4.6 Article

International Multicentre Study of Candida auris Infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof7100878

关键词

Candida; C. auris; fungi; outbreak; nosocomial; resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified significant risk factors for C. auris infection, such as age, history of ICU admission, and diabetes. Source removal and antifungal therapy were associated with a reduction in mortality, highlighting the importance of targeted antifungal therapy and infection control practices in managing C. auris infections.
Background:Candida auris has emerged globally as a multi-drug resistant yeast and is commonly associated with nosocomial outbreaks in ICUs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational multicentre study to determine the epidemiology of C. auris infections, its management strategies, patient outcomes, and infection prevention and control practices across 10 centres from five countries. Results: Significant risk factors for C. auris infection include the age group of 61-70 years (39%), recent history of ICU admission (63%), diabetes (63%), renal failure (52%), presence of CVC (91%) and previous history of antibiotic treatment (96%). C. auris was commonly isolated from blood (76%). Echinocandins were the most sensitive drugs. Most common antifungals used for treatment were caspofungin (40%), anidulafungin (28%) and micafungin (15%). The median duration of treatment was 20 days. Source removal was conductedin 74% patients. All-cause crude mortality rate after 30 days was 37%. Antifungal therapy was associated with a reduction in mortality (OR:0.27) and so was source removal (OR:0.74). Contact isolation precautions were followed in 87% patients. Conclusions: C. auris infection carries a high risk for associated mortality. The organism is mainly resistant to most azoles and even amphotericin-B. Targeted antifungal therapy, mainly an echinocandin, and source control are the prominent therapeutic approaches.

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

4.6
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