Prevention of Mycosis in Granulocytopenic Patients with Prophylactic Ketoconazole Treatment/Prophylaktische Mykose-Behandlung mit Ketoconazol bei granulozytopenischen Patienten

Comparison of Antifungal Prophylaxis Drugs in Patients With Hematological Disease or Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Several antifungal drugs are available for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal agents using an integrated comparison.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched to collect all relevant evidence published in randomized clinical trials that assessed antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease. Sources were search from inception up to October 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared any antifungal agent with a placebo, no antifungal agent, or another antifungal agent among patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT were included. Of 39 709 studies identified, 69 met the criteria for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The outcome from each study was estimated using the relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. The reliability and validity of the networks were estimated by addressing inconsistencies in the evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guideline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and mortality. The secondary outcomes were fungal infections, proven IFIs, invasive candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, fungi-related death, and withdrawal owing to adverse effects of the drug.

RESULTS

We identified 69 randomized clinical trials that reported comparisons of 12 treatments with at total of 14 789 patients. Posaconazole was the treatment associated with the best probability of success against IFIs (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 86.7%; mean rank, 2.5). Posaconazole treatment was associated with a significant reduction in IFIs (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) and invasive aspergillosis (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85) compared with placebo. Voriconazole was associated with a significant reduction in invasive candidiasis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.26) compared with placebo. However, posaconazole was associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal because of the adverse effects of the drug (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 17.5%; mean rank, 9.2). In subgroup analyses considering efficacy and tolerance, voriconazole might be the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT, especially allogenic HSCT; however, posaconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that voriconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Antifungal agents in preventing oral candidiasis in clinical oncology: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review examined the comparative efficacy and safety of antifungal agents in preventing oral candidiasis among patients on cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).

CONCLUSION

Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.

Routine versus selective antifungal administration for control of fungal infections in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or empirically to patients with persistent fever.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether commonly used antifungal drugs decrease mortality in cancer patients with neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials of amphotericin B, fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, itraconazole or voriconazole compared with placebo or no treatment in cancer patients with neutropenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials involving 4287 patients were included. Prophylactic or empirical treatment with amphotericin B significantly decreased total mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.96), whereas the estimated RRs for fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, and itraconazole were close to 1.00. No eligible trials were found with voriconazole. Amphotericin B and fluconazole decreased mortality ascribed to fungal infection (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.76 and RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73, respectively). The incidence of invasive fungal infection decreased significantly with administration of amphotericin B (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73), fluconazole (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.57) and itraconazole (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97), but not with ketoconazole or miconazole. Effect estimates were similar for those 13 trials that had adequate allocation concealment and were blinded. The reporting of harms was far too variable from trial to trial to allow a meaningful overview. For the 2011 and 2014 updates no additional trials were identified for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous amphotericin B was the only antifungal agent that reduced total mortality. It should therefore be preferred when prophylactic or empirical antifungal therapy is introduced in cancer patients with neutropenia.

Oral and gastrointestinal candidosis: prophylaxis during immunosuppressive therapy

Patients with acute leukaemia and malignant lymphomas often are severely affected by fungal infections. There is in particular growing concern about disseminated candidosis. Oral, gastrointestinal and systemic candidosis seem to be closely linked. Predisposing factors are damaged mucosal barriers due to chemotherapy, protracted periods of neutropenia, and prolonged use of antibiotics and steroids. Oropharyngeal candidosis is very frequent. This can be prevented or controlled by the application of topical antifungals such as nystatin. The systemic application of antifungals is an alternative for patients who do not respond. Both oral ketoconazole and intravenous amphotericin B have been proven effective. Candida oesophagitis is also an important problem. Oral nystatin suspension can be helpful in mild cases. In others oral ketoconazole and intravenous amphotericin B have to be used. A whole range of measures has to be taken to prevent spread of the disease, i.e. H2-antagonists should be used only if definitely needed. Specific antifungal prophylaxis has also been discussed. Oral amphotericin B seems to be helpful. The azole itraconazole might be especially promising.

