4.5 Article

Secular trend in candidemia and the use of fluconazole in Finland, 2004-2007

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-312

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In a previous study we observed an increasing trend in candidemia in Finland in the 1990s. Our aim was now to investigate further population-based secular trends, as well as outcome, and evaluate the association of fluconazole consumption and prophylaxis policy with the observed findings. Methods: We analyzed laboratory-based surveillance data on candidemia from the National Infectious Diseases Register during 2004-2007 in Finland. Data on fluconazole consumption, expressed as defined daily doses, DDDs, was obtained from the National Agency for Medicines, and regional prophylaxis policies were assessed by a telephone survey. Results: A total of 603 candidemia cases were identified. The average annual incidence rate was 2.86 cases per 100,000 population (range by year, 2.59-3.09; range by region, 2.37-3.85). The highest incidence was detected in males aged >65 years (12.23 per 100,000 population). Candida albicans accounted for 67% of cases, and C. glabrata ranked the second (19%), both without any significant change in proportions. C. parapsilosis accounted for 5% of cases and C. krusei 3% of cases. The one-month case-fatality varied between 28-32% during the study period. Fluconazole consumption increased from 19.57 DDDs per 100,000 population in 2000 to 25.09 in 2007. Systematic fluconazole prophylaxis was implemented for premature neonates, patients with acute leukemias and liver transplant patients. Conclusion: The dominant proportion of C. albicans remained stable, but C. glabrata was the most frequent non-albicans species. The proportion of C. glabrata had increased from our previous study period in the presence of increasing use of fluconazole. The rate of candidemia in Finland is still low but mortality high like in other countries.

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

4.5
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