Cited by 28Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal and yeast genetics researchFungal Plant Pathogen Control

The eagle-like effect of echinocandins: what’s in a name?

Vanstraelen, Kim, Lagrou, Katrien, Maertens, Johan, Wauters, Joost, Willems, Ludo, Spriet, Isabel·2013·Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy

Abstract

Despite several years of research, a lot of questions remain about the paradoxical attenuation of echinocandin activity against Candida and Aspergillus species at certain drug concentrations above the MIC values, the so-called paradoxical growth effect or Eagle-like effect. Although this phenomenon has been observed in several in vitro studies, confirming in vivo data are scarce. The clinical relevance remains unknown, although more and more data suggest that the clinical impact of this phenomenon might be heavily overrated. Detailed knowledge about the mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon and further research about the presence of the effect in the human body is necessary to decide whether the paradoxical growth effect of echinocandins can really interfere with an adequate treatment of invasive fungal diseases in clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1586/14787210.2013.841543

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The paradoxical effect, also known as the Eagle effect, often observed with echinocandins may be confused with antifungal persistence because the drugs show reduced activity in vitro at higher concentrations.

    “Notably, the paradoxical effect, also known as the “Eagle effect”, often observed in echinocandins may confused with antifungal persistence, as the drugs show reduced activity in vitro at higher concentrations [40,41].”

    From Antifungal persistence: Clinical relevance and mechanisms (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vanstraelen, K., Lagrou, K., Maertens, J., Wauters, J., Willems, L., & Spriet, I.
Affiliations
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Vanstraelen, Kim
Venue
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy
Published
2013-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
1179-1191
ISSN
  • 1478-7210 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8336
OpenAlex
W2108557541
Cited by
28
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
Keywords
echinocandins, Candida, Aspergillus, invasive fungal infections, antifungal resistance, minimum inhibitory concentration
MeSH terms
Animals, Aspergillosis, Aspergillus, Candida, Candidiasis, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Echinocandins

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