Antifungal Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients After Chemotherapy or Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality as primary outcome, invasive fungal infections (IFIs), and adverse events. Many studies have evaluated the role of antifungal prophylaxis in cancer patients, with inconsistent conclusions.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing systemic antifungals with placebo, no intervention, or other antifungal agents for prophylaxis in cancer patients after chemotherapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings, and references were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data.

Results

Sixty-four trials met inclusion criteria. Antifungal prophylaxis decreased all-cause mortality significantly at end of follow-up compared with placebo, no treatment, or nonsystemic antifungals (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95). In allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients, prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85), fungal-related mortality, and documented IFI. In acute leukemia patients, there was a significant reduction in fungal-related mortality and documented IFI, whereas the difference in mortality was only borderline significant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.06). Prophylaxis with itraconazole suspension reduced documented IFI when compared with fluconazole, with no difference in survival, and at the cost of more adverse events. On the basis of two studies, posaconazole prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98), fungal-related mortality, and IFI when compared with fluconazole.

Conclusion

Antifungal prophylaxis decreases all-cause mortality significantly in patients after chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis should be administered to patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, and should probably be administered to high-risk acute leukemia patients.

Use of prophylactic antifungals in the immunocompromised host

Oral candidiasis is a significant infection in patients being treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer, and in patients who are immunocompromised because of HIV infection and AIDS. Candida albicans is the most common fungal pathogen and has developed an extensive array of putative virulent mechanisms that allows successful colonization and infection of the host under suitable predisposing conditions. The purpose of this review of the literature was to assess the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of oral candidiasis in immunocompromised patients and in patients treated for cancer with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. These patient categories were selected because they have been the topic of published randomized controlled clinical trials. The studies reviewed provide strong evidence that oral candidiasis is associated with greater morbidity and mortality in these populations, which substantiates the aggressive treatment and prophylaxis of this infection. The literature supports the recommendation that systemically applied antifungal drugs have the greatest efficacy for the treatment of oral candidiasis in cancer and immunocompromised patients; however, these therapies must be prescribed with a thorough assessment for the risk for developing drug-induced toxicities. Guidelines on the prevention of drug-resistant oral candidiasis in these patients are not available and require elucidation. Further studies are required to expand the knowledge base of evidence-based antifungal therapies in a wider variety of immunocompromised patients and conditions, such as Sjögren's syndrome, diabetes, and denture wearers. Additional exploration is needed to determine which antifungal drug formulation, dose, and method of delivery is preferable for the type of fungal infection and the underlying etiology.

Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent and treat them. One of these side effects is oral candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions (which may include placebo or no treatment) for the prevention of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PAPAS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral candidiasis; primary outcome - prevention of oral candidiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were recorded on the following secondary outcomes if present: relief of pain, amount of analgesia, relief of dysphagia, incidence of systemic infection, duration of stay in hospital (days), cost of oral care, patient quality of life, death, use of empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity and compliance. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 4226 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Drugs absorbed and partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were found to prevent oral candidiasis when compared to a placebo, or a no treatment control group, with RR for absorbed drugs = 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.78). For absorbed drugs in populations with an incidence of 20% (mid range of results in control groups), this implies a NNT of 9 (95% CI 7 to 13) patients need to be treated to avoid one patient getting oral candidiasis. There was no significant benefit shown for drugs not absorbed from the GI tract.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence, from randomised controlled trials, that drugs absorbed or partially absorbed from the GI tract prevent oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. There is also evidence that these drugs are significantly better at preventing oral candidiasis than drugs not absorbed from the GI.

Fungal infection-related mortality versus total mortality as an outcome in trials of antifungal agents

BACKGROUND

Disease specific mortality is often used as outcome rather than total mortality in clinical trials. This approach assumes that the classification of cause of death is unbiased. We explored whether use of fungal infection-related mortality as outcome rather than total mortality leads to bias in trials of antifungal agents in cancer patients.

METHODS

As an estimate of bias we used relative risk of death in those patients the authors considered had not died from fungal infection. Our sample consisted of 69 trials included in four systematic reviews of prophylactic or empirical antifungal treatment in patients with cancer and neutropenia we have published previously.

RESULTS

Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. The trials comprised 6130 patients and 869 deaths, 220 (25%) of which were ascribed to fungal infection. The relative risk of death was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96) for total mortality, 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.74) for fungal mortality, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.82-1.09) for mortality among those who did not die from fungal infection.

