4.6 Article

The Utility of (1→3)-β-D-Glucan Testing in the Diagnosis of Coccidioidomycosis in Hospitalized Immunocompromised Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8080768

关键词

coccidioidomycosis; (1 -> 3)-beta-D-glucan; fungal diagnostics; immunocompromised

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern United States, poses a significant threat to immunocompromised individuals. A retrospective study found that serology and (1 -> 3)-beta-D-glucan (BDG) tests have utility in diagnosing coccidioidomycosis, but there is a need for more effective diagnostic techniques.
Coccidioidomycosis is a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern United States which is associated with high morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised hosts. Serology is the main diagnostic tool, although less sensitive among immunocompromised hosts. (1 -> 3)-beta-D-glucan (BDG) is a non-specific fungal diagnostic test that may identify suspected coccidioidomycosis and other invasive fungal infections. We retrospectively investigated the utility of BDG between 2017 and 2021 in immunocompromised hosts with positive Coccidioides spp. cultures at our institutions. During the study period, there were 368 patients with positive cultures for Coccidioides spp.; among those, 28 patients were immunocompromised hosts, had both Coccidioides serology and BDG results available, and met other inclusion and exclusion criteria. Half of the patients had positive Coccidioides serology, and 57% had a positive BDG >= 80 pg/mL. Twenty-three (82%) had at least one positive test during their hospitalization. Among immunocompromised hosts with suspicion for coccidioidomycosis, the combination of Coccidioides serology and BDG can be useful in the initial work up and the timely administration of appropriate antifungal therapy. However, both tests failed to diagnose many cases, underscoring the need for better diagnostic techniques for identifying coccidioidomycosis in this population.

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