4.7 Article

National Surveillance of Fungemia in Denmark (2004 to 2009)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 325-334

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01811-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gilead

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 6-year nationwide study of fungemia in Denmark was performed using data from an active fungemia surveillance program and from laboratory information systems in nonparticipating regions. A total of 2,820 episodes of fungemia were recorded. The incidence increased from 2004 to 2007 (7.7 to 9.6/100,000) and decreased slightly from 2008 to 2009 (8.7 to 8.6/100,000). The highest incidences were seen at the extremes of age (i.e., 11.3 and 37.1/100,000 for those <1 and 70 to 79 years old, respectively). The rate was higher for males than for females (10.1 versus 7.6/100,000, P = 0.003), with the largest difference observed for patients >50 years of age. The species distribution varied significantly by both age and gender. Candida species accounted for 98% of the pathogens, and C. albicans was predominant, although the proportion decreased (64.4% to 53.2%, P < 0.0001). C. glabrata ranked second, and the proportion increased (16.5% to 25.9%, P = 0.003). C. glabrata was more common in adults and females than in children and males, whereas C. tropicalis was more common in males (P = 0.020). C. krusei was a rare isolate (4.1%) except at one university hospital. Acquired resistance to amphotericin and echinocandins was rare. However, resistance to fluconazole (MIC of >4 mu g/ml) occurred in C. albicans (7/1,183 [0.6%]), C. dubliniensis (2/65 [3.1%]), C. parapsilosis (5/83 [6.0%]), and C. tropicalis (7/104 [6.7%]). Overall, 70.8% of fungemia isolates were fully fluconazole susceptible, but the proportion decreased (79.7% to 68.9%, P = 0.02). The study confirmed an incidence rate of fungemia in Denmark three times higher than those in other Nordic countries and identified marked differences related to age and gender. Decreased susceptibility to fluconazole was frequent and increasing.

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