CONCLUSION

We could not support the hypothesis that use of disease specific mortality introduces bias in antifungal trials on cancer patients as our estimate of the relative risk for mortality in those who survived the fungal infection was not increased. We conclude that it seems to be reliable to use fungal mortality as the primary outcome in trials of antifungal agents. Data on total mortality should be reported as well, however, to guard against the possible introduction of harmful treatments.

Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent and treat them. One of these side effects is oral candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions (which may include placebo or no treatment) for the prevention of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Pre-indexed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were searched. Date of the most recent searches April 2004 (CENTRAL Issue 2, 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral candidiasis; primary outcome - prevention of oral candidiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were recorded on the following secondary outcomes if present: relief of pain, amount of analgesia, relief of dysphagia, incidence of systemic infection, duration of stay in hospital (days), cost of oral care, patient quality of life, death, use of empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity and compliance. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW & JC). The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using random effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 4226 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Drugs absorbed and partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were found to prevent oral candidiasis when compared to a placebo, or a no treatment control group, with RR for absorbed drugs = 0.47 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.78). For absorbed drugs in populations with an incidence of 20% (mid range of results in control groups), this implies a NNT of 9 (95% CI 7 to 13) patients need to be treated to avoid one patient getting oral candidiasis. There was no significant benefit shown for drugs not absorbed from the GI tract.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence, from randomised controlled trials, that drugs absorbed or partially absorbed from the GI tract prevent oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. There is also evidence that these drugs are significantly better at preventing oral candidiasis than drugs not absorbed from the GI.

Antifungal prophylaxis for severely neutropenic chemotherapy recipients: a meta analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The overall clinical efficacy of the azoles antifungal agents and low-dose intravenous amphotericin B for antifungal chemoprophylaxis in patients with malignant disease who have severe neutropenia remains unclear.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trials of azoles (fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and miconazole) or intravenous amphotericin B formulations compared with placebo/no treatment or polyene-based controls in severely neutropenic chemotherapy recipients were evaluated using meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials that included 7014 patients (study agents, 3515 patients; control patients, 3499 patients) were analyzed. Overall, there were reductions in the use of parenteral antifungal therapy (prophylaxis success: odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.48-0.68; relative risk reduction [RRR], 19%; number requiring treatment for this outcome [NNT], 10 patients), superficial fungal infection (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.43; RRR, 61%; NNT, 12 patients), invasive fungal infection (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; RRR, 56%; NNT, 22 patients), and fungal infection-related mortality (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82; RRR, 47%; NNT, 52 patients). Invasive aspergillosis was unaffected (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62-1.44). Although overall mortality was not reduced (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.03), subgroup analyses showed reduced mortality in studies of patients who had prolonged neutropenia (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) or who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99). The multivariate metaregression analyses identified HSCT, prolonged neutropenia, acute leukemia with prolonged neutropenia, and higher azole dose as predictors of treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Antifungal prophylaxis reduced morbidity, as evidenced by reductions in the use of parenteral antifungal therapy, superficial fungal infection, and invasive fungal infection, as well as reducing fungal infection-related mortality. These effects were most pronounced in patients with malignant disease who had prolonged neutropenia and HSCT recipients.

Routine versus selective antifungal administration for control of fungal infections in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or to patients with persistent fever.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effect of antifungal drugs in cancer patients with neutropenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE (November 2001) and the reference lists of articles. We searched the proceedings of the ICAAC (from 1990 to 2001, General Meeting of the ASM (from 1990 to 2001), and the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (1995 to 2001) and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of amphotericin B, fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, or itraconazole compared with placebo or no treatment in cancer patients with neutropenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty trials involving 4094 patients were included. Prophylactic or empirical treatment with antifungals as a group had no statistically significant effect on mortality (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.11). The relative risk was smallest for amphotericin B, 0.73 (0.52 to 1.03) (P=0.08). In another review, three trials compared intravenous lipid soluble amphotericin B (AmBisome) with smaller doses of standard intravenous amphotericin B; the relative risk was 0.74 (0.52 to 1.07). Taken together, these results indicate that intravenous amphotericin B might decrease mortality. In contrast, trials with fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole and itraconazole failed to find an effect on mortality. The incidence of invasive fungal infection decreased significantly with administration of amphotericin B (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76), fluconazole (0.39, 0.27 to 0.57) and itraconazole (0.51, 0.27 to 0.96), but not with miconazole or ketoconazole.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous amphotericin B is the only antifungal agent for which there is evidence suggesting that it might reduce mortality. It should therefore be preferred when prophylactic or empirical antifungal therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia is considered indicated.

