Critical appraisal beyond clinical guidelines for intraabdominal candidiasis

Abstract

BackgroundRegardless of the available antifungals, intraabdominal candidiasis (IAC) mortality continues to be high and represents a challenge for clinicians.Main bodyThis opinion paper discusses alternative antifungal options for treating IAC. This clinical entity should be addressed separately from candidemia due to the peculiarity of the required penetration of antifungals into the peritoneal cavity. Intraabdominal concentrations may be further restricted in critically ill patients where pathophysiological facts alter normal drug distribution. Echinocandins are recommended as first-line treatment in guidelines for invasive candidiasis. However, considering published data, our pharmacodynamic analysis suggests the required increase of doses, postulated by some authors, to attain adequate pharmacokinetic (PK) levels in peritoneal fluid. Given the limited evidence in the literature on PK/PD-based treatments of IAC, an algorithm is proposed to guide antifungal treatment. Liposomal amphotericin B is advocated as first-line therapy in patients with sepsis/septic shock presenting candidemia or endophthalmitis, or with prior exposure to echinocandins and/or fluconazole, or with infections by Candida glabrata. Other situations and alternatives, such as new compounds or combination therapy, are also analysed.ConclusionThere is a critical need for more robust clinical trials, studies examining patient heterogeneity and surveillance of antifungal resistance to enhance patient care and optimise treatment outcomes. Such evidence will help refine the existing guidelines and contribute to a more personalised and effective approach to treating this serious medical condition. Meanwhile, it is suggested to broaden the consideration of other options, such as liposomal amphotericin B, as first-line treatment until the results of the fungogram are available and antifungal stewardship could be implemented to prevent the development of resistance.