Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether combinations of antifungal drugs are effective and safe for patients in intensive-care units. METHODS: This study compared the efficacy and safety of caspofungin (CAS), voriconazole (VOR), amphotericin B liposome (L-AmB), CAS+VOR, and CAS+L-AmB as empirical, preemptive, and targeted therapies for invasive fungal infection (IFI). RESULTS: Comparing the CAS, VOR, and CAS+VOR groups revealed that there were no differences in response rates between all therapy types, IFI-associated death within 90 days was less common in the CAS+VOR group (1.8%) than the VOR group (14.3%), and there were more adverse events in the VOR group than in the CAS group (P < 0.05). For empirical or preemptive therapy, the CAS group had a better response rate (80.0%) than the CAS+VOR group (47.1%), and there were more adverse events in the VOR group than in the CAS group (P < 0.05). For targeted therapy, no differences were found for efficacy and safety. There were no differences among the CAS, L-AmB, and CAS+L-AmB groups in efficacy and safety. CONCLUSION: Patients who received CAS monotherapy as an empirical or preemptive therapy could achieve good outcomes. Patients who received CAS+VOR or CAS+L-AmB achieved almost the same outcomes when compared with those who received CAS, VOR, and L-AmB monotherapy as targeted therapies, but those who received CAS+VOR had a lower IFI mortality rate than did those who received VOR monotherapy.