A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare Micafungin with Fluconazole in the Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in Living-Donor Liver Transplant Recipients

Background Although invasive fungal infections (IFIs) contribute to substantial morbidity and mortality in liver transplant recipients, only a few randomized studies analyzed the results of antifungal prophylaxis with echinocandins. The aim of this open-label, non-inferiority study was to evaluate t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2020-04, Vol.24 (4), p.832-840
Hauptverfasser: Kang, Woo-Hyoung, Song, Gi-Won, Lee, Sung-Gyu, Suh, Kyung-Suk, Lee, Kwang-Woong, Yi, Nam-Joon, Joh, Jae Won, Kwon, Choon Hyuck David, Kim, Jong Man, Choi, Dong Lak, Kim, Joo Dong, Kim, Myoung Soo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Although invasive fungal infections (IFIs) contribute to substantial morbidity and mortality in liver transplant recipients, only a few randomized studies analyzed the results of antifungal prophylaxis with echinocandins. The aim of this open-label, non-inferiority study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of micafungin in the prophylaxis of IFIs in living-donor liver transplantation recipients (LDLTRs), with fluconazole as the comparator. Methods LDLTRs ( N  = 172) from five centers were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous micafungin 100 mg/day or fluconazole 100~200 mg/day (intravenous or oral). A non-inferiority of micafungin was tested against fluconazole. Results The per-protocol set included 144 patients without major clinical trial protocol violations: 69 from the micafungin group and 75 from the fluconazole group. Mean age of the study patients was 54.2 years and mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score amounted to 16.5. Clinical success rates in the micafungin and fluconazole groups were 95.65% and 96.10%, respectively (difference: − 0.45%; 90% confidence interval [CI]: − 6.93%, 5.59%), which demonstrated micafungin’s non-inferiority (the lower bound for the 90% CI exceeded − 10%). The study groups did not differ significantly in terms of the secondary efficacy endpoints: absence of IFIs at the end of the prophylaxis and the end of the study, time to proven IFI, fungal-free survival, and adverse reactions. A total of 17 drug-related adverse events were observed in both groups; none of them was serious and all resolved. Conclusion Micafungin can be used as an alternative to fluconazole in the prevention of IFIs in LDLTRs. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01974375 .
ISSN:1091-255X
1873-4626
DOI:10.1007/s11605-019-04241-w