The importance of genus Candida in human samples

Abstract

Microbiology is a rapidly changing field. As new researches and experiences broaden our knowledge, changes in the approach to diagnosis and therapy have become necessary and appropriate. Recommended dosage of drugs, method and duration of administration, as well as contraindications to use, evolve over time all drugs. Over the last 2 decades, Candida species have emerged as causes of substantial morbidity and mortality in hospitalized individuals. Isolation of Candida from blood or other sterile sites, excluding the urinary tract, defines invasive candidiasis. Candida species are currently the fourth most common cause of bloodstream infections (that is, candidemia) in U.S. hospitals and occur primarily in the intensive care unit (ICU), where candidemia is recognized in up to 1% of patients and where deep-seated Candida infections are recognized in an additional 1 to 2% of patients. Despite the introduction of newer anti-Candida agents, invasive candidiasis continues to have an attributable mortality rate of 40 to 49%; excess ICU and hospital stays of 12.7 days and 15.5 days, respectively, and increased care costs. Postmortem studies suggest that death rates related to invasive candidiasis might, in fact, be higher than those described because of undiagnosed and therefore untreated infection. The diagnosis of invasive candidiasis remains challenging for both clinicians and microbiologists. Reasons for missed diagnoses include nonspecific risk factors and clinical manifestations, low sensitivity of microbiological culture techniques, and unavailability of deep tissue cultures because of risks associated with the invasive procedures used to obtain them. Thus, a substantial proportion of invasive candidiasis in patients in the ICU is assumed to be undiagnosed and untreated. Yet even when invasive candidiasis is diagnosed, culture diagnosis delays treatment for 2 to 3 days, which contributes to mortality. Interventions that do not rely on a specific diagnosis and are implemented early in the course of Candida infection (that is, empirical therapy) or before Candida infection occurs (that is, prophylaxis) might improve patient survival and may be warranted. Selective and nonselective administration of anti-Candida prophylaxis is practiced in some ICUs. Several trials have tested this, but results were limited by low statistical power and choice of outcomes. Thus, the role of anti-Candida prophylaxis for patients in the ICU remains controversial. Initiating anti-Candida therapy for patients in the ICU who have suspected infection but have not responded to antibacterial therapy (empirical therapy) is practiced in some hospitals. This practice, however, remains a subject of considerable debate. These patients are perceived to be at higher risk from invasive candidiasis and therefore are likely to benefit from empirical therapy. Nonetheless, empirical anti-Candida therapies have not been evaluated in a randomized trial and would share shortcomings that are similar to those described for prophylactic strategies. Current treatment guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) do not specify whether empirical anti-Candida therapy should be provided to immunocompetent patients. If such therapy is given, IDSA recommends that its use should be limited to patients with Candida colonization in multiple sites, patients with several other risk factors, and patients with no uncorrected causes of fever. Without data from clinical trials, determining an optimal anti-Candida strategy for patients in the ICU is challenging. Identifying such a strategy can help guide clinicians in choosing adequate therapy and may improve patient outcomes. In our study, we developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empirical anti-Candida therapy given to high-risk patients in the ICU, defined as those with altered temperature (fever or hypothermia) or unexplained hypotension despite 3 days of antibacterial therapy in the ICU.