Search

Background: Liver tumours observed in rats exposed to micafungin led to a black box warning upon approval in Europe in 2008. Micafungin's risk for liver carcinogenicity in humans has not been investigated. We sought to describe the risk of fatal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among persons who received micafungin and other parenteral antifungals (PAFs) with up to 12 years of follow-up.Methods: We assembled a US multicentre cohort of hospitalized patients who received micafungin or other PAFs between 2005 and 2012. We used propensity score (PS) matching on patient characteristics from electronic medical records to compare rates of HCC mortality identified through the National Death Index though to the end of December 2016. We computed HRs and 95% CIs.Results: A total of 40110 patients who received a PAF were identified; 6903 micafungin recipients (87% of those identified) were successfully matched to 16317 comparator PAF users. Ten incident HCC deaths, one in the micafungin-exposed group and nine among comparator PAF users, occurred in 71285 person-years of follow-up. The HCC mortality rate was 0.05 per 1000 person-years in micafungin patients and 0.17 per 1000 person-years in comparator PAF patients. The PS-matched HR for micafungin versus comparator PAF was 0.29 (95% CI 0.04-2.24).Conclusions: Both micafungin and comparator PAFs were associated with HCC mortality rates of <0.2 per 1000 person-years. Given the very low event rates, any potential risk for HCC should not play a role in clinical decisions regarding treatment with micafungin or other PAFs investigated in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although echinocandins are generally well tolerated, there is little information on the frequency with which renal and hepatic adverse effects occur during use of micafungin or other parenteral antifungal (PAF) agents in clinical practice.Methods: MYCOS is a multicentre cohort study of adult and paediatric patients who received micafungin or other PAFs between 2005 and 2012 at seven tertiary care hospitals from six centres in the USA. PAF cohort controls were selected through propensity score (PS) matching to micafungin recipients using clinical characteristics, other treatments, procedures and hospital service where PAF treatment was initiated. Analysis was restricted to patients without chronic liver and kidney conditions at the time of cohort entry. Treatment-emergent hepatic and renal injury was documented by changes in liver enzymes or estimated glomerular filtration rate through 30 days following completion of PAF treatment. Comparisons were quantified using the HR from a proportional hazards analysis.Results: There were 2970 micafungin recipients PS matched to 6726 recipients of comparator PAFs. Balance was achieved in all baseline covariates between treatment groups. There were similar rates of hepatic injury (micafungin, 13 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 12 per 100; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.14) and lower rates of renal injury (micafungin, 63 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 65 per 100; HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) for micafungin recipients versus PAF comparators.Conclusion: For a wide spectrum of underlying conditions, we observed no increase in liver injury by micafungin and possibly a reduced risk of renal dysfunction in comparison with other PAF medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We studied whether fluconazole or echinocandin treatment of Candida glabrata fungaemia results in superior outcomes. Methods A multicentre, retrospective study was performed with 224 adult patients who received ≥5 days of therapy with either fluconazole or an echinocandin as their first antifungal treatment after collection of a blood culture that grew C. glabrata. The primary outcome was day 14 complete response. Results Patients in the echinocandin group were generally more ill, both at baseline and at the time of the index culture. Day 14 complete response was obtained in 58/127 (46%) and 50/97 (52%) of the fluconazole and echinocandin patients, respectively (P = 0.383). Logistic regression found intensive care unit admission to be associated with failure [OR 0.456 (0.217–0.957), P = 0.038] and echinocandin therapy to be associated with day 14 complete response [OR 2.305 (1.124–4.727), P = 0.023]. Twenty-eight day survival was similar between the fluconazole and echinocandin groups and logistic regression did not reveal antifungal therapy choice to be independently predictive of mortality. For patients treated with fluconazole, a dose : MIC ratio >12.5 (when compared with a ratio ≤12.5) was associated with a significantly higher day 14 complete response [4/20 (20%) ≤12.5 versus 50/102 (49%) >12.5, P = 0.025]. Conclusions Severity of illness and choice of antifungal predict response in patients with C. glabrata fungaemia. Antifungal choice, however, does not influence mortality. In addition, new CLSI C. glabrata fluconazole susceptibility breakpoints are predictive of response when fluconazole is dosed appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cefotetan is a semisynthetic cephalosporin with a broad spectrum of Gram-negative and anaerobic activity. We compared the pharmacokinetics and serum inhibitory activity of 2 g doses of cefotetan and cefoxitin in six healthy volunteers. The half-life of cefotetan (176 min) was significantly longer than that of cefoxitin (49 min). Despite higher protein binding (85% versus 50%), free cefotetan serum concentrations 12 h post dose (1.6 mg/l) were higher than free cefoxitin serum concentrations 6 h post dose (0.32 mg/l). Total and free serum inhibitory titres for Escherichia coli were greater than 1:8 for 12 h post dose for cefotetan, but only 1 h post dose for cefoxitin. Against Bacteroides fragilis, neither cefoxitin nor cefotetan exhibited free serum inhibitory titres greater than 1:8 at the end of their respective dosing intervals. However, cefotetan titres were equivalent or superior to those of cefoxitin over the entire 6 or 12 h dosing interval. Despite relatively high protein binding, cefotetan demonstrates comparable or superior activity 12 h after dosing to cefoxitin 6 h after dosing. More studies comparing the clinical outcome of cefoxitin and cefotetan are needed but our results support the clinical recommendations that cefoxitin should be given every 6 h, and cefotetan every 12 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]