Value of antifungal prophylaxis with antifungal drugs against oropharyngeal candidiasis in cancer patients

This report focuses on the value of antifungal prophylaxis with antifungal drugs in preventing oropharyngeal candidiasis. Randomised trials comparing non-AIDS immunocompromised patients receiving or not an oral antifungal agent were reviewed. Colonisation of the throat with Candida albicans is a risk factor, principally when cultures for this species of yeasts remain positive after initiation of the prophylaxis. The results of the trials were meta-analysed and we obtained a combined odds ratio for developing oropharyngeal candidiasis of 0.15 when under antifungal prophylaxis (confidence interval at 95%:0.10-0.22, chi 2 statistic of 90.77, P < 0.0001). We conclude that there is a strong beneficial effect of antifungal prophylaxis against the occurrence of oropharyngeal candidiasis. However, up to now, no study has correctly assessed the value of nystatin as a prophylactic agent against oropharyngeal candidiasis.

Sensibilidade de leveduras do gênero Candida, isoladas de pacientes com câncer, a antifúngicos poliênicos

Por meio da determinação da CIM (Concentração Inibitória Mínima) e da CFM (Concentração Fungicida Mínima), os autores compararam a sensibilidade de amostras de Candida isoladas de pacientes com câncer, com as de cepas isoladas de pacientes sem câncer, frente à anfotericina B e a nistatina. Os autores não verificaram diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos estudados e discutem o fenômeno da resistência de Candida a antifungicos poliênicos

The pathogenesis and clinical significance of cytologically detectable oral Candida in acute leukemia

Using serial examination and oral cytology, 50 adult patients undergoing induction therapy for acute leukemia were studied for oral colonization with candida species. Ninety percent of patients were found to be colonized with Candida, with most of these colonizations present by day 14. The 30 patients exhibiting colonization with pseudohyphae received ketoconazole 400 mg daily by mouth. Of 20 patients in this group treated for 5 or more days, Candida organisms were eradicated in nine. Sixteen patients from the above group with persistent colonization on ketoconazole were treated by independent clinical decision for sustained fever and neutropenia with Amphotericin B, but only one responded by elimination of colonization. Seven of the 15 patients who did not initially receive ketoconazole developed Candida dissemination in contrast to two of 30 who received ketoconazole initially (P = 0.003, Fisher's exact test). No patient who initially had or acquired a negative cytology developed oral or disseminated candidiasis. Clinical oral candidiasis occurred in three patients, all of whom were receiving amphotericin B. Approximately 90% of these patients have or develop oral colonization with Candida organisms as identified by oral cytology. Those with colonization, both with and without pseudohyphae present, are at risk for dissemination. Amphotericin B does not eliminate colonization remaining after treatment with 400 mg of ketoconazole daily. More effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are needed to identify and eliminate Candida organisms and to prevent disseminated candidiasis in this population of patients.

Problems in antifungal chemotherapy

The field of antifungal chemotherapy is undergoing rapid change at present, with an accelerating pace of introduction of new agents. The problems at present include the need for more effective agents, particularly with novel modes of action. Fungal infection must be considered more frequently in differential diagnosis, and methods developed for early diagnosis. The literature must be improved, with more precise terms. Trials comparing agents are needed, as are studies directed at determining the appropriate length of therapy. In vitro susceptibility testing must be standardized, and clinical correlations examined. Particular problem areas in current therapy are deep candida infections, zygomycotic infections, fungal endocarditis and meningitis, cryptococcosis in AIDS patients, and ocular infections with Fusarium species. Immunomodulating or "pro-host" drugs present an as yet unexplored avenue for clinical therapy. Regimes to prevent fungal infection need improvement. Until the needed advances occur, we must be resourceful in minimizing the toxicity of the agents presently available.