Micafungin: An Evidence-Based Review of its Place in Therapy

Figures & data

Core evidence clinical impact summary for micafungin

Outcome measure	Evidence	Implications
Disease-oriented evidence	1. Demonstrates excellent efficacy for the treatment of candidemia/invasive candidiasis.	1. May be used as front-line therapy in treating candidemia/ invasive candidiasis, except for meningitis.
	2. Demonstrates good efficacy as primary or salvage therapy in high-risk patients with invasive aspergillosis.	2. Numbers are small in those treated with micafungin monotherapy. The major role remains as salvage therapy.
	3. Demonstrates very good efficacy as antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients.	3. May be used as a first-line prophylactic agent in neutropenic patients.
	4. Demonstrates good efficacy in the treatment of Candida esophagitis.	4. May be used in patients, refractory to or unable to tolerate, oral therapy.
Patient-oriented evidence	Multiple randomized clinical trials show very good outcome data for prophylaxis in neutropenic patients and treatment of candidemia/invasive candidiasis.	Monitoring for potential adverse effects, especially hepatotoxicity is necessary while on therapy.
Economic evidence	Acquisition costs are high compared to oral azoles and conversion to less expensive oral alternatives should be accomplished as soon as possible.	Cost-effective for hospitalized patients with serious infections, primarily because of efficacy and decreased length of hospital stay.