EMPIRICUS micafungin versus placebo during nosocomial sepsis in Candida multi-colonized ICU patients with multiple organ failures: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Antifungal Dosing in Critically Ill Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an established advanced life support system, providing temporary cardiac and/or respiratory support in critically ill patients. Fungal infections are associated with increased mortality in patients on ECMO. Antifungal drug dosing for critically ill patients is highly challenging because of altered pharmacokinetics (PK). PK changes during critical illness; in particular, the drug volume of distribution (Vd) and clearance can be exacerbated by ECMO. This article discusses the available literature to inform adequate dosing of antifungals in this patient population. The number of antifungal PK studies in critically ill patients on ECMO is growing; currently available literature consists of case reports and studies with small sample sizes providing inconsistent findings, with scant or no data for some antifungals. Current data are insufficient to provide definitive empirical drug dosing guidance and use of dosing strategies derived from critically patients not on ECMO is reasonable. However, due to high PK variability, therapeutic drug monitoring should be considered where available in critically ill patients receiving ECMO to prevent subtherapeutic or toxic antifungal exposures.

Performance of Repeated Measures of (1-3)-β-D-Glucan, Mannan Antigen, and Antimannan Antibodies for the Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis in ICU Patients: A Preplanned Ancillary Analysis of the EMPIRICUS Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

We aimed to assess the prognostic value of repeated measurements of serum (1–3)-β-D-glucan (BDG), mannan-antigen (mannan-Ag), and antimannan antibodies (antimannan-Ab) for the occurrence of invasive candidiasis (IC) in a high-risk nonimmunocompromised population.

Methods

This was a preplanned ancillary analysis of the EMPIRICUS Randomized Clinical Trial, including nonimmunocompromised critically ill patients with intensive care unit–acquired sepsis, multiple Candida colonization, and multiple organ failure who were exposed to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. BDG (>80 and >250 pg/mL), mannan-Ag (>125 pg/mL), and antimannan-Ab (>10 AU) were collected repeatedly. We used cause-specific hazard models. Biomarkers were assessed at baseline in the whole cohort (cohort 1). Baseline covariates and/or repeated measurements and/or increased biomarkers were then studied in the subgroup of patients who were still alive at day 3 and free of IC (cohort 2).

Results

Two hundred thirty-four patients were included, and 215 were still alive and free of IC at day 3. IC developed in 27 patients (11.5%), and day 28 mortality was 29.1%. Finally, BDG >80 pg/mL at inclusion was associated with an increased risk of IC (CSHR[IC], 4.67; 95% CI, 1.61–13.5) but not death (CSHR[death], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.71–2.02).

Conclusions

Among high-risk patients, a first measurement of BDG >80 pg/mL was strongly associated with the occurrence of IC. Neither a cutoff of 250 pg/mL nor repeated measurements of fungal biomarkers seemed to be useful to predict the occurrence of IC. The cumulative risk of IC in the placebo group if BDG >80 pg/mL was 25.39%, which calls into question the efficacy of empirical therapy in this subgroup.

(1,3)-β-D-glucan-based diagnosis of invasive Candida infection versus culture-based diagnosis in patients with sepsis and with an increased risk of invasive Candida infection (CandiSep): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The time to diagnosis of invasive Candida infection (ICI) is often too long to initiate timely antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis. Elevated serum (1,3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) concentrations have a high diagnostic sensitivity for detecting ICI. However, the clinical significance of elevated BDG concentrations is unclear in critically ill patients. The goal of this study is to investigate whether measurement of BDG in patients with sepsis and a high risk for ICI can be used to decrease the time to empiric antifungal therapy and thus, increase survival.

