SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.23 issue3Human papilloma virus detection in oral mucosa of women from Cali, Colombia. author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Infectio

Print version ISSN 0123-9392

Infect. vol.23 no.3 Bogotá July/Sept. 2019

http://dx.doi.org/10.22354/in.v23i3.792 

Artículos originales

Colombian consensus on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Candida Spp. disease in children and adults*,+

Consenso Colombiano Para el Diagnóstico, Tratamiento y Prevención de la Enfermedad por Candida Spp. en Niños y Adultos

José M. Oñate1  , Pilar Rivas2  **  , Christian Pallares3  , Carlos H. Saavedra4  , Ernesto Martínez5  , Wilfrido Coronell6  , Eduardo López7  , Indira Berrio8  , Carlos A. Álvarez-Moreno9  , Gustavo E. Roncancio10  , Janier Segura11  , Juan D. Vélez12  , Jorge A. Cortes13  , Claudia M. Parra-Giraldo14  , Jorge E. Álvarez15  , Andrés F. Romero16  , Iván Zuluaga17  , Germán Camacho18 

1 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist. Centro Médico Imbanaco, Clínica de Occidente de Cali, Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia

2Associate Professor. Group Head Coordinator, Departamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.

3 Coordinator, Infections and Epidemiological Surveillance Committee, Centro Médico Imbanaco. Lecturer, Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research, Universidad el Bosque. Bogotá, Colombia.

4 Titular Professor, Internal Medicine Department and Infectious Diseases Research Group, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.

5 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Universidad del Valle, Hospital Universitario del Valle Evaristo García ESE, Clínica Farallones. Cali, Colombia

6 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Specialist, PhD in Tropical Medicine. Lecturer, Universidad de Cartagena. Cartagena, Colombia.

7 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Specialist, Center for Pediatric Infectious Diseases Studies, Pediatrics Department, Universidad del Valle, Centro Médico Imbanaco. Cali, Colombia

8 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Hospital General de Medellín, Luz Castro de Gutiérrez, Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB). Medellín, Colombia

9 Titular Professor, Internal Medicine Department, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Clínicas Colsanitas. Bogotá, Colombia.

10 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Clínica Cardiovascular. Medellín, Colombia

11 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Clínica Amiga, Centro Médico Imbanaco. Cali, Colombia

12 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Fundación Clínica Valle del Lili. Cali, Colombia

13 Associate Professor, Internal Medicine Department and Infectious Diseases Research Group, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.

14 Human Proteomics and Mycoses Unit, Infectious Diseases Group, Microbiology Department, Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Bogotá, Colombia.

15 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist, Hospital Universitario del Valle, Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia

16 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Fellow, Pediatrics Department, Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia

17 Internal Medicine-Infectious Diseases Specialist; Scientific Director, SICAC IPS. Scientific Advisor, Organización Sanitas IPS. Internal Medicine Postgraduate Lecturer, Universidad Libre de Barranquilla. Barranquilla, Colombia

18 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Specialist, Fundación HOMI, Hospital Pediátrico de la Misericordia, Fundación Hospital Infantil Universitario de San José. Lecturer, Pediatrics Department, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.

Abstract

Invasive Candidiasis (IC) and candidemia (as its most frequent manifestation) have become the main cause of opportunistic mycosis at hospital settings. This study, made by members of the Colombian Association of Infectious Diseases (ACIN), was aimed at providing a set of recommendations for the management, follow-up and prevention of IC / candidemia and mucous membrane candida infection in adult, pediatric and neonatal patients in a hospital setting, including the hemato-oncological and critical care units. All the data obtained through an exhaustive search were reviewed and analyzed in a comprehensive manner by all the members of the group, and the recommendations issued are being made after a careful review of the scientific literature available and the consensus of all specialists involved; the emergence of Candida Spp. problem is highlighted and a correct orientation to health professionals regarding the management of patients with candidiasis is provided in a rational and practical way, emphasizing patient evaluation, diagnostic strategies, prophylaxis, empirical treatment, directed treatment and preventative therapy.

Key words: invasive candidiasis; candidemia; fungal diagnostics; consensus guidelines; antifungal treatment; adult patient; pediatric patient; neonatal patient; nonneutropenic patient; neutropenic patient; critical patient

Resumen

La Candidiasis Invasora (CI) y la candidemia, como su manifestación más frecuente, se ha convertido en la principal causa de micosis oportunista a nivel hospitalario. Este manuscrito realizado por miembros de la Asociación Colombiana de Infectología (ACIN), tuvo como objetivo proporcionar un conjunto de recomendaciones para manejo, seguimiento y prevención de la CI/candidemia y de la infección candidiásica de mucosas, en población adulta, pediátrica y neonatal, en un entorno hospitalario, incluyendo las unidades hemato-oncológicas y unidades de cuidado crítico. Todos los datos obtenidos mediante una búsqueda exhaustiva, fueron revisados y analizados de manera amplia por todos los miembros del grupo, y las recomendaciones emitidas se elaboraron luego de la evaluación de la literatura científica disponible, y el consenso de todos los especialistas involucrados, reconociendo el problema de la emergencia de las infecciones por Candida Spp. y brindando una correcta orientación a los profesionales de la salud sobre el manejo de pacientes con enfermedad candidiásica, de una forma racional y práctica, enfatizando en la evaluación del paciente, estrategias de diagnóstico, profilaxis, tratamiento empírico, tratamiento dirigido y terapia preventiva.

Palabras-clave: candidiasis invasora; candidemia; guías de consenso; diagnóstico fúngico; tratamiento antifúngico; paciente adulto; paciente pediátrico; paciente neonato; paciente no neutropénico, paciente neutropénico; paciente crítico.

Introduction

Invasive Candidiasis (IC) is the most common fungal disease among hospitalized patients worldwide, and candidemia is the most common clinical manifestation1,2. Candida Spp. is an important cause of bloodstream infections (BSI)4-7. Patients at risk of IC include seriously ill patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU), neutropenic patients with cancer, patients who have undergone surgical procedures and premature neonates3-5. Recently, the annual incidence of candidemia alone was calculated to be 12.8 in 100,000 inhabitants, i.e. approximately 6,296 cases per year4-7.

In Colombia, there are different therapeutic alternatives for the management of IC/candidemia, but no national guidelines are available, and there also was little information available about the local epidemiological profile and clinicaldiagnostic approach-associated costs. The following are recommendations for diagnosis, management and follow-up of IC/candidemia in adult and pediatric patients in hospital setting, hemato-oncological units, and patients in the ICU, including those in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The process of developing these recommendations included a systematic approach for rating the quality of evidence and the strength of each recommendation (Table 1)8,9and a detailed description of methods, background and evidence summaries supporting each recommendation are also included. Even though candidiasis infection in mucous membranes (including oropharynx, esophagus and genital tract) is not considered a typical Invasive Fungal Disease (IFD), this is included in these recommendations. This consensus was reviewed and endorsed by the Colombian Association of Infectiology (ACIN) and is not intended to replace the clinical approach to the management of patients on an individual basis, but to serve as a guide to the diagnosis and treatment of Candidiasis.

Diagnosis of invasive candidiasis (IC)

I. What is the usefulness of taking blood cultures when IC/candidemia is suspected?

Recommendation

  1. Blood cultures and other sterile organic specimen cultures are considered the cornerstone of diagnosing IC/candidemia (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10.

  2. In patients with suspected Candida Spp. IFD the diagnostic performance of a blood culture may be maximized by growing additional subcultures from blood culture bottles, regardless of whether inoculated bottles are positive or not (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)11-13.

II. What is the recommendation about collecting blood cultures and how many blood cultures should be collected in patients with suspected IC/candidemia?

Recommendation

3. The consensus panel recommends collecting blood cultures once a day when an infectious process is suspected (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)13,14.

4. Any factor that affecting the sensitivity such as blood volume, number of bottles, detection time, inoculum size, type of selected bottle and used culture medium should be considered in order to improve the diagnostic performance of blood cultures (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) 13,14.

5. The consensus panel considers that conventional blood culture bottles and automated continuous monitoring systems are adequate for the diagnosis of candidemia/ IC. Blood culture bottles with fungus selective medium can optimize the recovery of yeasts (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)14,15.

Do the differences in time-to-recovery of causative agent depend on the identified species?

Recommendation

6. The consensus panel considers that the time to detection and positivity of a blood culture may be affected by the Candida species isolated (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)12,13.

III. Are control blood cultures necessary in patients diagnosed with candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

7. The consensus panel considers that control blood cultures are necessary in patients diagnosed with candidemia/IC (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence.

How many time should elapse between the first positive blood culture and control blood cultures?

Recommendation

8. The consensus panel considers that control blood cultures should be collected every 24--48 hours after the first positive blood culture (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

If control blood cultures are positive, when should be the next blood culture collected?

