4.7 Review

Candidaemia in the non-neutropenic patient: A critique of the guidelines

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.06.005

关键词

Candidaemia; Central vascular catheter; Dose-dependent susceptibility; Echocardiography; Guidelines; Step-down therapy

资金

  1. Astellas
  2. Merck
  3. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several guidelines have been published on the management of candidaemia. These guidelines vary in their recommendations, and the lack of consistency between the guidelines has implications for the management of candidaemia. We critiqued five guidelines, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Guidelines for the Management of Candidiasis, the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Invasive Candidiasis in Adults, the Joint Recommendations of the German Speaking Mycological Society and the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Candida Diseases, and the Brazilian Guidelines for the Management of Candidiasis. The recommendations in these guidelines vary in all major areas of management, including choice of initial therapy, species-specific therapy (Candida glabrata and Candida parapsilosis), transition to oral therapy (3 days as per IDSA but 10 days as per ESCMID), catheter removal and specialty referrals. We found that too much emphasis has been placed on themes such as predicting the infecting species (and therefore fluconazole susceptibility) or the need for investigations such as echocardiography. We also stress that guidelines fail to provide adequate information (due to lack of evidence) on the most relevant issues that clinicians face when managing candidaemia, such as the place for fluconazole in the treatment of C. glabrata, the clinical relevance of dose-dependent susceptibility to fluconazole, and the timing of step-down therapy. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据