The Cmax is defined as the maximum observed analyte concentration. Cmax was measured in microgram per milliliter (mcg/ml).

Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis set included all participants who received ITCZ-OS and had plasma concentration data. One participant without any infection evidence was also included in the PK population for SFI (ITCZ-OS). 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

The AUC(0-24) is area under the plasma concentration time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to 24 hours post-dose. It is usually calculated by linear trapezoidal method. AUC was measured in mcg*hour(hr) per ml.

The PK analysis set included all participants who received ITCZ-OS and had plasma concentration data. One participant without any infection evidence was also included in the PK population, for SFI (ITCZ-OS). Here 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

The MIC is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that inhibits the visible growth of a microorganism after incubation.

The PK analysis set. 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure. 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively. MIC was not obtained for FN (Switched treatment) and hence the data not given for the same.

The Cmax is maximum observed analyte concentration and MIC is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that inhibits the visible growth of a microorganism after incubation. The Cmax/MIC was calculated only in participants for whom the MIC was obtained.

The PK analysis set. 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure. 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively. MIC was not obtained for FN (Switched treatment) and hence the data not given for the same.

The AUC (0-24) is defined as area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (24 hr). It is usually calculated by linear trapezoidal method. MIC is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that inhibits the visible growth of a microorganism after incubation. The AUC 0-24/MIC was calculated only in participants for whom the MIC was obtained.

The PK analysis set. 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure. 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively. MIC was not obtained for FN (Switched treatment) and hence the data not given for the same.

The T>MIC was calculated only in participants for whom the MIC was obtained.

The PK analysis set. 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure. 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively. MIC was not obtained for FN (Switched treatment) and hence the data not given for the same.

Level of improvement in the clinical symptoms was assessed as: disappeared (if clinical symptoms disappeared), improved (significant improvement in clinical symptoms ), no change (almost no improvement in the clinical symptoms), worsened (if the clinical symptoms worsened) and could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make the above-noted assessments).

FAS population included all participants except those who did not meet main eligibility criteria, who did not receive ITCZ-IV or ITCZ-OS and participants without efficacy data. As per planned analysis both SFI (ITCZ Oral Solution Monotherapy) and SFI (Switched Treatment) arms were combined for all efficacy analyses.

Level of improvement in the clinical symptoms was assessed as: disappeared (if clinical symptoms disappeared), improved (significant improvement in clinical symptoms ), no change (almost no improvement in the clinical symptoms), worsened (if the clinical symptoms worsened) and could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make the above-noted assessments). The cases evaluated were candidemia, esophageal candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, chronic necrotic pulmonary aspergillosis (C.N.P.A), pulmonary aspergilloma (P.A.) and pulmonary cryptococcosis (P.C).

The FAS population. As per planned analysis both SFI arms were combined for efficacy analyses; participants with FN with suspected fungal infection were not planned to be analyzed for this outcome measure. Here, 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

Efficacy rate (E.R.) was calculated as number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective divided by sum of number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective and cases for whom treatment was judged to be ineffective multiplied by 100. Treatment success rate (T.S.R.) was calculated as number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective divided by sum of number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective, cases for whom treatment was judged to be ineffective and cases for whom the efficacy could not be assessed multiplied by 100.

The FAS population included all participants except those who did not meet main eligibility criteria, who did not receive ITCZ-IV or ITCZ-OS and participants without efficacy data. As per planned analysis both SFI (ITCZ Oral Solution Monotherapy) and SFI (Switched Treatment) arms were combined for all efficacy analyses.

E.R. was calculated as number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective divided by sum of number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective and number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be ineffective multiplied by 100. T.S.R. was calculated as number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective divided by sum of number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be effective, number of cases for whom treatment was judged to be ineffective and number of cases for whom the efficacy could not be assessed multiplied by 100.

The FAS population. As per planned analysis both SFI arms were combined for efficacy analyses; participants with FN with suspected fungal infection were not planned to be analyzed for this outcome measure. Here, 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

Mycological efficacy was assessed as disappeared (if results for pathogenic fungus became negative, or if it was not possible to obtain the appropriate specimens), decreased (if level of pathogenic fungus was decreased in culture), no change (if there was no quantitative change in pathogenic fungus), increased (if there was a quantitative increase in pathogenic fungus, if results for pathogenic fungus became positive after start of dosing or if new pathogenic fungus was identified) , could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make the above assessment due to lack of detection in tests).

The FAS population included all participants except those who did not meet main eligibility criteria, who did not receive ITCZ-IV or ITCZ-OS and participants without efficacy data. As per planned analysis both SFI (ITCZ Oral Solution Monotherapy) and SFI (Switched Treatment) arms were combined for all efficacy analyses.

Mycological efficacy was assessed as disappeared, decreased, no change, increased, could not be assessed. The cases evaluated were candidemia, esophageal candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, C.N.P.A, P.A. and P.C.

The FAS population. As per planned analysis both SFI arms were combined for efficacy analyses; participants with FN with suspected fungal infection were not planned to be analyzed for this outcome measure. Here, 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

Serological effect against fungi was assessed as changed to negative (if the test values became negative), improved (if the test values decreased), no change (if there was no change in the test values), no change (if there was no change in the test values) , worsened (if the test values increased) and could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make the above-noted assessments due to a reason such as a lack of detection in the tests before and after dosing).

The FAS population included all participants except those who did not meet main eligibility criteria, who did not receive ITCZ-IV or ITCZ-OS and participants without efficacy data. As per planned analysis both SFI (ITCZ Oral Solution Monotherapy) and SFI (Switched Treatment) arms were combined for all efficacy analyses.

Serological effect against fungi was assessed as changed to negative (if the test values became negative), improved (if the test values decreased), no change (if there was no change in the test values), worsened (if the test values increased) and could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make above-noted assessments due to a reason such as a lack of detection in the tests before and after dosing). The cases evaluated were candidemia, esophageal candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, C.N.P.A, P.A. and P.C.

The FAS population. As per planned analysis both SFI arms were combined for efficacy analyses; participants with FN with suspected fungal infection were not planned to be analyzed for this outcome measure. Here, 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.

Level of Improvement in the Endoscopy or Image diagnosis was assessed as disappeared (if the abnormal findings were normalized), decreased (if level of pathogenic fungus was decreased in culture), improved (if significant improvement was observed in the abnormal findings), no change (if no significant improvement was observed in the abnormal findings), worsened (if the abnormal findings were worsened) and could not be assessed (if it was difficult to make the above-noted assessments due to a reason such as a lack of detection in the tests before and after dosing).

The FAS population included all participants except those who did not meet main eligibility criteria, who did not receive ITCZ-IV or ITCZ-OS and participants without efficacy data. As per planned analysis both SFI (ITCZ Oral Solution Monotherapy) and SFI (Switched Treatment) arms were combined for all efficacy analyses.

Level of Improvement in Endoscopy was assessed as disappeared, decreased, improved, no change, worsened and could not be assessed. The cases evaluated were candidemia, esophageal candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, C.N.P.A, P.A. and P.C.

The FAS population. As per planned analysis both SFI arms were combined for efficacy analyses; participants with FN with suspected fungal infection were not planned to be analyzed for this outcome measure. Here, 'n' signifies those participants who were evaluated for this measure at specified time points for each arm group respectively.