METHODS/DESIGN

This prospective multicenter open randomized controlled trial is being conducted in 19 German intensive care units. All adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and an increased risk for ICI are eligible for enrolment. Risk factors are total parenteral nutrition, previous abdominal surgery, previous antimicrobial therapy, and renal replacement therapy. Patients with proven ICI or those already treated with systemic antifungal substances are excluded. Patients are allocated to a BDG or standard care group. The standard care group receives targeted antifungal therapy as necessary. In the BDG group, BDG serum samples are taken after randomization and 24 h later. Antifungal therapy is initiated if BDG is ≥80 pg/ml in at least one sample. We plan to enroll 312 patients. The primary outcome is 28-day mortality. Other outcomes include antifungal-free survival within 28 days after enrolment, time to antifungal therapy, and the diagnostic performance of BDG compared to other laboratory tests for early ICI diagnosis. The statistical analysis will be performed according to the intent-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

Because of the high risk of death, American guidelines recommend empiric antifungal therapy in sepsis patients with a high risk of ICI despite the limited evidence for such a recommendation. In contrast, empiric antifungal therapy is not recommended by European guidelines. BDG may offer a way out of this dilemma since BDG potentially identifies patients in need of early antifungals. However, the evidence for such an approach is inconclusive. This clinical study will generate solid evidence for health-care providers and authors of guidelines for the use of BDG in critically ill patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02734550 . Registered 12 April 2016.

Weekly high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in critically ill septic patients with multiple Candida colonization: The AmBiDex study

Background

To demonstrate the feasibility and safety of weekly high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) (as a pre-emptive antifungal treatment) for 2 weeks in patients with septic shock and Candida colonization.

Methods

Pilot, multicentre, open-label, prospective study conducted in seven French ICUs. Non-immunocompromised patients, receiving mechanical ventilation were eligible if they presented ICU-acquired severe sepsis requiring newly administered antibacterial agents and Candida colonization in at least two sites. Exclusion criteria included the need for antifungal therapy and creatinine > 220 μmol/L. All patients were to receive a high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg/week) for two weeks. A follow-up period of 21 days following the second administration of L-AmB was conducted. Treated patients were compared to 69 matched untreated controls admitted in the same ICUs before the study period.

Results

Twenty-one patients were included in the study, of which 20 received at least one infusion of high-dose L-AmB. A total of 24 adverse events were identified in 13(61%) patients. Fourteen adverse events were categorized as serious in 8(38%) patients. In four cases the adverse events were considered as potentially related to study drug administration and resulted in L-AmB discontinuation in one patient. Few patients experienced severe renal toxicity since no patient presented with severe hypokalemia. No patients required renal replacement therapy. Compared to matched controls, no significant increase in serum creatinine levels in patients receiving high-dose L-AmB was reported.

Conclusions

Weekly administration of high-dose L-AmB has a manageable safety profile and is feasible in patients with ICU-acquired sepsis and multiple Candida colonization. Trials of L-AmB versus other antifungal agents used as pre-emptive antifungal therapy are warranted.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00697944

Characteristics, Clinical Relevance, and the Role of Echinocandins in Fungal-Bacterial Interactions

Fungal-bacterial interactions are common in the environment. The interactions between invasive fungi (eg, Candida species and Aspergillus species) and pathogenic bacteria can be particularly significant in the outcome of human infections. Study of these interactions in vivo using murine or invertebrate models, such as Caenorhabditis elegans or Galleria mellonella, has been very helpful in increasing our understanding of the pathogenesis of mixed infections and in identifying ways to use this between-kingdom interplay to our advantage. Based on their effect against fungal biofilms and their immunomodulatory properties, the newer class of antifungal agents, known as echinocandins, has the potential to be useful in polymicrobial infections and in high-risk complex infections such as ventilator-associated pneumonia or sepsis where colonization by fungi can lead to worse outcomes.

Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. Early institution of antifungal therapy is pivotal for mortality reduction. Starting a targeted antifungal therapy after culture positivity and fungi identification requires a long time. Therefore, alternative strategies (globally defined as 'untargeted antifungal treatments') for antifungal therapy institution in patients without proven microbiological evidence of fungal infections have been discussed by international guidelines. This review was originally published in 2006 and updated in 2016. This updated review provides additional evidence for the clinician dealing with suspicion of fungal infection in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients, taking into account recent findings in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) compared to placebo or no antifungal or any other antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) in non-neutropenic, critically ill adults and children. We assessed effectiveness in terms of total (all-cause) mortality and incidence of proven invasive fungal infections as primary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), and EMBASE (OVID). We also searched reference lists of identified studies and major reviews, abstracts of conference proceedings, scientific meetings and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts in the field, study authors and pharmaceutical companies as part of the search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language or publication status) comparing the use of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) to placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent in non-neutropenic critically ill participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion. We synthesized data using the random-effects model and expressed the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies (total of 2761 participants). Of those 22 studies, 12 were included in the original published review and 10 were newly identified. Eleven trials compared the use of fluconazole to placebo or no antifungal treatment. Three trials compared ketoconazole versus placebo. One trial compared anidulafungin with placebo. One trial compared caspofungin to placebo. Two trials compared micafungin to placebo. One trial compared amphotericin B to placebo. Two trials compared nystatin to placebo and one trial compared the effect of clotrimazole, ketoconazole, nystatin and no treatment. We found two new ongoing studies and four new studies awaiting classification. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range, severity of critical illness and clinical characteristics. Funding sources from pharmaceutical companies were reported in 11 trials and one trial reported funding from a government agency. Most of the studies had an overall unclear risk of bias for key domains of this review (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data). Two studies had a high risk of bias for key domains. Regarding the other domains (blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessment, selective reporting, other bias), most of the studies had a low or unclear risk but four studies had a high risk of bias.There was moderate grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly reduce or increase total (all-cause) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, P value = 0.36; participants = 2374; studies = 19). With regard to the outcome of proven invasive fungal infection, there was low grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced the risk (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, P value = 0.0001; participants = 2024; studies = 17). The risk of fungal colonization was significantly reduced (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, P value = 0.03; participants = 1030; studies = 12) but the quality of evidence was low. There was no difference in the risk of developing superficial fungal infection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.29, P value = 0.24; participants = 662; studies = 5; low grade of evidence) or in adverse events requiring cessation of treatment between the untargeted treatment group and the other group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P value = 0.51; participants = 1691; studies = 11; low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for the outcome of total (all-cause) mortality was moderate due to limitations in study design. The quality of evidence for the outcome of invasive fungal infection, superficial fungal infection, fungal colonization and adverse events requiring cessation of therapy was low due to limitations in study design, non-optimal total population size, risk of publication bias, and heterogeneity across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that the use of untargeted antifungal treatment is not associated with a significant reduction in total (all-cause) mortality among critically ill, non-neutropenic adults and children compared to no antifungal treatment or placebo. The untargeted antifungal treatment may be associated with a reduction of invasive fungal infections but the quality of evidence is low, and both the heterogeneity and risk of publication bias is high.Further high-quality RCTs are needed to improve the strength of the evidence, especially for more recent and less studied drugs (e.g. echinocandins). Future trials should adopt standardized definitions for microbiological outcomes (e.g. invasive fungal infection, colonization) to reduce heterogeneity. Emergence of resistance to antifungal drugs should be considered as outcome in studies investigating the effects of untargeted antifungal treatment to balance risks and benefit.

How could we reduce antifungal use in the intensive care unit?

Fungal infection is common in critically ill patients. However, this infection is difficult to diagnose, and a large proportion of patients receive empirical antifungal treatment without further confirmation of invasive fungal disease. Whilst prompt appropriate antifungal treatment is associated with better outcome in patients with confirmed infections, this treatment has several drawbacks. In addition, no clear beneficial effect of empirical antifungal treatment was found in patients without confirmed infection. Reducing antifungal treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is feasible, and would allow avoiding drawbacks of this treatment without negative impact on outcome. Antifungal stewardship, preemptive antifungal treatment, based on colonization index and fungal biomarkers; and de-escalation of antifungal treatment based on microbiology results and fungal biomarkers could be suggested to reduce antifungal use in the ICU, and are currently under investigation.

Failure of empirical systemic antifungal therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

RATIONALE

Systemic antifungal treatments are empirically administered to the sickest critically ill patients, often without documented invasive fungal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the impact of systemic antifungal treatment on 30-day survival of patients suspected to have invasive candidiasis.

