First name
John
Middle name
W
Last name
Baddley

Title

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.

Year of Publication

2019

Date Published

2019 Dec 05

ISSN Number

1537-6591

Abstract

<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>

DOI

10.1093/cid/ciz1008

Alternate Title

Clin. Infect. Dis.

PMID

31802125

Title

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).

Year of Publication

2016

Number of Pages

3536-3539

Date Published

2016 Dec

ISSN Number

1460-2091

Abstract

<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>

DOI

10.1093/jac/dkw305

Alternate Title

J. Antimicrob. Chemother.

PMID

27494929

WATCH THIS PAGE

Subscription is not available for this page.