Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of aacPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalAAC ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 November; 57(11): 5714–5716.
PMCID: PMC3811328

Clinical Pharmacodynamic Index Identification for Micafungin in Esophageal Candidiasis: Dosing Strategy Optimization


Echinocandins exhibit concentration-dependent effects on Candida species, and preclinical studies support the administration of large, infrequent doses. The current report examines the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of two multicenter, randomized trials of micafungin dosing regimens that differed in both dose level and dosing interval. Analysis demonstrates the clinical relevance of the dose level and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Better, although not statistically significant (P = 0.056), outcomes were seen with higher maximum concentrations of drug in serum (Cmax) and large, infrequent doses. The results support further clinical investigation of novel micafungin dosing regimens with large doses but less than daily administration. (These studies have been registered at under registration no. NCT00666185 and NCT00665639.)


Understanding the pharmacodynamics driver of antimicrobial efficacy provides a means to identify the optimal dosing strategy (1, 2). Ideal dosing of antimicrobials for which the maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) and MIC are most closely linked to the desired effect would involve the infrequent administration of large doses. Conversely, when the area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h in the steady state divided by the MIC (AUC/MIC ratio) is best predictive of outcome, it is the total amount of compound rather than the dosing frequency that impacts the treatment strategy. The clinical utility of this information has long been recognized with the Cmax-linked aminoglycoside drug class, for which once-daily administration both improves efficacy and reduces toxicity (3, 4). More recently, clinical studies have identified enhanced efficacy for extended and continuous infusion of beta-lactams in the critical care setting, an approach to dosing which optimizes the percentage of time above the MIC, the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) index associated with efficacy (57).

The majority of the data available to determine the ideal pharmacodynamic dosing strategy is the product of preclinical in vitro and in vivo dose fractionation studies. While clinical studies may use different dose levels, the evaluation of more than a single dosing interval is uncommon. The goal of the present analysis was to utilize an existing clinical data set for an antifungal agent, micafungin, in which both the dose and the dosing interval were varied in order to identify the optimal dosing strategy.

Experimental infection models have consistently found concentration-dependent killing and prolonged postantifungal effects for the echinocandin class (818). Dose fractionation and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) index analysis have demonstrated the importance of both the Cmax/MIC and AUC/MIC indices to predict efficacy.

In the present investigation, micafungin PK and efficacy were explored using pooled data from two multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trials in which adult patients were treated for esophageal candidiasis. The two studies were completed in 2002 (sponsor study 03-7-005/NCT00666185) and 2004 (Astellas study 03-7-008/NCT00665639) (19). The study protocols were identical with regard to disease diagnosis, treatment duration, and study endpoint determination. Both clinical trials, which were approved by the Institutional Review Board or Ethical Review Committee and received relevant regulatory approvals in each country, were conducted in accordance with good clinical practice guidelines; written informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to the start of each trial. The two treatment regimens compared were 150 mg micafungin every day (QD) and 300 mg micafungin every other day (QOD) administered for a minimum of 14 days and up to 21 days. It was hypothesized that use of the higher-dosage but less frequently administered regimen would be associated with efficacy either superior or equivalent to that seen with the standard dose daily regimen based upon achieving a higher Cmax or similar AUC, respectively. Both endoscopically obtained microbiologic and histopathologic success at the end of therapy and clinical relapse 2 weeks after the end of therapy were considered in the current analysis. The per-protocol data sets, which included patients with biopsy-proven disease and who received at least 10 doses of micafungin, were evaluated. The study arms included 189 patients in the 150 mg QD group and 132 study participants receiving the QOD regimen. Patient demographics were statistically similar in the two studies and the two treatment arms (see Table S1 in the supplemental material). The majority of patients carried an HIV diagnosis. Pooled data from the two studies were used to assess the PK/PD relationships for the two treatment groups. The two binary study outcomes were compared for the two treatment groups using the χ2 test or the Fisher exact test, and statistical significance was defined by a P value ≤ 0.05. Plasma samples were collected at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 h after infusion on days 1 and 11. Samples were analyzed for the level of micafungin by using solid-phase extraction and reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography as previously described (2024). A previous population PK model was developed for micafungin across multiple studies (n = 4), utilizing drug concentration data from 364 patients, including a subset of 67 patients from the two clinical studies described here (25). In the above-described population PK model, body weight was a statistically significant predictor of micafungin clearance. Individual post hoc-predicted PK parameters from the 53 patients who received the two dosing regimens of interest for this analysis and were in the pertinent protocol set were used to simulate plasma micafungin concentrations over a 48-h period at the steady state for the purposes of calculating Cmax and AUC from 0 to 48 h (AUC0–48). Population mean PK parameters were instead used to estimate Cmax and AUC0–48 values for the 267 patients in the per protocol who did not have measured plasma PK data available for analysis.