Recommendation

9. The consensus panel considers that if control blood cultures are positive the next blood cultures should be collected every 24-48 hours (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

How many sets of negative blood cultures are required to determine that candidemia/IC has been cleared?

Recommendation

10. The consensus panel considers that repeated sets of blood cultures should be collected, until the mycological clearance of candidemia/IC, with two consecutive negative sets (separated by 48 hours) and patient clinical improvement are documented (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

11. The consensus panel considers that an optimal detection of candidemia/IC is achieved when ≥ 3 sets of blood cultures are performed with minimum 20 minutes in between samples (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

IV. What is the usefulness of using predictive indexes (risk score) for initiation of an early antifungal therapy in patients with suspected IC?

Recommendation

12. The consensus panel considers that scores/predictive rules permit the stratification and selection of high risk IC patients who could benefit from early antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 3)16-18.

Diagnosis of candidemia

V. How is the conventional diagnosis of a candidemia/IC performed?

Recommendation

13. The consensus panel considers that direct microscopic examination by different preparations and staining, is a quick cost-effective method for initial identification of recognized yeast-like species morphologically such as Candida Spp. (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10.

14. Histopathology is a fundamental tool for diagnosis and identification of pathogenic yeasts from tissue samples (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)15,19,20.

15. The consensus panel considers that the etiological agent isolation by a mycological culture is a critical step in the identification of Candida species causing an IFD (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)15, >,19,20.

16. Different automated systems provide a reliable method for identification of yeast-like fungi, which along with an analysis software and an advanced expert system, increase the rapidity to obtain mycological results (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)15,19.

17. The consensus panel considers that the availability and use of different conventional diagnostic methods for detection and identification of yeasts depend on the clinical setting (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)20,21.

Does the antifungal therapy of choice depend on the identified Candida species?

Recommendation

18. The consensus panel considers that rapid identification of involved yeast-like species and performing antifungal susceptibility tests (AFSTs) are necessary for all IFD clinical isolates (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)11,22.

19. Candida Spp. antifungal susceptibility profile is closely related to the species; therefore, in most of the cases, identification of the species provides useful and sufficient information for the appropriate choice of a targeted antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4)20,23.

Are the identified species of Candida and the time to initiation of antifungal therapy related with the prognosis of candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

20. The consensus panel considers that patients with a Candida Spp. isolate in blood, regardless of whether the sample was obtained through a catheter or by venipuncture, should receive targeted antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) 21.

21. The consensus panel considers that early initiation of antifungal therapy is a key factor associated with a good prognosis of candidemia/IC (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) 12,14.

22. The consensus panel considers that delay in initiation of the is associated with poor clinical course, higher incidence of breakthrough fungemia and higher mortality rates (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)13,24.

23. C. krusei, C. tropicalis, C. glabrata or C. auris candidemia/IC have been associated with high mortality rates and C. parapsilosis candidemia/IC has been associated with reduced pathogenicity (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)13.

VI. What is the diagnostic value of in vitro AFSTs?

Recommendation

24. Correct identification of the Candida species is predictive of its likely antifungal susceptibility (or resistance) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4)11,25,26.

25. The consensus panel considers that AFST results should be timely (available in about 3 days) to be clinically useful (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)23.

26. It should be kept in mind that therapy failure is not necessarily secondary to the antifungal agent-of-choice administration (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)27.

When are AFSTs recommended? Which commercial methods are recommended?

Recommendation

27. The consensus panel considers that AFSTs provide a base for the choice of an appropriate antifungal therapy for patients on an individual basis, permit monitoring susceptibility patterns and detecting resistant clinical isolates in an early stage (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)20.

28. The consensus panel considers that automated AFSTs methods marketed in Colombia may be used to determine antifungal susceptibility (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)20.

29. The consensus panel recommends not performing AFSTs for all Candida Spp. clinical isolates not associated with IFD on a routinely basis, unless no appropriate response to the antifungal therapy of choice is achieved, or a history of administration of an azole or an echinocandin exists, and should always be associated with clinical suspicion of therapeutic failure (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)27.

Does the AFST result affect the choice of the antifungal therapy?

Recommendation

30. consensus panel considers that, even though the identification of the causative species of candidemia/ IC may predict its antifungal susceptibility profile, local epidemiological patterns may vary and affect its predictive value (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)12.

31. The consensus panel considers that there is a relationship between sub-optimal use and dosing of antifungal therapy and changes in the distribution of yeast-like species and the onset of antifungal resistance (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)20,21.

