Prospective Evaluation of the Fungitell® (1→3) Beta-D-Glucan Assay as a Diagnostic Tool for Invasive Fungal Disease in Pediatric Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group.

2023

e14399

02/2023

1399-3046

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is a major source of morbidity and mortality for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Non-invasive biomarkers, such as the beta-D-glucan assay, may improve the diagnosis of IFD. The objective was to define the utility of surveillance testing using Fungitell® beta-D-glucan (BDG) assay in children receiving antifungal prophylaxis in the immediate post-HCT period.

METHODS: Weekly surveillance blood testing with the Fungitell® BDG assay was performed during the early post-HCT period in the context of a randomized trial of children, adolescents, and young adults undergoing allogeneic HCT allocated to triazole or caspofungin prophylaxis. Positivity was defined at the manufacturer cutoff of 80 pg/ml. IFD was adjudicated using blinded central reviewers. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the Fungitell® BDG assay for the outcome of proven or probable IFD.

RESULTS: A total of 51 patients (out of 290 patients in the parent trial) contributed blood specimens. In total, 278 specimens were evaluated. Specificity was 80.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.6%-85.3%), and NPV was over 99% (95% CI: 86.8%-99.9%). However, there were no true positive results, resulting in sensitivity of 0% (95% CI: 0.0%-84.2%) and PPV of 0% (95% CI: 0.0%-6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS: Fungitell® BDG screening is of limited utility in diagnosing IFD in the post-HCT period, mainly due to high false-positive rates. Fungitell® BDG surveillance testing should not be performed in children during the early post-HCT period while receiving antifungal prophylaxis as the pretest probability for IFD is low.

10.1111/petr.14399

Pediatr Transplant

36299233

Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

2020

S175-S198

2020 Aug 05

1537-6613

<p>In recent years, the global public health community has increasingly recognized the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the fight to improve outcomes, decrease costs, and curb increases in antimicrobial resistance around the world. However, the subject of antifungal stewardship (AFS) has received less attention. While the principles of AMS guidelines likely apply to stewarding of antifungal agents, there are additional considerations unique to AFS and the complex field of fungal infections that require specific recommendations. In this article, we review the literature on AMS best practices and discuss AFS through the lens of the global core elements of AMS. We offer recommendations for best practices in AFS based on a synthesis of this evidence by an interdisciplinary expert panel of members of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. We also discuss research directions in this rapidly evolving field. AFS is an emerging and important component of AMS, yet requires special considerations in certain areas such as expertise, education, interventions to optimize utilization, therapeutic drug monitoring, and data analysis and reporting.</p>

10.1093/infdis/jiaa394

J. Infect. Dis.

32756879

Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

2019

2019 Dec 05

1537-6591

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.</p>

10.1093/cid/ciz1008

Clin. Infect. Dis.

31802125

Comparative effectiveness of echinocandins versus fluconazole therapy for the treatment of adult candidaemia due to Candida parapsilosis: a retrospective observational cohort study of the Mycoses Study Group (MSG-12).

2016

3536-3539

2016 Dec

1460-2091

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>A polymorphism in the gene encoding β-1,3-glucan synthase, the target of the echinocandin class of antifungals, results in increased in vitro MICs of the echinocandins. This has resulted in controversy surrounding use of the echinocandins for treatment of Candida parapsilosis candidaemia. We aimed to compare 30 day mortality in adults with C. parapsilosis candidaemia treated with echinocandins versus fluconazole.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>This is a retrospective observational cohort study. We used the Premier Perspective Database to identify adult patients with C. parapsilosis candidaemia treated with only fluconazole or only an echinocandin as definitive therapy. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality. Propensity scores were derived to estimate the probability the patient would have received either an echinocandin or fluconazole. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used in a weighted logistic regression to calculate odds of 30 day mortality.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>There were 307 unique patients with C. parapsilosis candidaemia. One hundred and twenty-six (41%) received fluconazole and 181 (59%) received an echinocandin. Age, gender, race, year of admission, need for ICU resources in the week prior to candidaemia onset, and receipt of vasopressors on the day of candidaemia onset were included in the propensity score model used to calculate inverse probability of treatment weights. Weighted logistic regression demonstrated no difference in 30 day mortality between patients receiving an echinocandin as compared with fluconazole (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33-2.07).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Our result supports the 2016 IDSA invasive candidiasis guidelines, which no longer clearly favour treatment with fluconazole over an echinocandin for C. parapsilosis candidaemia.</p>

10.1093/jac/dkw305

J. Antimicrob. Chemother.

27494929

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

2016

e1-e50

2016 Feb 15

1537-6591

<p>It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.</p>

10.1093/cid/civ933

Clin. Infect. Dis.

26679628

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

2016

409-17

2016 Feb 15

1537-6591

<p>It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.</p>

10.1093/cid/civ1194

Clin. Infect. Dis.

26810419