Cargando…

2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND: Candidemia is one of the fatal causes of nosocomial infection, requiring prompt recognition and treatment. Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Although similar clinical efficacy and safety are well known between caspofungin and micafung...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suh, Jinwoong, Yeon Kim, Jeong, Seung Chung, You, Lee, Hojin, Bean Kim, Sun, Kyung Yoon, Young, Wook Sohn, Jang, Ja Kim, Min, Hun Kim, Jong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809273/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1791
_version_ 1783461945712574464
author Suh, Jinwoong
Yeon Kim, Jeong
Seung Chung, You
Lee, Hojin
Bean Kim, Sun
Kyung Yoon, Young
Wook Sohn, Jang
Ja Kim, Min
Hun Kim, Jong
author_facet Suh, Jinwoong
Yeon Kim, Jeong
Seung Chung, You
Lee, Hojin
Bean Kim, Sun
Kyung Yoon, Young
Wook Sohn, Jang
Ja Kim, Min
Hun Kim, Jong
author_sort Suh, Jinwoong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Candidemia is one of the fatal causes of nosocomial infection, requiring prompt recognition and treatment. Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Although similar clinical efficacy and safety are well known between caspofungin and micafungin, there are few studies comparing micafungin and anidulafungin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety between micafungin and anidulafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed on adult candidemia patients diagnosed from January 2006 through December 2018 at a tertiary medical center, Seoul, South Korea. The study subjects included adult patients ≥19 years with candidemia who were only treated with micafungin or anidulafungin for more than 3 days. Baseline and clinical characteristics were reviewed through electrical medical records. Liver function was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. Hepatotoxicity was defined as the elevation of more than CTCAE grade 1 and severe hepatotoxicity was defined as the CTCAE grade 3 or higher elevations. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients with candidemia was treated with micafungin (n = 46, 46.9%) or anidulafungin (n = 52, 53.1%). In the univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in age, sex, source of candidemia, and comorbidities between the micafungin and anidulafungin groups. Although the clearance time of candidemia after echinocandin treatment was shorter in the anidulafungin than in the micafungin (5.64 ± 2.79 vs. 8.06 ± 5.30 days, P = 0.009) group, there was no significant difference in terms of clinical response (51.9% vs. 46.7%), mycological response (76.9% vs. 67.4%), and mortality (54.3% vs. 55.8%) between these two groups. The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar. Also, there was no difference in the development of hepatotoxicity or severe hepatotoxicity between micafungin and anidulafungin groups for patients with normal baseline liver function test(LFT) and abnormal baseline LFT. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinical efficacy and hepatotoxicity may be similar between micafungin and anidulafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6809273
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68092732019-10-28 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience Suh, Jinwoong Yeon Kim, Jeong Seung Chung, You Lee, Hojin Bean Kim, Sun Kyung Yoon, Young Wook Sohn, Jang Ja Kim, Min Hun Kim, Jong Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Candidemia is one of the fatal causes of nosocomial infection, requiring prompt recognition and treatment. Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Although similar clinical efficacy and safety are well known between caspofungin and micafungin, there are few studies comparing micafungin and anidulafungin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety between micafungin and anidulafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed on adult candidemia patients diagnosed from January 2006 through December 2018 at a tertiary medical center, Seoul, South Korea. The study subjects included adult patients ≥19 years with candidemia who were only treated with micafungin or anidulafungin for more than 3 days. Baseline and clinical characteristics were reviewed through electrical medical records. Liver function was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. Hepatotoxicity was defined as the elevation of more than CTCAE grade 1 and severe hepatotoxicity was defined as the CTCAE grade 3 or higher elevations. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients with candidemia was treated with micafungin (n = 46, 46.9%) or anidulafungin (n = 52, 53.1%). In the univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in age, sex, source of candidemia, and comorbidities between the micafungin and anidulafungin groups. Although the clearance time of candidemia after echinocandin treatment was shorter in the anidulafungin than in the micafungin (5.64 ± 2.79 vs. 8.06 ± 5.30 days, P = 0.009) group, there was no significant difference in terms of clinical response (51.9% vs. 46.7%), mycological response (76.9% vs. 67.4%), and mortality (54.3% vs. 55.8%) between these two groups. The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar. Also, there was no difference in the development of hepatotoxicity or severe hepatotoxicity between micafungin and anidulafungin groups for patients with normal baseline liver function test(LFT) and abnormal baseline LFT. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinical efficacy and hepatotoxicity may be similar between micafungin and anidulafungin treatment for adult patients with candidemia. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6809273/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1791 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Suh, Jinwoong
Yeon Kim, Jeong
Seung Chung, You
Lee, Hojin
Bean Kim, Sun
Kyung Yoon, Young
Wook Sohn, Jang
Ja Kim, Min
Hun Kim, Jong
2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title_full 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title_fullStr 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title_full_unstemmed 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title_short 2111. Anidulafungin vs. Micafungin Treatment in Adult Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Study of Single-Center Experience
title_sort 2111. anidulafungin vs. micafungin treatment in adult patients with candidemia: a retrospective study of single-center experience
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809273/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1791
work_keys_str_mv AT suhjinwoong 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT yeonkimjeong 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT seungchungyou 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT leehojin 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT beankimsun 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT kyungyoonyoung 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT wooksohnjang 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT jakimmin 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience
AT hunkimjong 2111anidulafunginvsmicafungintreatmentinadultpatientswithcandidemiaaretrospectivestudyofsinglecenterexperience