VII. What is the diagnostic value of serum biomarkers in the candidemia/IC management?

Recommendation

32. The consensus panel considers that serum biomarkers may be a supplemental tool that enhances the diagnostic performance, helps in the initiation of diagnostic-driven antifungal therapy, provide prognostic information and/or allow therapeutic monitoring in some difficult cases of IFD, even though their availability and highcost are significant limitations (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)28,29.

33. The consensus panel considers that serum biomarkers may improve candidemia/IC diagnosis and prognosis when used serially in high-risk patients who have been hospitalized for a long time (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Annex 11)30,31.

VIII. What is the diagnostic value of nucleic acid tests and mass spectrophotometry in the management of a candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

34. The consensus panel considers that fungal DNA detection tests including pan-fungal methods and speciesspecific detection methods are useful supplementary diagnostic tools, and yield results 1 day to 4 weeks earlier than conventional diagnostic methods (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)28,32.

35. The consensus panel considers that direct identification of involved Candida species from positive blood culture bottles by PCR automated systems allows the identification of species within 1 - 2.5 hours (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Annex 12)19,32.

36. The consensus panel considers that direct identification by PCR automated systems of involved Candida species from whole blood samples permits identification of species without the need to wait 1-2 days for blood culture bottles positive results (weak recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Annex 12)31,33-35.

37. The consensus panel considers that protenomic fingerprint mass spectrophotometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a specific, robust, rapid and reproducible diagnostic tool for routine identification of different Candida species associated to an IFD (strong recommendation, highquality evidence) (Annex 12)3,36.

Antifungal prophylaxis for candidemia/IC

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See (Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

IX. Is antifungal prophylaxis recommended for prevention of candidemia/IC? In which clinical settings is antifungal prophylaxis initiation recommended?

Recommendation

38. The initiation of antifungal prophylaxis at the beginning of the risk period and before the onset of symptoms and the diagnostic confirmation of IFD is recommended in specific populations of patients (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

X. What is the standard practice according to the clinical setting?

HIV-Infected Patients

Recommendation

39. Initiation of antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended in HIV-infected patients (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)37.

Solid organ transplant recipients

Renal transplantation

Recommendation

40. The initiation of antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended in patients with renal transplantation (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)38.

Pancreas transplantation

Recommendation

41. A dose of FCZ (400 mg daily) for one week, is recommended in patients with pancreas transplantation, to reduce the risk of IC onset after the transplant (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)39.

Liver transplantation

Recommendation

42. The consensus panel recommends In patients with liver transplantation the initiation of antifungal therapy with FCZ (200 mg daily) IV., until the patient is discharged, and continue with FCZ (200 mg daily) OA., for at least three months following liver transplantation (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)40-42.

Patients in the intensive care unit

Recommendation

43. The initiation of antifungal prophylaxis in all patients admitted in ICU is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)43.

44. In patients with intraabdominal surgery at very high-risk of IC, in ICUs with IC incidence > 10%, the consensus panel considers that an institutional protocol of early antifungal or biomarker-driven treatment should be established, or antifungal prophylaxis with FCZ (200 mg daily) should be initiated (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 3, Annex 11)43.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) recipients

Recommendation

45. In HCT recipients, the consensus panel considers that the initiation of antifungal prophylaxis against Candida Spp. IFDs is required but does not exclude the need to initiate antifungal prophylaxis against IFDs caused by filamentous fungi, where indicated (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence).

46. In neutropenic HCT recipients, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg daily) OA., if the initiation of antifungal prophylaxis against IFDs caused by fungi other than Candida Spp. is not being considered (weak recommendation, lowquality evidence)44,45.

47. In high-risk HCT recipients, the consensus panel considers that PCZ (suspension [200 mg 3 times daily] OA., or tablets [300 mg twice daily on day 1, then 300 mg daily]) administered as antifungal prophylaxis against filamentous fungi also offers suitable protection against Candida Spp. (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) 44,45.

Hematological patients

Recommendation

48. In hematological patients, the consensus panel considers that antifungal prophylaxis against Candida Spp. IFDs should be initiated, without excluding the need to initiate antifungal prophylaxis against IFDs caused by filamentous fungi, where indicated (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence).

49. In neutropenic patients at high risk of infection, the consensus panel recommends considering antifungal prophylaxis as the standard of care (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)46.

