ライフサイエンスコーパス: micafungin

1 osaconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

2 hinocandins, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

3 sceptible to caspofungin, anidulafungin, and micafungin.

4 chinocandins anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

5 spp. against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

6 le-resistant Candida isolates tested against micafungin.

7 (about 40% response rate) and the second was micafungin.

8 ar, although kidney function was better with micafungin.

9 tivity of the antifungals amphotericin B and micafungin.

10 errors (26.7%) in testing anidulafungin and micafungin.

11 ida spp. were tested against caspofungin and micafungin.

12 (97.4%); caspofungin, 0.12/0.5 (98.0%); and micafungin, 0.25/1 (99.2%).

13 e to echinocandins (anidulafungin [2.4%] and micafungin [1.9%]) and azoles (3.5 to 5.6%) was most pre

14 s were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous micafungin 100 mg or center-specific standard care (fluc

15 Interventions: Empirical treatment with micafungin (100 mg, once daily, for 14 days) (n = 131) v

16 sessed a preemptive antifungal approach with micafungin (100 mg/d) in intensive care unit patients re

17 1 isolates), caspofungin (300 isolates), and micafungin (102 isolates) as determined by CLSI broth mi

18 ull analysis set comprised 344 patients (172 micafungin; 172 standard care).

19 ravenous micafungin (>/=5 doses of >/=300 mg micafungin 2-3 times weekly) in patients with acute leuk

20 ents received >75% of their course as 300 mg micafungin 3 times weekly.

21 d), caspofungin (1,447 isolates tested), and micafungin (539 isolates tested), respectively.

22 ediate or resistant) to both caspofungin and micafungin, 54 (90.0%) contained a mutation in fks1 or f

23 received intermittent high-dose intravenous micafungin, 83 (79.8%) as prophylaxis.

24 .3% for standard care (Delta standard care - micafungin [95% confidence interval], 0.7% [-2.7% to 4.4

25 We studied the antifungal activity of micafungin, a new echinocandin, in combination with ravu

26 ographic regions, there was no difference in micafungin activity across the regions.

27 We determined the in vitro activity of micafungin against 2,656 invasive (bloodstream or steril

28 ctivities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 5,346 invasive (bloodstream or steril

29 ctivities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 526 isolates of Aspergillus spp. (64

30 akpoints for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against Candida species.

31 hotericin B, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against invasive, unique patient isolates of

32 for the emergence of in vitro resistance to micafungin among invasive Candida sp. isolates is indica

33 on, 17 days), clinical success was 98.6% for micafungin and 99.3% for standard care (Delta standard c

34 after 24 h of incubation for caspofungin and micafungin and after 48 h of incubation for posaconazole

35 labrata, from 2.4% (2004) to 5.7% (2009) for micafungin and C. krusei, and from 0.0% (2004) to 3.1% (

36 sei, and from 0.0% (2004) to 3.1% (2009) for micafungin and C. parapsilosis.

37 synergizes with cell wall stressors such as micafungin and calcofluor white in preventing yeast grow

38 We determined the MICs of micafungin and caspofungin against 315 invasive clinical

39 osomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), itraconazole, micafungin and placebo.

40 ncidences of drug-related adverse events for micafungin and standard care were 11.6% and 16.3%, leadi

41 ophylaxis included vancomycin, cefazolin and micafungin and was adjusted based on peritransplant cult

42 hinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and FKS1 and FKS2 gene sequences were determ

43 99.3% (anidulafungin) to 100% (caspofungin, micafungin) and interlaboratory reproducibility was 99%.

44 osaconazole, caspofungin, anidulafungin, and micafungin) and interpreted the MICs according to the EU

45 nd BMD were 99.8% for caspofungin, 98.2% for micafungin, and 98.1% for posaconazole.

46 Echinocandins (caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin) exert their fungicidal ac

47 oconazole, one with itraconazole, three with micafungin, and one with caspofungin) including 2,792 pa

48 ansplant recipients received 7 to 10 days of micafungin, and only patients with growth of yeast or mo

49 d the most potent activity were caspofungin, micafungin, and terbinafine, while amphotericin B showed

50 e, voriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, and terbinafine.

