Defining standards of CARE for invasive fungal diseases in adult haematology patients: antifungal prophylaxis versus treatment.

Abstract

Despite the availability of four different classes of antifungal agents, invasive fungal infections, in particular mould diseases, continue to have a high crude mortality rate in adult haematology patients, especially when diagnosed late. Early diagnosis, resulting in prompt and adequate antifungal intervention, is of great importance when trying to improve the overall outcome of these infections, but depends on the availability of rapid and sensitive diagnostic tools. The medical community has developed and continues to evaluate a continuum of antifungal strategies (starting with prophylaxis followed by empirical therapy and more recently a diagnostic-driven or pre-emptive approach) to better tackle these life-threatening diseases. While the empirical approach seems to have lost some of its popularity, the jury is still out about the pros and cons of universal antifungal prophylaxis in at-risk adult haematology patients compared with an approach that uses radiological and mycological diagnostic methods with good to excellent negative predictive values (also erroneously called pre-emptive), trying to exclude the presence of an invasive fungal disease. Whilst awaiting the results of comparative clinical studies, believers and non-believers around the globe continue to argue about the advantages and shortcomings of both strategies. The debate presented here provides a rationale for both prophylaxis for 'high-risk' haematology patients as well as for a more targeted approach based on the appropriate use of mycological, radiological, immunological (and genetic) methods for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases.