ライフサイエンスコーパス: anidulafungin

1 ts ranged from 90.2% (caspofungin) to 93.2% (anidulafungin).

2 echinocandins (micafungin, caspofungin, and anidulafungin).

3 No significant change has been observed for anidulafungin.

4 d 99% were inhibited by < or =1 microg/ml of anidulafungin.

5 12/0.5 (95.9%); amphotericin, 0.5/2 (88.3%); anidulafungin, 0.5/2 (97.4%); caspofungin, 0.12/0.5 (98.

6 (304 isolates), flucytosine (254 isolates), anidulafungin (121 isolates), caspofungin (300 isolates)

7 Resistance to echinocandins (anidulafungin [2.4%] and micafungin [1.9%]) and azoles (

8 All three echinocandins--anidulafungin (50% minimum effective concentration [MEC5

9 I] or resistant [R]) to both caspofungin and anidulafungin, 52 (83.8%) contained a mutation in fks1 o

10 d by concentrations of < or = 2 microg/ml of anidulafungin (621 isolates tested), caspofungin (1,447

11 Anidulafungin, a new echinocandin, has potent activity a

12 her evidence for the spectrum and potency of anidulafungin activity against a large and geographicall

13 With caspofungin or anidulafungin administration into the heart via central

14 We assessed the in vitro activity of anidulafungin against 2,235 clinical isolates of Candida

15 he categorical agreement of rezafungin using anidulafungin against all Candida spp. was 97.6% (2.9% v

16 ective concentrations [MECs]) for evaluating anidulafungin against molds.

17 The efficacy of anidulafungin, an echinocandin antifungal agent with pot

18 silosis, from 0.4% (2004) to 1.8% (2009) for anidulafungin and C. glabrata, from 2.4% (2004) to 5.7%

19 Strains for which anidulafungin and caspofungin MICs were >/=0.5 mug/ml an

20 -resistant pathogen Candida glabrata against anidulafungin and fluconazole.

21 se of mainly major errors (26.7%) in testing anidulafungin and micafungin.

22 ihydroxy-l-homotyrosine of the echinocandins anidulafungin and rezafungin, restored their efficacy ag

23 Anidulafungin and the other echinocandins displayed sust

24 The echinocandin drugs (micafungin, anidulafungin, and caspofungin) are the preferred choice

25 le, voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin, anidulafungin, and micafungin) and interpreted the MICs

26 nt, and all were susceptible to caspofungin, anidulafungin, and micafungin.

27 We determined species-specific ECVs for anidulafungin (ANF), caspofungin (CSF), micafungin (MCF)

28 This study addressed the application of anidulafungin as a surrogate marker to predict the susce

29 % (0.2% VME and ME, 2.5% minor errors) using anidulafungin as the surrogate.

30 With anidulafungin as the test reagent, the CLSI method ident

31 successful in 75.6% of patients treated with anidulafungin, as compared with 60.2% of those treated w

32 Anidulafungin can accurately serve as a surrogate marker

33 Reference susceptibility was determined for anidulafungin, caspofungin, 5-flucytosine, fluconazole,

34 We determined the in vitro activities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 5,346

35 We determined the in vitro activities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 526 i

36 to develop interpretive MIC breakpoints for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against Candi

37 voriconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against invas

38 dards Institute (CLSI) BMD method M27-A3 for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin susceptibilit

39 The CLSI-developed ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were applied

40 of C. glabrata to fluconazole, voriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin were determin

41 each isolate, MICs to FLC and echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and FKS1 and

42 ) and 9.3%, 9.3%, and 8.0% were resistant to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively

43 percentages of non-WT isolates per year for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively

44 qual to the ECV is shown in parentheses) for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively

45 isolates inhibited by < or = 2 microg/ml of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, respectively

46 al collection of Candida sp. strains against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, using CLSI M

47 ity were used for fluconazole, voriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, while a prov

48 e susceptible to voriconazole, posaconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

49 tes of C. parapsilosis to the echinocandins, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

50 ibility of Candida spp. to the echinocandins anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

51 ns, and 404 isolates of Candida spp. against anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

52 B, itraconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, and terbinafine.

53 testing was performed against 7 antifungals (anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, fluconazole, itr

54 and Candida glabrata that were resistant to anidulafungin, caspofungin, or micafungin were shown to

55 Echinocandins (caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin) exert their fungicidal activity by inhibi

56 tifungal susceptibility data for micafungin, anidulafungin, fluconazole, and voriconazole against Can

57 The MIC(90) of anidulafungin for all strains was 0.06 mg/liter.

58 ncreased for micafungin (from 0.8% to 7.6%), anidulafungin (from 0.9% to 7.3%), and voriconazole (fro

59 31% in the fluconazole group and 23% in the anidulafungin group (P=0.13).

60 end of intravenous therapy were 73.2% in the anidulafungin group and 61.1% in the fluconazole group (

61 Preincubation with micafungin or anidulafungin had similar effects on PMN-induced damage

62 n in Baltimore to 3.1% isolates resistant to anidulafungin in Atlanta.

63 se identified optimum testing conditions for anidulafungin into future versions of the M38 document i

64 Anidulafungin is an echinocandin antifungal agent with p

65 nazole monotherapy, combination therapy with anidulafungin led to higher survival in subgroups of pat

66 lates were inhibited by < or =2 microg/ml of anidulafungin (MIC(90), 0.06 microg/ml), micafungin (MIC

67 inocandins were very active against Candida: anidulafungin (MIC50, 0.06 microg/ml; MIC90, 2 microg/ml

68 Anidulafungin MICs (>or=50% inhibition) and MECs (morpho

69 domly assigned to receive either intravenous anidulafungin or intravenous fluconazole.

70 assigned to treatment with voriconazole and anidulafungin or placebo.

71 ta-1,3-D-glucan synthase inhibitors, such as anidulafungin, results in depletion of asci, but not tro

72 ver, cell growth kinetics in the presence of anidulafungin revealed important cues about the in vitro

73 patients with proven IC were enrolled in an anidulafungin study.

74 ungin MIC values were compared with those of anidulafungin to determine the percentage of categorical

75 ECV) of 0.12 mug/ml for both caspofungin and anidulafungin to differentiate wild-type (WT) from non-W

76 Categorical agreement ranged from 99.3% (anidulafungin) to 100% (caspofungin, micafungin) and int

77 nstitution (IR)-mediated clearance of PcP in anidulafungin-treated and untreated mice was characteriz

78 numbers of trophic forms were present in the anidulafungin-treated and untreated mice; however, asci

79 sequences, the recipients being treated with anidulafungin upon identification of the infecting organ

80 Anidulafungin was shown to be noninferior to fluconazole

81 losis when caspofungin or micafungin but not anidulafungin was used as the comparator.

82 Anidulafungin was very active against Candida spp. (the

83 The best-performing surrogate was anidulafungin, which can be used to predict rezafungin s

84 We compared anidulafungin with fluconazole in a randomized, double-b