, respectively. Both 84.8% of micafungin and 88.7% of fluconazole patients remained recurrence free at 4-weeks post-treatment. The overall therapeutic response rate was 87.3% for micafungin and 87.2% for fluconazole. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was 27.7% for micafungin and 21.3% for fluconazole. Six (2.3%) micafungin- and two (0.8%) fluconazole-treated patients discontinued therapy; rash was the most common event leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Intravenous micafungin (150 mg daily) is well tolerated and as efficacious as intravenous fluconazole (200 mg daily) in the primary treatment of oesophageal candidiasis, achieving high rates of clinical and endoscopic cure.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 146 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: To determine efficacy and safety of intravenous micafungin vs. intravenous fluconazole in the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. METHODS: A total of 523 patients > or =16 years with documented oesophageal candidiasis were randomized (1:1) in this controlled, non-inferiority study to receive either micafungin (150 mg/day) or fluconazole (200 mg/day). Response was evaluated clinically and endoscopically. Post-treatment assessments were performed at 2 and 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. RESULTS: Median duration of therapy was 14 days. For the primary end-point of endoscopic cure, treatment difference was -0.3% (micafungin 87.7%, fluconazole 88.0%). Documented persistent invasive disease at the end of therapy was reported in 2.7% and 3.9% of patients, respectively. Both 84.8% of micafungin and 88.7% of fluconazole patients remained recurrence free at 4-weeks post-treatment. The overall therapeutic response rate was 87.3% for micafungin and 87.2% for fluconazole. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was 27.7% for micafungin and 21.3% for fluconazole. Six (2.3%) micafungin- and two (0.8%) fluconazole-treated patients discontinued therapy; rash was the most common event leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Intravenous micafungin (150 mg daily) is well tolerated and as efficacious as intravenous fluconazole (200 mg daily) in the primary treatment of oesophageal candidiasis, achieving high rates of clinical and endoscopic cure.

Key concepts: Fluconazole, Micafungin, Medicine, Discontinuation, Adverse effect, Internal medicine, Esophageal candidiasis, Randomized controlled trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs. fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis — Research Paper | ScholarLens