This web site was copied prior to January 20, 2005. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links, forms, and search boxes may not function within this collection. Learn more.   [hide]
NCBI PubMed NLM PubMed
Entrez PubMed Nucleotide Protein Genome Structure OMIM PMC Journals Books
 Search for
  Limits  Preview/Index  History  Clipboard  Details     
About Entrez

Text Version

Entrez PubMed
Help | FAQ

PubMed Services
Journals Database
MeSH Database
Single Citation Matcher
Batch Citation Matcher
Clinical Queries

Related Resources
Order Documents
NLM Catalog
NLM Gateway
Consumer Health
Clinical Alerts
PubMed Central


1: N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 30;351(14):1391-402. Related Articles, Links

Comment in: Click here to read 
Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.

Walsh TJ, Teppler H, Donowitz GR, Maertens JA, Baden LR, Dmoszynska A, Cornely OA, Bourque MR, Lupinacci RJ, Sable CA, dePauw BE.

National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md 20892, USA.

BACKGROUND: Patients with persistent fever and neutropenia often receive empirical therapy with conventional or liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention and early treatment of invasive fungal infections. Caspofungin, a member of the new echinocandin class of compounds, may be an effective alternative that is better tolerated than amphotericin B. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multinational trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of caspofungin as compared with liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy. At study entry, patients were stratified according to risk and according to whether they had previously received antifungal prophylaxis. A successful outcome was defined as the fulfillment of all components of a five-part composite end point. RESULTS: Efficacy was evaluated in 1095 patients (556 receiving caspofungin and 539 receiving liposomal amphotericin B). After adjustment for strata, the overall success rates were 33.9 percent for caspofungin and 33.7 percent for liposomal amphotericin B (95.2 percent confidence interval for the difference, -5.6 to 6.0 percent), fulfilling statistical criteria for the noninferiority of caspofungin. Among patients with baseline fungal infections, a higher proportion of those treated with caspofungin had a successful outcome (51.9 percent vs. 25.9 percent, P=0.04). The proportion of patients who survived at least seven days after therapy was greater in the caspofungin group (92.6 percent vs. 89.2 percent, P=0.05). Premature study discontinuation occurred less often in the caspofungin group than in the amphotericin B group (10.3 percent vs. 14.5 percent, P=0.03). The rates of breakthrough fungal infections and resolution of fever during neutropenia were similar in the two groups. Fewer patients who received caspofungin sustained a nephrotoxic effect (2.6 percent vs. 11.5 percent, P<0.001), an infusion-related event (35.1 percent vs. 51.6 percent, P<0.001), or a drug-related adverse event or discontinued therapy because of drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin is as effective as and generally better tolerated than liposomal amphotericin B when given as empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society

Publication Types:
  • Clinical Trial
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 15459300 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]