50. In induction or consolidation chemotherapy-receiving hematological patients for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloblastic leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS), the consensus panel considers that PCZ (suspension [200 mg 3 times daily] OA., or tablets [300 mg twice daily on day 1, then 300 mg daily]), should be administered as antifungal prophylaxis against filamentous fungi, and also offers suitable protection against Candida Spp. In all patients, the appropriateness of antifungal prophylaxis should be determined on an individual basis, because of the interactions between chemotherapeutic agents and azole antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)47-49.

51. In long-term neutropenic patients at risk of IC, the consensus panel recommends initiating FCZ (400 mg daily) OA., until recovery from neutropenia (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Candidemia/IC in non-neutropenic patients

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XI. When should initiation of empirical antifungal therapy (EAFT) be considered in non-neutropenic patients? When is EAFT initiation recommended?

Recommendation

52. In non-neutropenic patients with clinical suspicion of IFD, EAFT should be initiated before the diagnostic confirmation (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

53. The consensus panel considers that the decision to initiate EAFT in non-neutropenic patients, in the absence of a recognized focus of infection, should be based on the clinical evaluation of risk factors, the results of IFD biomarkers and/or data from microbiological cultures (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

XII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of EAFT in non-neutropenic patients?

Recommendation

54. In non-neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends including in the EAFT of choice an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) 50-54.

55. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of non-neutropenic patients. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence)10,43,50-56.

56. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV., is an acceptable alternative to EAFT for non-neutropenic, not critically ill, azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients unlikely to have azole-resistant isolates, according to the epidemiologic setting (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,43,55,60.

57. AmB (AmB-D [0,7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily], is an acceptable alternative to EAFT against candidemia/IC for non-neutropenic patients, in case of limited availability and/or intolerance and/or documented antifungal resistance to other antifungal drugs of choice (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,57-59.

58. The consensus panel recommends not a specific duration of EAFT for non-neutropenic patients; however, the consensus panel considers that the same recommendation as for a targeted antifungal therapy should be followed (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,43,55.

XIII. Is the removal of central venous catheters (CVC) recommended for non-neutropenic patients with candidemia/IC? What is the recommendation for implanting a new CVC?

Recommendation

59. In non-neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends early removal of CVC, if there is evidence of infection and where the CVC is considered the infection source. The decision to remove the CVC should be made on an individual basis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) 55.

60. Early removal of CVC is recommended, if peripheral blood cultures or blood collected via the CVC are persistently positive or when the patient is clinically unstable. If candidemia persists, the removal or change of all endovascular accesses should also be considered (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) 61-65.

61. In non-neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends implanting a new CVC in those with negative control blood cultures and without clinical signs of active infection, as necessary (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) 61-65.

XIV. What is the role of other diagnostic methods when candidemia/IC is suspected in non-neutropenic patients?

Recommendation

62. In non-neutropenic patients is recommended an followup by performing blood cultures every 24-48 hours, in order to establish when documented mycological clearance of candidemia/IC occurs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Section: Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis [IC])10,66.

63. In non-neutropenic patients is recommended additional follow-up tests following the candidemia/IC diagnosis (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 7) 10,66.

What is the role of ophthalmological examination?

Recommendation

64. The consensus panel recommends dilated ophthalmological examination in any non-neutropenic patient with a diagnosis of candidemia/IC preferably by an ophthalmologist, within the first week following IFD diagnosis (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 7) 10,26,29,66,67.

What is the role of diagnostic imaging?

Recommendation

65. Ultrasound is considered an effective tool for the diagnosis of candidemia/IC-associated complications such as septic thrombosis, hepatic or splenic abscesses, and candidal endocarditis (strong recommendation, highquality evidence) (Table 7) 66,68.

66. In non-neutropenic patients, is recommended performing a hepatobiliary ultrasonography, a doppler ultrasonography of the jugular-subclavian CVC exit site, and an echocardiogram, if blood cultures are persistently positive or when clinical signs compatible with endocarditis exist (presence of cutaneous septic embolisms, de novo heart failure or new heart murmur) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) 66.

XV. When is therapy de-escalation recommended in nonneutropenic patients diagnosed with candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

67. The consensus panel recommends in non-neutropenic patients who initiated antifungal therapy with an echinocandin or AmB, implementing a therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and annex 10)10,55.

68. For documented IFDs caused by C. glabrata, the consensus panel recommends implementing a therapy deescalation scheme to higher-dose FCZ (800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200-300 mg twice daily) OA. or IV., provided that clinical isolates are susceptible to FCZ and/or VCZ (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,55.

Candidemia/IC in neutropenic patients

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XVI. When should the initiation of EAFT be considered in neutropenic patients? When is EAFT initiation recommended?

