Compliance With Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Ophthalmologic Evaluation of Patients With Candidemia

Prevalence of Ocular Candidiasis and Candida Endophthalmitis in Patients With Candidemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases and ophthalmology professional societies have disagreed regarding ocular screening in patients with candidemia. We aimed to summarize the current evidence on the prevalence of ocular candidiasis (OC) and Candida endophthalmitis (CE) according to the standardized definitions.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted from the inception date through 16 October 2022 using PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS. Pooled prevalence of ocular complications was derived from generalized linear mixed models (PROSPERO CRD42022326610).

RESULTS

A total of 70 and 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis for OC and concordant CE (chorioretinitis with vitreous involvement), respectively. This study represented 8599 patients with candidemia who underwent ophthalmologic examination. Pooled prevalences (95% CI) of OC, overall CE, concordant CE, and discordant CE were 10.7% (8.4-13.5%), 3.1% (2.1-4.5%), 1.8% (1.3-2.6%), and 7.4% (4.5-12%) of patients screened, respectively. Studies from Asian countries had significantly higher concordant CE prevalence (95% CI) of patients screened (3.6%; 2.9-4.6%) compared with studies from European countries (1.4%; .4-5%) and American countries (1.4%; .9-2.2%) (P <.01). Presence of total parenteral nutrition and Candida albicans was associated with CE, with pooled odds ratios (95% CI) of 6.92 (3.58-13.36) and 3.02 (1.67-5.46), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of concordant CE overall and among Asian countries was 2 and 4 times higher than the prevalence previously reported by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) of <0.9%, respectively. There is an urgent need to study optimal screening protocols and to establish joint recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and AAO.

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

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.

Endogenous Candida endophthalmitis: Who is really at risk?

OBJECTIVES

The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends that all patients with candidemia undergo a dilated retinal exam to exclude endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Our objective was to determine if there are significant risk factors in candidemic patients for developing endogenous Candida endophthalmitis METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all candidemic patients at three academic medical centers between 2012 and 2017. We extracted risk factors for Candida endophthalmitis based on prior literature and compared them between patients with and without endophthalmitis. We then built a multivariate logistic regression model to assess which ones were significant.

RESULTS

We found 771 patients with candidemia. 120 (15.6%) of these patients were diagnosed with Candida endophthalmitis. In our logistic regression analysis, central venous catheter presence (OR 8.35), intravenous drug use (OR 4.76), immunosuppression (OR 2.40), total parenteral nutrition recipient (OR 2.28), race (OR 1.65), age (OR 1.02), and gender (OR 0.57) were risk factors for developing Candida endophthalmitis. Additionally, Candida albicans was more likely to result in Candida endophthalmitis (OR 1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

This cohort represents the largest study of risk factors for candidemic patients who developed endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Based on our findings, clinicians should develop targeted and cost-effective strategies for endophthalmitis screening.

Utility of Ophthalmologic Screening for Patients With Candida Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review

Importance

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends ophthalmologic examinations for everyone with positive Candida blood culture results (candidemia) to screen for endophthalmitis, a practice that remains controversial because of multiple concerns for its limited usefulness and potential for harm.

Objective

To determine guideline efficacy by reconciling discrepancies in the incidence of endophthalmitis and evaluating outcomes of studies assessing ophthalmologic screening for candidemia.

Evidence Review

PubMed literature searches, including the search terms candidemia, fungemia, chorioretinitis, and endophthalmitis, identified longitudinal studies prior to 2018 of patients who underwent ophthalmologic evaluations in the setting of positive fungal blood culture results regardless of symptoms or clinical status. Additional studies not captured by these queries were found by manually scanning references within the articles captured by the queries. Ambiguous studies of patients with concomitant bacterial or viral infections were excluded.

Findings

Thirty-eight applicable studies of 7472 patients who underwent ophthalmologic screening for candidemia or fungemia were identified. Criteria were compared with the conventional definition of endophthalmitis based on present (concordant) or absent (discordant) frank vitreous involvement. Concordant (59 of 6693 [0.9%]) and discordant (114 of 779 [14.6%]) endophthalmitis incidence rates differed by 13.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-16.4%; P < .001). Visual acuity for each case was recorded verbatim as subjective report provided by each study, when available. None of the concordant endophthalmitis cases reported direct, intraocular, microscopic evidence of Candida or other fungal organisms. Outcomes were available for 19 patients with concordant endophthalmitis; 6 died within 4 weeks of screening. The rate of substantial vision loss was associated (φ = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.01-0.86; P = .046) with additional invasive intervention (3 of 6 [50.0%]) compared with medical management alone (0 of 6).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review without meta-analysis, inconsistent definitions of endophthalmitis accounted for discrepancies of its incidence and overreporting among patients with candidemia, contributing to bias and resulting in the construction of guidelines. As few as 3 of 7472 patients had potential improvement, while routine examination overall could lead to additional interventions and harm in this population. These findings suggest that indiscriminate screening based on candidemia alone does not appear to be supported by the literature and should be reevaluated for inclusion as a recommendation from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

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

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.