4.1 Review

Epidemiological and mycological characteristics of candidemia in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL DE MYCOLOGIE MEDICALE
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 146-152

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2017.02.007

Keywords

Epidemiology; Candidemia; Candida species; Risk factors; Meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Mazandaran University, Faculty of Medicine, Sari, Iran [2249]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To date, there has been no comprehensive review of the epidemiology, risk factors, species distribution, and outcomes of candidemia in Iran. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all reported candidemia cases in Iran until December 2015. The review process occurred in three steps, namely a literature search, data extraction and statistical analyses. After a comprehensive literature search, we identified 55 cases. The mean age of patients was 46.80 24.30 years (range 1-81 years). The main risk factors for candidemia were surgery and burns (23.6%), followed by malignancies (20%), use of broadspectrum antibiotics (18.2%), and diabetes (7.3%). Candida parapsilosis (n = 17, 30.8%) was the leading agent, followed by Candida albicans (n = 15, 27.3%), Candida glabrata (n = 10, 18.2%), and Candida tropicalis (n = 8, 14.5%). The frequencies of candidemia cases due to C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and C. albicans were significantly higher among patients aged > 60, 21-40, and 41-60 years, respectively. Comparison of risk factors for candidemia by multiple logistic regression showed that one of the most important risk factors was surgery (OR: 4.245; 95% CI: 1.141-15.789; P = 0.031). The outcome was recorded in only 19 cases and 13 of those patients (68.4%) expired. This study confirms that knowledge of the local epidemiology is important when conducting surveillance studies to prevent and control candidemia and will be of interest for antifungal stewardship. (C) 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available