Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 213

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Micafungin Versus Liposomal Amphotericin B for Pediatric Patients With Invasive Candidiasis: Substudy of a Randomized Double-Blind Trial

Queiroz-Telles, Flavio, Berezin, Eitan, Leverger, Guy, Freire, Antonio, van der Vyver, Annalie, Chotpitayasunondh, Tawee, Konja, Josip, Diekmann-Berndt, Heike, Koblinger, Sonja, Groll, Andreas H., Arrieta, Antonio·2008·Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Invasive candidiasis is increasingly prevalent in premature infants and seriously ill children, and pediatric data on available antifungal therapies are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a pediatric substudy as part of a double-blind, randomized, multinational trial to compare micafungin (2 mg/kg) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg) as first-line treatment of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was defined as clinical and mycologic response at the end of therapy. Statistical analyses were descriptive, as the sample size meant that the study was not powered for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population; and 98 patients-48 patients in the micafungin group and 50 patients in the liposomal amphotericin B group-in the modified intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Overall, 57 patients were <2 years old including 19 patients who were premature at birth; and 41 patients were 2 to <16 years old. Most patients (91/98, 92.9%) had candidemia, and 7/98 (7.1%) patients had other forms of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was observed for 35/48 (72.9%) patients treated with micafungin and 38/50 (76.0%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions adjusted for neutropenic status was -2.4% [95% CI: (-20.1 to 15.3)]. Efficacy findings were consistent, independent of the neutropenic status, the age of the patient, and whether the patient was premature at birth. Both treatments were well tolerated, but with a lower incidence of adverse events that led to discontinuation in the micafungin group (2/52, 3.8%) compared with the liposomal amphotericin B group (9/54, 16.7%) (P = 0.05, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Micafungin seems to be similarly effective and as safe as liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis in pediatric patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106288).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/inf.0b013e31817275e6

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 213

Metadata

Authors
Queiroz-Telles, F., Berezin, E., Leverger, G., Freire, A., van der Vyver, A., Chotpitayasunondh, T., Konja, J., Diekmann-Berndt, H., Koblinger, S., Groll, A. H., & Arrieta, A.
Venue
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
Published
2008-09
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
820-826
ISSN
0891-3668 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100382166
Cited by
213
References
3
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Micafungin Versus Liposomal Amphotericin B for Pediatric Patients With Invasive Candidiasis: Substudy of a Randomized Double-Blind Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/inf.0b013e31817275e6
The paper
Queiroz-Telles, F., Berezin, E., Leverger, G., Freire, A., van der Vyver, A., Chotpitayasunondh, T., Konja, J., Diekmann-Berndt, H., Koblinger, S., Groll, A. H., & Arrieta, A. (2008). Micafungin Versus Liposomal Amphotericin B for Pediatric Patients With Invasive Candidiasis: Substudy of a Randomized Double-Blind Trial. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0b013e31817275e6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.