An endoscopically proven mycological response at the end of therapy was observed in 78.8% of patients in the 150 mg QD group and 87.1% in the 300 mg QOD group (Table 1 [P = 0.056]). While these outcomes were not statistically significant, there was a numerically higher efficacy rate in the higher-dose, extended-interval arm. The treatment outcomes for the two regimens were also similar for the relapse endpoint, with failure rates of 12.2% in the daily administration group and 5.6% in the high-dose arm (Table 1 [P = 0.051]). A comparison of exposure measurements for the two dosing regimens at the steady state is presented in Table 2. As previously shown in other dose escalation studies (26, 27), pharmacokinetics increased in a linear manner with dose. Steady-state AUC0–48 values for the two dosing regimens were comparable. The median Cmax was 1.65-fold higher whereas the median Cmin was 0.49-fold lower for the 300 mg than for the 150 mg group (Wilcoxon rank sum test P < 0.0001 [comparisons of Cmax and Cmin]).

Table 1
Efficacy of micafungina
Table 2
Summary statistics of predicted steady-state AUC0–48 and Cmax by micafungin dosing regimen

The present dose escalation and dosing-interval clinical study pharmacodynamic analysis is congruent with preclinical studies which demonstrate the importance of the AUC/MIC and Cmax/MIC concentration-dependent indices. While these outcomes were not statistically significant, there was a numerically higher efficacy rate in the higher-dose, extended-interval arm. These observations support the idea of treatment strategies that optimize both Cmax and AUC.

Prior safety studies have not identified a clear maximal tolerated dose for micafungin; however, doses as high as 600 mg have been generally well tolerated (28, 29). It is possible that dose levels even higher than the 300 mg used in this study and less-frequent administration could offer additional clinical benefits compared to the currently approved daily regimens. While this strategy cannot be recommended for clinical use outside treatment of mucosal candidiasis, there may be other situations in which it could be appropriate given more supportive data. In addition, as the inevitable process of resistance emergence becomes a relevant issue for the echinocandin class, these novel dosing strategies may provide useful treatment options. Unfortunately, accurate susceptibility testing was not available to allow us to explore the impact of MIC on outcome in the study. However, as the majority of isolates were Candida albicans isolates, we do not believe the collection would have included very many strains with higher drug MICs or species such as C. parapsilosis or C. guilliermondii. At a minimum, the results of this evaluation provide an intriguing rationale for future clinical investigation of higher echinocandin doses and extended dosing intervals.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material:


The clinical studies supporting the analyses were sponsored by Astellas. This pharmacodynamics analysis was funded by Astellas.


