2117. Fluconazole vs. Echinocandins as Initial Therapy for Candidemia Caused by Fluconazole-Susceptible Species in the Era of Rapid Diagnostic Testing

Abstract

BackgroundEchinocandins (ECH) are recommended first-line for initial therapy (IT) of candidemia (CD) over fluconazole (FLU) due to their broad spectrum of activity. This recommendation was made prior to widespread implementation of rapid diagnostic testing (RDT), allowing prompt species identification and targeted therapy. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with CD caused by FLU-susceptible species who received either FLU or ECH as IT.MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adults with CD caused by C. albicans, C. tropicalis, or C. parapsilosis. Patients who received FLU or ECH as IT for at least 48 hours from May 2012 to October 2018 were included. Patients who died within 48 hours of first positive blood culture were excluded. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical failure (persistent CD for >72 hours, recurrent infection within 30 days, change in therapy, and all-cause mortality within 30 days). Secondary endpoints included 90-day all-cause mortality and time to culture clearance. A subgroup analysis in critically ill patients was conducted.ResultsOf the 371 patients evaluated, 128 met criteria for inclusion, 57 received FLU and 71 received ECH. Patients in the ECH group had a higher incidence of sepsis at the time of first positive blood culture (45.1% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.002). A line-associated source was more common in the ECH group (56.3%) vs. urinary source in the FLU group (21.1%). C. albicans was most common in both groups (63%). Clinical failure was similar in the FLU and ECH groups (38.6% vs. 35.2%, P = 0.69). 90-day mortality and time to culture clearance (1.6 vs. 1.5 days, P = 0.63) did not yield significant differences. In the subgroup analysis of critically ill patients, there was a trend suggesting higher rate of failure in patients who received FLU vs. an ECH (60.9% vs. 47.7%, P = 0.31), though underpowered to detect such a difference. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in patients who received FLU (12 vs. 18 days, P = 0.018).ConclusionFLU as IT for FLU-susceptible CD may be a reasonable option in non-critically ill patients in the setting of RDT. This may lead to shorter LOS given the availability of an oral formulation. Additional prospective studies are needed to validate these conclusions.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.