ArticleScientific reports2023
Post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of isavuconazole in older patients with invasive fungal disease from the VITAL and SECURE studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III, Double Blind, Randomized Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of BAL8557 Versus Voriconazole for Primary Treatment of Invasive Fungal Disease Caused by Aspergillus Species or Other Filamentous Fungi.
Open-label Study of Isavuconazole in the Treatment of Participants With Aspergillosis and Renal Impairment or of Participants With Invasive Fungal Disease Caused by Rare Moulds, Yeasts or Dimorphic Fungi
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of invasive fungal infections: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Liver Necrosis in a Patient Receiving Isavuconazole: Making the Case for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Current Challenges in the Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in Geriatric Patients.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Patients With or Without COVID-19 and Without Hematological Diseases Treated for Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study with Propensity-Based Adjustment.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Real-World, Multicenter Case Series of Patients Treated with Isavuconazole for Invasive Fungal Disease in China.Microorganisms · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isavuconazole is a triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. In this post-hoc analysis of two prospective clinical trials (VITAL and SECURE), the safety and efficacy of isavuconazole in patients aged ≥ 65 years with invasive fungal diseases were evaluated. Patients were divided into two subgroups (≥ 65 and < 65 years). Adverse events (AEs); all-cause mortality; and overall, clinical, mycological, and radiological response were assessed. A total of 155 patients ≥ 65 years were enrolled in both trials. Most patients reported AEs. In the isavuconazole arm of both studies, serious AEs (SAEs) were greater in patients ≥ 65 versus < 65 years: 76.7% versus 56.9% (VITAL); 61.9% versus 49.0% (SECURE). In SECURE, SAE rates were similar in the ≥ 65 years subgroup of both treatment arms (61.9% vs 58.1%), while in the < 65 years subgroup the SAE rate was lower in the isavuconazole arm (49.0% vs 57.4%). In VITAL, all-cause mortality through day 42 (30.0% vs 13.8%) was higher, and overall response at end of treatment (27.6% vs 46.8%) was lower in patients ≥ 65 years versus < 65 years. In SECURE, all-cause mortality was similar between both subgroups, and isavuconazole (20.6% vs 17.9%) and voriconazole (22.6% vs 19.4%) treatment arms. The overall response was lower in the ≥ 65 years than the < 65 years subgroup in the isavuconazole (23.7% vs 39.0%) and voriconazole (32.0% vs 37.5%) arms. The safety and efficacy of isavuconazole were better in patients < 65 versus ≥ 65 years, and the safety profile was more favorable than that of voriconazole in both subgroups.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00634049 and NCT00412893.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.