4.4 Article

Prevention and monitoring of invasive fungal infections in pediatric patients with cancer and hematologic disorders

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 28-34

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.20717

关键词

Aspergillus infection; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; galactomannan; hemato-oncology children; invasive fungal infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The occurrence of invasive fungal infection (IFIs) in a pediatric hematology/oncology unit after renovation of the ventilation system, and initiating routine azole antifungal prophylaxis was monitored. In addition, the value of serial screening for Aspergillus galactomannan (GM) for diagnosing invasive aspergillosis was assessed. Procedure. A total of 98 consecutive high-risk pediatric patients were prospectively surveyed for signs of IFI and weekly monitored for serum GM. The data was not made available to treating physicians. Results. Only 2 patients had proven and 27 possible IFI based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group definitions. The incidence of proven IFI was 1/31 (3.2%) in the allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) (Aspergillus spp), 0/26 in the autologous SCT, and 1/60 (1.6%) in the induction therapy group (C. krusei). GM was detected at least in one tested sample in 12/98 patients (12.2%), in five patients in two or more sequential samples. In the latter group, IFI was proven in one patient and could not be excluded in the others. Four of the five patients belonged to the 31 allogeneic and one to the 26 autologous SCT patients. In patients with only one positive GM test none developed signs of IFI and only one received empirical amphotericin B. Conclusions. With the currently used preventative and prophylactic measures, IFI is uncommon in children with high-risk for infection. Regular screening for GM could be useful among allogeneic SCT patients and two positive samples should prompt further investigative procedures and preemptive antifungal therapy.

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

4.4
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