The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2004
Second-line therapy with caspofungin for mucosal or invasive candidiasis: results from the caspofungin compassionate-use study.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kartsonis Nicholas A, Saah Alfred, Lipka C Joy, Taylor Arlene, Sable Carole A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the efficacy and safety of caspofungin as second-line therapy for mucosal or invasive candidiasis in patients enrolled in the caspofungin compassionate-use study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with mucosal or invasive candida infections (17 oesophageal, four oropharyngeal and 16 invasive candidiasis) were enrolled in the caspofungin compassionate-use study. All patients were refractory to or intolerant of intravenous amphotericin B or lipid amphotericin formulation(s). Efficacy was assessed at the end of intravenous caspofungin therapy based on clinical (and, where appropriate, microbiological) response.
RESULTS: HIV was the most common (91%) risk factor in patients with mucosal candidiasis; patients with invasive candidiasis commonly had acute leukaemia/lymphoma (50%) or diabetes mellitus (31%). Most patients with mucosal candidiasis (91%) and invasive candidiasis (94%) were refractory to >/=1 antifungal agent(s). A favourable response was noted in 82% (14/17) with oesophageal candidiasis, 100% (4/4) with oropharyngeal candidiasis and 87% (13/15) with invasive candidiasis. Caspofungin was generally well tolerated; one serious drug-related adverse event was reported.
CONCLUSION: In this study, caspofungin was an effective alternative for patients with refractory candida infections.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with mucosal or invasive candida infections (17 oesophageal, four oropharyngeal and 16 invasive candidiasis) were enrolled in the caspofungin compassionate-use study. All patients were refractory to or intolerant of intravenous amphotericin B or lipid amphotericin formulation(s). Efficacy was assessed at the end of intravenous caspofungin therapy based on clinical (and, where appropriate, microbiological) response.
RESULTS: HIV was the most common (91%) risk factor in patients with mucosal candidiasis; patients with invasive candidiasis commonly had acute leukaemia/lymphoma (50%) or diabetes mellitus (31%). Most patients with mucosal candidiasis (91%) and invasive candidiasis (94%) were refractory to >/=1 antifungal agent(s). A favourable response was noted in 82% (14/17) with oesophageal candidiasis, 100% (4/4) with oropharyngeal candidiasis and 87% (13/15) with invasive candidiasis. Caspofungin was generally well tolerated; one serious drug-related adverse event was reported.
CONCLUSION: In this study, caspofungin was an effective alternative for patients with refractory candida infections.