Published ahead of print 19 August 2013

Supplemental material for this article may be found at


1. Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Louie A, Gumbo T, Forrest A, Drusano GL. 2007. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial therapy: it's not just for mice anymore. Clin. Infect. Dis. 44:79–86 [PubMed]
2. Craig WA. 1998. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin. Infect. Dis. 26:1–10 [PubMed]
3. Drusano GL, Ambrose PG, Bhavnani SM, Bertino JS, Nafziger AN, Louie A. 2007. Back to the future: using aminoglycosides again and how to dose them optimally. Clin. Infect. Dis. 45:753–760 [PubMed]
4. Kashuba AD, Nafziger AN, Drusano GL, Bertino JS., Jr 1999. Optimizing aminoglycoside therapy for nosocomial pneumonia caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:623–629 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Lodise TP, Drusano GL. 2011. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: optimal antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care unit. Crit. Care Clin. 27:1–18 [PubMed]
6. Lodise TP, Jr, Lomaestro B, Drusano GL. 2007. Piperacillin-tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: clinical implications of an extended-infusion dosing strategy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 44:357–363 [PubMed]
7. Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, Webb SA, Bellomo R, Gomersall C, Shirwadkar C, Eastwood GM, Myburgh J, Paterson DL, Lipman J. 2013. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 56:236–244 [PubMed]
8. Ernst EJ, Roling EE, Petzold CR, Keele DJ, Klepser ME. 2002. In vitro activity of micafungin (FK-463) against Candida spp.: microdilution, time-kill, and postantifungal-effect studies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:3846–3853 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Louie A, Deziel M, Liu W, Drusano MF, Gumbo T, Drusano GL. 2005. Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of systemic candidiasis: importance of persistence of caspofungin in tissues to understanding drug activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:5058–5068 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Wiederhold NP, Kontoyiannis DP, Chi J, Prince RA, Tam VH, Lewis RE. 2004. Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: evidence of concentration-dependent activity. J. Infect. Dis. 190:1464–1471 [PubMed]
11. Andes D. 2003. In vivo pharmacodynamics of antifungal drugs in treatment of candidiasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:1179–1186 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Prince RA, Marchillo K, Ashbeck J, Hou J. 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamic characterization of anidulafungin in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:539–550 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Bohrmuller J, Marchillo K, Lepak A. 2010. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:2497–2506 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Andes D, Marchillo K, Lowther J, Bryskier A, Stamstad T, Conklin R. 2003. In vivo pharmacodynamics of HMR 3270, a glucan synthase inhibitor, in a murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:1187–1192 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Andes DR, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Marchillo K, Bohrmueller J. 2008. In vivo pharmacodynamic target investigation for micafungin against Candida albicans and C. glabrata in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3497–3503 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Lepak A, Castanheira M, Diekema D, Pfaller M, Andes D. 2012. Optimizing echinocandin dosing and susceptibility breakpoint determination via in vivo pharmacodynamic evaluation against C. glabrata with and without Fks mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:5875–5882 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Gumbo T, Drusano GL, Liu W, Kulawy RW, Fregeau C, Hsu V, Louie A. 2007. Once-weekly micafungin therapy is as effective as daily therapy for disseminated candidiasis in mice with persistent neutropenia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:968–974 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Petraitis V, Petraitiene R, Groll AH, Sein T, Schaufele RL, Lyman CA, Francesconi A, Bacher J, Piscitelli SC, Walsh TJ. 2001. Dosage-dependent antifungal efficacy of V-echinocandin (LY303366) against experimental fluconazole-resistant oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:471–479 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. de Wet NT, Bester AJ, Viljoen JJ, Filho F, Suleiman JM, Ticona E, Llanos EA, Fisco C, Lau W, Buell D. 2005. A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs. fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 21:899–907 [PubMed]
20. Niwa T, Yokota Y, Tokunaga A, Yamato Y, Kagayama A, Fujiwara T, Hatakeyama J, Anezaki M, Ohtsuka Y, Takagi A. 2004. Tissue distribution after intravenous dosing of micafungin, an antifungal drug, to rats. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 27:1154–1156 [PubMed]
21. Hebert MF, Blough DK, Townsend RW, Allison M, Buell D, Keirns J, Bekersky I. 2005. Concomitant tacrolimus and micafungin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45:1018–1024 [PubMed]
22. Hebert MF, Smith HE, Marbury TC, Swan SK, Smith WB, Townsend RW, Buell D, Keirns J, Bekersky I. 2005. Pharmacokinetics of micafungin in healthy volunteers, volunteers with moderate liver disease, and volunteers with renal dysfunction. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45:1145–1152 [PubMed]
23. Hirata K, Aoyama T, Matsumoto Y, Ogawa F, Yamazaki H, Kikuti A, Yamamoto Y. 2007. Pharmacokinetics of antifungal agent micafungin in critically ill patients receiving continuous hemodialysis filtration. Yakugaku Zasshi 127:897–901 [PubMed]
24. Nakagawa Y, Ichii Y, Saeki Y, Kodaka M, Suzuki K, Kishino S. 2007. Plasma concentration of micafungin in patients with hematologic malignancies. J. Infect. Chemother. 13:39–45 [PubMed]
25. Van Wart S. 2008. Population pharmacokinetics of micafungin in patients with invasive candidiasis, candidemia and esophageal candidiasis, abstr A-011 Abstr. 48th Annu. Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington DC
26. Gumbo T, Hiemenz J, Ma L, Keirns JJ, Buell DN, Drusano GL. 2008. Population pharmacokinetics of micafungin in adult patients. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 60:329–331 [PubMed]
27. Tabata K, Katashima M, Kawamura A, Tanigawara Y, Sunagawa K. 2006. Linear pharmacokinetics of micafungin and its active metabolites in Japanese pediatric patients with fungal infections. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 29:1706–1711 [PubMed]
28. Sirohi B, Powles RL, Chopra R, Russell N, Byrne JL, Prentice HG, Potter M, Koblinger S. 2006. A study to determine the safety profile and maximum tolerated dose of micafungin (FK463) in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 38:47–51 [PubMed]
29. Hiemenz J, Cagnoni P, Simpson D, Devine S, Chao N, Keirns J, Lau W, Facklam D, Buell D. 2005. Pharmacokinetic and maximum tolerated dose study of micafungin in combination with fluconazole versus fluconazole alone for prophylaxis of fungal infections in adult patients undergoing a bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplant. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:1331–1336 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)