51 omparator drugs amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin, and voriconazole were also determined.

52 The echinocandin drugs (micafungin, anidulafungin, and caspofungin) are the pref

53 iewed our antifungal susceptibility data for micafungin, anidulafungin, fluconazole, and voriconazole

54 Compared with ABLC, however, micafungin appeared to be associated with lower early-re

55 pofungin MIC values, we evaluated the use of micafungin as a surrogate marker to predict the suscepti

56 candidiasis responds to escalating doses of micafungin as effectively as fluconazole.

57 (0.2% VMEs and MEs, 0.8% minor errors) using micafungin as the surrogate marker.

58 With either caspofungin or micafungin as the test reagent, the CLSI method identifi

59 ed for all three FDA-approved echinocandins (micafungin, caspofungin, and anidulafungin).

60 iple organ failure, empirical treatment with micafungin, compared with placebo, did not increase fung

61 al, demonstrated that a single large dose of micafungin could clear disseminated candidiasis, even th

62 Use of empirical micafungin decreased the rate of new invasive fungal inf

63 nce of IC was 8.9% for placebo and 11.1% for micafungin (difference, 2.24%; [95% confidence interval,

64 Duration and/or micafungin dosing algorithms were not associated with li

65 Large variability in the micafungin dosing regimen was observed; 78 (75%) patient

66 studies of micafungin that examined optimal micafungin dosing strategies.

67 dynamics studies confirmed this link between micafungin efficacy and the ratio of the area under the

68 Micafungin exhibited linear plasma pharmacokinetics in t

69 The median duration of micafungin exposure prior to breakthrough was 33 days (r

70 y immunosuppressed patients with heavy prior micafungin exposure.

71 t 7 antifungals (anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and

72 , resistance was significantly increased for micafungin (from 0.8% to 7.6%), anidulafungin (from 0.9%

73 day 28, there were 82 (68%) patients in the micafungin group vs 79 (60.2%) in the placebo group who

74 l infection in 4 of 128 patients (3%) in the micafungin group vs placebo (15/123 patients [12%]) (P =

75 ean age 63 years; 91 [35%] women), 251 (128, micafungin group; 123, placebo group) were included in t

76 tent administration of high-dose intravenous micafungin (>/=5 doses of >/=300 mg micafungin 2-3 times

77 Micafungin had good in vitro activity against all flucon

78 ar disseminated candidiasis, even though the micafungin half-life in such animals is shorter than in

79 The new echinocandin micafungin has excellent in vitro activity against 315 i

80 Micafungin has excellent in vitro activity against invas

81 the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of micafungin in a rabbit model of neonatal HCME and bridge

82 provide a foundation for clinical trials of micafungin in neonates with HCME and a model for antimic

83 The half-life of micafungin in patient blood was 14 hours in several stud

84 Micafungin is a new echinocandin exhibiting broad-spectr

85 Micafungin is an echinocandin antifungal agent that has

86 idiasis, antifungal therapy with intravenous micafungin is dosed daily.

87 Micafungin may prove useful in the treatment of infectio

88 Micafungin may serve as an acceptable surrogate marker f

89 for anidulafungin (ANF), caspofungin (CSF), micafungin (MCF), fluconazole (FLC), posaconazole (PSC),

90 with the echinocandins caspofungin (CSF) or micafungin (MCF).

91 0.015 microg/ml; MEC90, 0.03 microg/ml), and micafungin (MEC50, 0.007 microg/ml; MEC90, 0.015 microg/

92 , and safety of alternate dosing regimens of micafungin (MFG) for the treatment of experimental subac

93 e-resistant Candida spp. were inhibited at a micafungin MIC that was </=1 microg/ml.