METHODS

All nonneutropenic, nontransplant recipients managed in five intensive care units intubated for at least 5 days, and free of invasive candidiasis, were included. To account for differences in patients' characteristics recorded daily before study end point, a causal model for longitudinal data was used to assess benefits from antifungal treatment. The composite primary end point was hospital mortality or occurrence of invasive candidiasis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 1,491 patients, 100 (6.7%) received antifungal treatment for a suspected infection. Patients treated with antifungals were more severely ill than untreated patients. Within the 30-day follow-up period, 363 (24.3%) patients died, and 22 (1.5%) exhibited documented invasive candidiasis. After adjustment on baseline and time-dependent confounders (underlying illness, severity, invasive procedures, Candida colonization), and using a marginal structural model for longitudinal data, treatment was not associated with a decreased risk of mortality or of occurrence of invasive candidiasis (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.96; P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to show outcome benefits for empirical systemic antifungal therapy in the sickest critically ill, nonneutropenic, nontransplanted patients. The post hoc power did not allow us to conclude to an absence of treatment effect especially for specific subgroups. Studies to refine indications for empirical treatment based on surrogate markers of invasive candidiasis are warranted.

Management of invasive candidiasis in nonneutropenic ICU patients

Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among nonneutropenic ICU patients and these life-threatening nosocomial infections require early diagnosis and prompt treatment. However, none of the predictive tools are sufficiently accurate to identify high-risk patients and the potential interest of IC prophylactic, empirical and preemptive treatment in the nonneutropenic ICU population has not yet been demonstrated. In the case of nosocomial severe sepsis after necrotizing pancreatitis or upper digestive anastomotic leakage, early probabilistic antifungals are probably indicated. In the remaining ICU surgical and medical patients, prophylactic and empirical strategies are highly debated because they may promote antifungal selective pressure through an overuse of these molecules. In this context, non-culture-based methods such as mannan or β-D glucan or polymerase chain reaction tests are promising. However, none of these tests used alone in ICU patients is sufficiently accurate to avoid overuse of empirical/preemptive treatment. The interest of strategies associating predictive clinical scores and non-culture-based methods still needs to be demonstrated by well-conducted randomized, controlled trials. While awaiting these studies, we consider that probabilist treatment should be stopped earlier if IC is not proven.

Empiric/pre-emptive anti-Candida therapy in non-neutropenic ICU patients

The potential of the systemic antifungal treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with sepsis, extra-digestive Candida colonization and multiple organ failure is unknown, although it represents three out of four antifungal treatments prescribed in intensive care units. It may allow an early treatment of invasive fungal infection at incubation phase, but exposes patients to unnecessary antifungal treatments with subsequent costs and antifungal selection pressure. As early diagnostic tests for invasive candidiasis are still considered insufficient, the potential of this strategy needs to be demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial. Such a trial is currently ongoing.

Candida colonization index and subsequent infection in critically ill surgical patients: 20 years later

Introduction

For decades, clinicians dealing with immunocompromised and critically ill patients have perceived a link between Candida colonization and subsequent infection. However, the pathophysiological progression from colonization to infection was clearly established only through the formal description of the colonization index (CI) in critically ill patients. Unfortunately, the literature reflects intense confusion about the pathophysiology of invasive candidiasis and specific associated risk factors.

Methods

We review the contribution of the CI in the field of Candida infection and its development in the 20 years following its original description in 1994. The development of the CI enabled an improved understanding of the pathogenesis of invasive candidiasis and the use of targeted empirical antifungal therapy in subgroups of patients at increased risk for infection.

Results

The recognition of specific characteristics among underlying conditions, such as neutropenia, solid organ transplantation, and surgical and nonsurgical critical illness, has enabled the description of distinct epidemiological patterns in the development of invasive candidiasis.

Conclusions

Despite its limited bedside practicality and before confirmation of potentially more accurate predictors, such as specific biomarkers, the CI remains an important way to characterize the dynamics of colonization, which increases early in patients who develop invasive candidiasis.