1
|
Dettori M, Riccardi N, Canetti D, Antonello RM, Piana AF, Palmieri A, Castiglia P, Azara AA, Masia MD, Porcu A, Ginesu GC, Cossu ML, Conti M, Pirina P, Fois A, Maida I, Madeddu G, Babudieri S, Saderi L, Sotgiu G. Infections in lung transplanted patients: A review. Pulmonology 2024; 30:287-304. [PMID: 35710714 DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 04/25/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Lung transplantation can improve the survival of patients with severe chronic pulmonary disorders. However, the short- and long-term risk of infections can increase morbidity and mortality rates. A non-systematic review was performed to provide the most updated information on pathogen, host, and environment-related factors associated with the occurrence of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections as well as the most appropriate therapeutic options. Bacterial infections account for about 50% of all infectious diseases in lung transplanted patients, while viruses represent the second cause of infection accounting for one third of all infections. Almost 10% of patients develop invasive fungal infections during the first year after lung transplant. Pre-transplantation comorbidities, disruption of physical barriers during the surgery, and exposure to nosocomial pathogens during the hospital stay are directly associated with the occurrence of life-threatening infections. Empiric antimicrobial treatment after the assessment of individual risk factors, local epidemiology of drug-resistant pathogens and possible drug-drug interactions can improve the clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Dettori
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - N Riccardi
- StopTB Italia Onlus, Milan, Italy; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - D Canetti
- StopTB Italia Onlus, Milan, Italy; Department of Infectious Diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - R M Antonello
- Clinical Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, Trieste University, Trieste, Italy
| | - A F Piana
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - A Palmieri
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - P Castiglia
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - A A Azara
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - M D Masia
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - A Porcu
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - G C Ginesu
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - M L Cossu
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - M Conti
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - P Pirina
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - A Fois
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - I Maida
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - G Madeddu
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - S Babudieri
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - L Saderi
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - G Sotgiu
- Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; StopTB Italia Onlus, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kim JH, Suh JW, Kim MJ. Evaluation of Fluconazole versus Echinocandins for Treatment of Candidemia Caused by Susceptible Common Candida Species: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. J Fungi (Basel) 2023; 9:jof9050539. [PMID: 37233250 DOI: 10.3390/jof9050539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of fluconazole and echinocandins in the treatment of candidemia caused by both fluconazole- and echinocandin-susceptible common Candida species. A retrospective study which enrolled adult candidemia patients ≥19 years diagnosed at a tertiary care hospital in the Republic of Korea from 2013 to 2018 was conducted. Common Candida species were defined as C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. parapsilosis. Cases of candidemia were excluded based on the following exclusion criteria: (1) candidemia showed resistance to either fluconazole or echinocandins, or (2) candidemia was caused by other Candida species than common Candida species. In order to compare the mortality rates between patients who receive fluconazole or echinocandins, the propensity scores on variables of baseline characteristics using the multivariate logistic regression analysis were employed to balance the antifungal treatment groups, and a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Fluconazole and echinocandins were used in 40 patients and in 87 patients, respectively. The propensity score matching included 40 patients in each treatment group. After matching, the rates of 60-day mortality after candidemia were 30% in the fluconazole group and 42.5% in the echinocandins group, and a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no significant difference between antifungal treatment groups, p = 0.187. A multivariable analysis demonstrated that septic shock was significantly associated with the 60-day mortality, whereas fluconazole antifungal treatment was not associated with an excess 60-day mortality. In conclusion, our study results suggest that fluconazole use in the treatment of candidemia caused by susceptible common Candida species may be not associated with increased 60-day mortality compared to echinocandins.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Hun Kim
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Woong Suh
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
| | - Min Ja Kim
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bienvenu AL, Pradat P, Guerin C, Aubrun F, Fellahi JL, Friggeri A, Guichon C, Hernu R, Menotti J, Monard C, Paulus S, Rimmele T, Piriou V, Chidiac C, Argaud L, Leboucher G. Evaluation of first-line therapies for the treatment of candidemia in ICU patients: A propensity score analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 93:15-21. [PMID: 31982622 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2019] [Revised: 01/07/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Candidemia is a major cause of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), an echinocandin is recommended as initial therapy and fluconazole as an alternative. In a context of echinocandin resistance development, the question arising is whether azoles are a suitable alternative to echinocandins for the treatment of candidemia in critically ill patients. METHODS A 3-year (2015-2017) retrospective multicentric cohort study was conducted. Adult patients with a diagnosis of candidemia during the ICU stay and treated with echinocandins or azoles were included. Demographic, clinical data, mycological data, and antifungal treatments were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, univariate analysis, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis using a propensity score with the inverse probability of treatment weighting method were performed. FINDINGS Seventy-nine patients (n = 79) were analyzed. Treatment success, as well as survival on day 90 (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log rank test, p = 0.542), were comparable between patients who received echinocandins (caspofungin (n = 47)) or azoles (fluconazole (n = 29) or voriconazole (n = 3)). A multivariable analysis demonstrated that higher SOFA score on the day of candidemia diagnosis and absence of adequate Candida source control were independently associated with a greater risk of 90-day mortality, whereas azoles treatment was not associated with an excess 90-day mortality. INTERPRETATION This study confirms that the use of azoles recommended for candidemia, mostly fluconazole, as a first-line therapy is a reasonable alternative to caspofungin for ICU patients in our institution. This needs to be included in local guidelines through antifungal stewardship programs.
Collapse
|