94 of anidulafungin (MIC(90), 0.06 microg/ml), micafungin (MIC(90), 0.12 microg/ml) or caspofungin (MIC

95 C50, 0.03 microg/ml; MIC90, 0.25 microg/ml), micafungin (MIC50, 0.015 microg/ml; MIC90, 1 microg/ml).

96 collection, C. glabrata exhibited the lowest micafungin MICs (MIC(90), </=0.015 microg/ml), followed

97 2 system reliably determined caspofungin and micafungin MICs among Candida spp. and posaconazole MICs

98 ype MIC distribution is also responsible for micafungin MICs of >2 microg/ml and clinical breakthroug

99 , 5 (including all C. glabrata isolates) had micafungin MICs of >2 microg/ml, but all demonstrated ca

100 ngin MICs of 0.5 to 1 microg/ml, but 4/5 had micafungin MICs of >2 microg/ml.

101 fungin MICs were >/=0.5 mug/ml and for which micafungin MICs were >/=0.25 mug/ml were considered resi

102 n or wild-type C. parapsilosis with elevated micafungin MICs.

103 Targeted prophylaxis with micafungin or ABLC decreased the risk of mycoses in high

104 cacy and safety of targeted prophylaxis with micafungin or amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) was as

105 Preincubation with micafungin or anidulafungin had similar effects on PMN-i

106 Thus, a single dose of micafungin, or 2 such doses within a few days of each ot

107 Micafungin penetrated most compartments of the central n

108 In nondialyzed patients, ABLC versus micafungin recipients had significantly higher serum cre

109 l infections developed in 11.1% (2 of 18) of micafungin recipients, 8.3% (2 of 24) of ABLC recipients

110 Objective: To determine whether empirical micafungin reduces invasive fungal infection (IFI)-free

111 microg/ml of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively) were as follows: for C. albica

112 ntheses) for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively, were as follows: 0.12 (99.7%),

113 per year for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively, were as follows: for C. albica

114 resistant to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively.

115 d M27-A3 for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin susceptibility testing of 133 clinical isolat

116 udies, and maximum-tolerated-dose studies of micafungin that examined optimal micafungin dosing strat

117 idiasis (IC) breaking through >or=3 doses of micafungin therapy during the first 28 months of its use

118 pretive criteria were compared with those of micafungin to determine the percent categorical agreemen

119 2 mug/ml for caspofungin and 0.03 mug/ml for micafungin to differentiate wild-type (WT) from non-WT s

120 Caspofungin- or micafungin-treated conidia and germlings induced less se

121 analysis set comprised 124 placebo- and 117 micafungin-treated patients.

122 Breakthrough IC on micafungin treatment occurred predominantly in severely

123 isolates and outcomes in patients receiving micafungin treatment.

124 ains against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, using CLSI M27-A3 broth microdilution (BMD)

125 Micafungin versus ABLC recipients were older (P=0.0065)

126 ficantly different when compared between the micafungin vs placebo groups (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.96-2.9

127 Noninferiority (10% margin) of micafungin vs standard care was assessed in the per prot

128 milar but creatinine clearance was higher in micafungin- vs standard care-treated patients.

129 Micafungin was noninferior to standard care as antifunga

130 Micafungin was not reliably found in cerebrospinal fluid

131 Overall, micafungin was very active against Candida (MIC50/MIC at

132 te, intermittent administration of high-dose micafungin was well tolerated, without any associated li

133 Vitek 2 and BMD methods for caspofungin and micafungin were 99.5% and 98.6%, respectively.

134 ped ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were applied to 15,269 isolates of Candida sp

135 voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin were assessed for 290 clinical isolates of th

136 oriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were determined by CLSI broth microdilution m

137 resistant to anidulafungin, caspofungin, or micafungin were shown to have fks mutations.

138 With the exception that the MICs of micafungin were significantly lower, the calculated aver

139 conis isolates revealed that terbinafine and micafungin were the most active drugs.

140 ts ranged from 89.5% (caspofungin) to 99.2% (micafungin), whereas the EA between the Etest and CLSI r

141 oriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, while a provisional susceptibility breakpoin