Infección fúngica invasora en el trasplante de órgano sólido

Invasive Candidiasis in Patients with Solid Tumors: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background

Invasive candidiasis (ICs) is one of the common causes of death in patients with solid tumors. However, studies on the clinical characteristics of ICs with solid tumors are limited.

Methods

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyse the clinical characteristics, laboratory results and risk factor prediction of inpatients with ICs and solid tumors. We reviewed the clinical data and candida specimen information of hospitalized patients diagnosed with solid tumors combined with ICs at the First Hospital of China Medical University from January 2016 to December 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the prognostic factors associated with mortality in these patients.

Results

A total of 243 ICs patients with solid tumors were included in this study. The average ± SD age was 62.8 ± 11.7 (range: 27-93 years old), of which nearly 41% were ≥ 65 years old (99/243, 40.7%), and most were male (162/243, 66.6%). Most patients had malignant tumors of the digestive system. The most common candida was Candida parapsilosis (101/243, 41.5%), followed by Candida guilliermondii (83/243, 34.1%), Candida albicans (32/243, 13.1%), Candida glabrata (17/243, 6.9%), Candida tropicalis (7/243, 2.8%) and Candida krusei (3/243, 1.2%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the length of stay in the ICU, urinary catheter, total parenteral nutrition, stay in the ICU, renal failure and neutrophil count were prognostic factors related to death.

Conclusion

In this study, based on the clinical data of solid tumor patients with ICs in the past 5 years, the results showed that the length of stay in the ICU, urinary catheter, total parenteral nutrition, stay in the ICU, renal failure and neutrophil count were identified as the main prognostic factors. This study can be used to help clinicians carry out early intervention for high-risk patients.

Bloodstream Infections

Bacteremia and sepsis are conditions associated with high mortality and are of great impact to health care operations. Among the top causes of mortality in the United States, these conditions cause over 600 fatalities each day. Empiric, broad-spectrum treatment is a common but often a costly approach that may fail to effectively target the correct microbe, may inadvertently harm patients via antimicrobial toxicity or downstream antimicrobial resistance. To meet the diagnostic challenges of bacteremia and sepsis, laboratories must understand the complexity of diagnosing and treating septic patients, in order to focus on creating algorithms that can help direct a more targeted approach to antimicrobial therapy and synergize with existing clinical practices defined in new Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. Significant advances have been made in improving blood culture media; as yet no molecular or antigen-based method has proven superior for the detection of bacteremia in terms of limit of detection. Several methods for rapid molecular identification of pathogens from blood cultures bottles are available and many more are on the diagnostic horizon. Ultimately, early intervention by molecular detection of bacteria and fungi directly from whole blood could provide the most patient benefit and contribute to tailored antibiotic coverage of the patient early on in the course of the disease. Although blood cultures remain as the best means of diagnosing bacteremia and candidemia, complementary testing with antigen tests, microbiologic investigations from other body sites, and histopathology can often aid in the diagnosis of disseminated disease, and application of emerging nucleic acid test methods and other new technology may greatly impact our ability to bacteremic and septic patients, particularly those who are immunocompromised.

Cost Analysis of the Use of Voriconazole, Posaconazole and Micafungin in the Primary Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants

Objectives: Compare the cost of the primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFI) with voriconazole, posaconazole, and micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in hospitals of the National Health System (NHS) in Spain. Methods: A cost analysis was made for 100 days and 180 days of prophylaxis and a decision tree model was developed. The efficacy rate of IFI prophylaxis and survival rate with liposomal amphotericin B treatment of prophylaxis failures were obtained from randomized trials and a meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons. The model simulation was interrupted with IFI treatment (prophylaxis failures). The costs of medication and its intravenous administration in the hospital (in the case of micafungin) were considered. Results: In the non-modeled analysis, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole ranged from €1,709 to €9,655 compared with posaconazole oral solution, from €1,811 to €9,767 compared with posaconazole gastro-resistant tablets and from €3,376 to €7,713 compared with micafungin. In the modeled analysis, the mean cost per patient of the prophylaxis and treatment of IFIs was €6,987 to €7,619 with voriconazole, €7,749 with posaconazole, and €22,424 with micafungin. Therefore, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole was €130 to €3,664 and €11,132 to €30,374 compared with posaconazole and micafungin, respectively. The result remained stable after modification of the number of days of antifungal prophylaxis and the cost of antifungal treatment of failures. Conclusion: Taking into account this model, antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole in recipients of hematopoietic progenitor transplants, compared with posaconazole or micafungin, may represent savings for hospitals in Spain.

EPICO 2.0 project. Development of educational therapeutic recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in critically ill adult patients in special situations

BACKGROUND

Although there has been an improved management of invasive candidiasis in the last decade, still controversial issues remain, especially in different therapeutic critical care scenarios.

AIMS

We sought to identify the core clinical knowledge and to achieve high agreement recommendations required to care for critically ill adult patients with invasive candidiasis for antifungal treatment in special situations and different scenarios.

METHODS

Second prospective Spanish survey reaching consensus by the DELPHI technique, conducted anonymously by electronic e-mail in the first phase to 23 national multidisciplinary experts in invasive fungal infections from five national scientific societies including intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and infectious disease specialists, answering 30 questions prepared by a coordination group after a strict review of literature in the last five years. The educational objectives spanned four categories, including peritoneal candidiasis, immunocompromised patients, special situations, and organ failures. The agreement among panelists in each item should be higher than 75% to be selected. In a second phase, after extracting recommendations from the selected items, a meeting was held with more than 60 specialists in a second round invited to validate the preselected recommendations.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the first phase, 15 recommendations were preselected (peritoneal candidiasis (3), immunocompromised patients (6), special situations (3), and organ failures (3)). After the second round the following 13 were validated: Peritoneal candidiasis (3): Source control and early adequate antifungal treatment is mandatory; empirical antifungal treatment is recommended in secondary nosocomial peritonitis with Candida spp. colonization risk factors and in tertiary peritonitis. Immunocompromised patients (5): consider hepatotoxicity and interactions before starting antifungal treatment with azoles in transplanted patients; treat candidemia in neutropenic adult patients with antifungal drugs at least 14 days after the first blood culture negative and until normalization of neutrophils is achieved. Caspofungin, if needed, is the echinocandin with most scientific evidence to treat candidemia in neutropenic adult patients; caspofungin is also the first choice drug to treat febrile candidemia; in neutropenic patients with candidemia remove catheter. Special situations (2): in moderate hepatocellular failure, patients with invasive candidiasis use echinocandins (preferably low doses of anidulafungin and caspofungin) and try to avoid azoles; in case of possible interactions review all the drugs involved and preferably use anidulafungin. Organ failures (3): echinocandins are the safest antifungal drugs; reconsider the use of azoles in patients under renal replacement therapy; all of the echinocandins to treat patients under continuous renal replacement therapy are accepted and do not require dosage adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients requires a broad range of knowledge and skills as summarized in our recommendations. These recommendations may help to optimize the therapeutic management of these patients in special situations and different scenarios and improve their outcome based on the DELPHI methodology.