Recommendation

69. It is recommended in neutropenic patients who have not initiated prophylaxis treatment with azoles, and have a clinical suspicion of IFD initiating EAFT before the diagnostic confirmation (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

70. In patients who have had neutropenia for more than 7 days and persistent fever, consideration should be given to candidemia/IC diagnosis, despite the use of broadspectrum antibiotics (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

XVII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of EAFT in neutropenic patients?

Recommendation

71. In neutropenic patients with persistent fever, it is recommended considering EAFT as the standard of care and determining the appropriate antifungal therapy on an individual basis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

72. The consensus panel recommends in any neutropenic patient, including an echinocandin in the EAFT of choice (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]) in patients on prophylaxis treatment with azoles and without suspected Invasive Aspergillosis (IA) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)50-54.

73. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of neutropenic patients. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence)10,43,50-56.

74. AmB (AmB-D [0,7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily], AmB-CL [3-5 mg/kg daily]), may be considered as an acceptable alternative to EAFT for candidemia/IC, but its nephrotoxic potential should be considered in neutropenic patients (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)59,60.

75. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV., is an acceptable alternative to EAFT for candidemia/IC, in neutropenic patients with persistent fever and severe mucositis, who have not received antifungal prophylaxis against Candida Spp. and at low-risk of IFD caused by mold (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,59,43.

76. VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 3-4 mg/ kg twice daily) IV., is an acceptable alternative to EAFT when the clinical setting additionally requires anti-mold treatment (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)69,70.

77. In neutropenic patients with suspected IC/candidemia due to azole- and/or echinocandin-resistant clinical isolates, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmB (AmB-D [0,7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily]) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)59,60.

78. In neutropenic patients, the recommended duration of antifungal therapy is two weeks, after control blood cultures are negative and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved. In patients with metastatic foci or documented invasive infection longer antifungal therapy may be required (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10.

XVIII. Is the removal of CVC recommended in neutropenic patients with candidemia/IC? What is the recommendation for implanting a new CVC?

Recommendation

79. In neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends the early removal of CVC, if there is evidence of infection and where the CVC is considered the infection source. The decision to remove the CVC should be made on an individual basis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)55.

80. Early removal of CVC is recommended, if peripheral blood cultures or blood collected via the CVC are persistently positive or when the patient is clinically unstable. If candidemia persists, the removal or change of all endovascular accesses should also be considered (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10.

81. In neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends implanting a new CVC in patients with negative control blood cultures and without clinical signs of active infection, where appropriate (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)61-65.

XIX. What is the role of other diagnostic methods when is suspected candidemia/IC in neutropenic patients?

Recommendation

82. In neutropenic patients is recommended an follow-up by collection of blood cultures every 24-48 hours, in order to establish when documented mycological clearance of candidemia/IC occurs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Section: Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis [IC])10,66.

83. In any neutropenic patient is recommended additional follow-up tests following candidemia/IC diagnosis (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 7)10,66

What is the role of ophthalmological examination?

Recommendation

84. The consensus panel recommends dilated ophthalmological examination in any neutropenic patient with a diagnosis of candidemia/IC preferably by an ophthalmologist, within the first week following IFD diagnosis (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 7)10,26,66.

85. In febrile neutropenic patients, is recommended performing dilated ophthalmological examination following neutrophil recovery (count > 500 cells/mm3 ) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,26,29,66.

What is the role of diagnostic imaging?

Recommendation

86. Ultrasound is considered an effective tool for the diagnosis of candidemia/IC-associated complications such as septic thrombosis, hepatic or splenic abscesses, and candidal endocarditis (strong recommendation, highquality evidence) (Table 7)10,66.

87. In neutropenic patients, is recommended performing a hepatobiliary ultrasonography, a doppler ultrasonography of the jugular-subclavian CVC exit site, and an echocardiogram, if blood cultures are persistently positive or when clinical signs compatible with endocarditis exist (presence of cutaneous septic embolisms, de novo heart failure or new heart murmur) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,66.

XX. When is therapy de-escalation recommended in neutropenic patients with candidemia?

Recommendation

88. In neutropenic patients, is recommended a therapy deescalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from an echinocandin to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and Annex 10) 10,55.

89. In neutropenic patients, is recommended a therapy deescalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from AmB to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10)10,55,71,72.

90. For documented IFDs caused by C. glabrata, the consensus panel recommends implementing a therapy deescalation scheme to higher-dose FCZ (800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200-300 mg twice daily) OA. or IV., provided that clinical isolates are susceptible to FCZ and/or VCZ (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,55.

91. VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily) OA. or IV., may be used in a therapy de-escalation scheme during the neutropenic phase, if the patient is clinically stable, apt for oral administration, and has VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,71.

Targeted antifungal therapy for Candidemia/IC

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XXI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of targeted antifungal therapy according to the risk population?

Recommendation

92. The consensus panel considers that in any patient with suspected or microbiologically proven IC/candidemia, targeted antifungal therapy should be initiated (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)12,38,43,73.

93. A Candida Spp. isolation in a single culture of peripheral blood or blood collected via the CVC is considered as proven IC/candidemia (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Annex 5 Anexo 6, anexo 7)12,38,43.

Non-neutropenic patients and/or patients in critical condition with proven candidemia/IC

94. In any non-neutropenic patient and/or patient in critical condition, the consensus panel recommends including in the antifungal therapy of choice an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and 14)10,11,66.

95. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of non-neutropenic patients and/or patients in critical condition. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)11,74,75.

96. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV. and VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg twice daily) IV., are acceptable alternative treatments for clinically stable, azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients with FCZ- and/or VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)11,74,76.

97. Lipid formulations of AmB (AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg day], AmB-CL [3-5 mg/kg daily]), may be considered if the CNS is affected, endocarditis occurs, the patient experiences side effects or the etiological agent isolate shows antifungal resistance to echinocandins. In patients in ICUs, the consensus panel does not recommend the use of AmB-D (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 8)10,11,66.

98. For clinical isolates suspected to be azole- or echinocandin-resistant, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10)10-12,66,74.

99. For documented IFDs caused by C. krusei, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with an echinocandin, AmB or VCZ (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Annex 9 and Annex 14)43,77,78.

100. The consensus panel recommends performing azole and/or echinocandin AFST for clinical isolates from sterile sites, particularly in patients who have previously received antifungal therapy with azoles and/or echinocandins, or in patients with a documented IFDs caused by C. glabrata or C. parapsilosis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Annex 9 and 10)43,77,78.

101. The recommended duration of antifungal therapy in non-neutropenic patients and/or patients in critical condition, without metastatic complications, is two weeks after control blood cultures are negative and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Non-Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

102. In non-neutropenic patients and/or patients in critical condition, the consensus panel recommends a therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from an echino candin to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Non-Neutropenic Patients) 74,78.

103. In non-neutropenic patients and/or patients in critical condition, the consensus panel recommends a therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from AmB to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ- and/or VCZsusceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Non-Neutropenic Patients) 74,78.

104. For documented IFDs caused by C. glabrata, the consensus panel recommends implementing a therapy deescalation scheme to higher-dose FCZ (800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200-300 mg twice daily) OA. or IV., provided that clinical isolates are susceptible to FCZ and/or VCZ (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)74,78.

105. The consensus panel considers that the CVC may be retained in patients receiving antifungal therapy with an echinocandin or AmB-L, if it is established that the CVC is necessary, the CVC is not the source of infection or the documented IFD is not caused by C. parapsilosis. If the patient does not respond to the treatment (after 3 to 5 days) the removal of CVC should be considered. The decision to remove the CVC should be made on an individual basis (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in NonNeutropenic Patients)11,66.

106. The consensus panel recommends the use of diagnostic techniques to monitor the response to treatment, such as control blood cultures, until negative results are obtained and ophthalmological examination and transesophageal echocardiography, where necessary (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 7) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Non-Neutropenic Patients)10-12,43,66.

Neutropenic patients with proven candidemia/IC

107. In any neutropenic patients, the consensus panel recommends in the antifungal therapy of choice an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily])in patients on prophylaxis treatment with azoles and without suspected IA (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)10-12,43,66.

108. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of neutropenic patients. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence)74,75,78.

109. AmB (AmB-D [0,7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily], AmB-CL [3-5 mg/kg daily]), may be considered as an acceptable alternative treatment for neutropenic patients, but its nephrotoxic potential should be considered (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8)10,11,66,74.

110. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV., is an acceptable alternative treatment for neutropenic patients who are not in critical condition, azole antifungal therapynaïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,11,66,74.

111. FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily), may be used as maintenance treatment in patients with persistent neutropenia who are clinically stable, and with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates and negative control blood cultures (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,11,74.

112. VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg twice daily) IV., may be used in patients when anti-mold treatment is additionally required because of the clinical setting (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,11,74.

113. VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg twice daily) IV., may be used as maintenance treatment in patients with persistent neutropenia who are clinically stable, and with VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates and negative control blood cultures (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10,11,74.

114. For clinical isolates suspected to be azole- or echinocandin-resistant, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and Annex 10)10-12,43,66.

115. For documented IFDs caused by C. krusei, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with an echinocandin, AmB or VCZ (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Annex 9 and 14) 74,78.

116. The consensus panel recommends performing azole and/or echinocandin AFST for clinical isolates from sterile sites, particularly in patients who have previously received antifungal therapy with azoles and/or echinocandins, or in patients with a documented IFDs caused by C. glabrata or C. parapsilosis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Annex 9 and 10)74,78.

117. The recommended duration of antifungal therapy in neutropenic patients, without metastatic complications, is two weeks after control blood cultures are negative and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved. Patients with chronic disseminated candidiasis (CDC) may require longer antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

118. In neutropenic patients, therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from an echinocandin to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily) OA. or IV. is recommended, if patients are clinically stable, have recovered from neutropenia, are apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ- and/or VCZsusceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

119. In neutropenic patients, therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from AmB to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., or VCZ (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily) OA. or IV. is recommended, if patients are clinically stable, have recovered from neutropenia, are apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ- and/or VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

120. The consensus panel recommends early CVC removal, where this is not possible, initiation of antifungal therapy with an echinocandin or AmB-L is recommended, if it has been established that the CVC is not the infection source or the documented IFD is not caused by C. parapsilosis. If the patient does not respond to the treatment (after 3 to 5 days) CVC removal should be considered (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

121. Sources of infection different than the CVC (e.g. gastrointestinal tract) should be considered in neutropenic patients. The decision to remove the CVC should be made on an individual basis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

122. The consensus panel recommends the use of diagnostic techniques to monitor the response to treatment, such as control blood cultures, until negative results are obtained and ophthalmological examination and transesophageal echocardiography, where necessary. In patients with CVC, the consensus panel recommends a doppler ultrasonography of the jugular-subclavian CVC exit site (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 7) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

123. The consensus panel recommends dilated ophthalmological examination, within the first week after recovery from neutropenia, because ophthalmological findings of choroidal infection are minimal until neutrophil recovery (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Neutropenic Patients)74,78.

XXII. What is the recommendation for choosing a combined antifungal therapy according to the risk population?

Recommendation

124. In patients with candidemia/IC, the consensus panel recommends not the initiation of combined antifungal therapy, except when they are clinical isolates, which are considered multiresistant, and / or are emerging yeasts such as C. auris, and always under specific considerations (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Annex 14)79,80.

XXIII. What is the usefulness of PK/PD indices as parameters of antifungal therapy efficacy?

Recommendation

125. PK/PD indices-based antifungal therapy approaches, that allow establishing the adequate pharmacological concentration for the time required for the management of the infective foci are recommended (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Annex 15)80,81.

XXIV. What is the usefulness of monitoring serum antifungal levels in the management of Candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

126. In patients with candidemia/IC receiving antifungal therapy with VCZ, the consensus panel recommends monitoring serum VCZ levels (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)82,83.

Candidemia/IC in neonate patients

XXV. How is candidemia/IC diagnosed in neonate patients?

Recommendation

127. In any neonate patient with clinical suspicion of candidemia/IC, the consensus panel recommends performing serial blood cultures and urine cultures (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)84.

128. In any neonate patient with blood cultures and/or urine cultures positive for Candida Spp., is recommended performing additional lumbar puncture and ophthalmologic examination (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence)10.

129. The consensus panel recommends in any neonate patient, with persistently positive blood cultures (72 hours after antifungal therapy initiation), additionally perform an echocardiogram, an ultrasonography of the brain and/or a CAT of the genitourinary tract, liver and spleen (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,84.

130. The consensus panel recommends in any neonate patient with clinical suspicion of candidemia/IC, performing serial blood cultures until documented mycological clearance and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)84.

131. The consensus panel recommends in any neonate patient with persistent candidemia on the 7th day of antifungal therapy, performing imaging of CNS and bones (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)84.

XXVI. What is the standard practice in neonate patients with candidemia/IC?

Recommendation

132. The consensus panel recommends in neonate patients with candidemia/IC, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-D (1 mg/kg daily) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8)10.

133. FCZ (25 mg/kg daily, then 12 mg/kg daily) OA. or IV., is an acceptable alternative antifungal therapy for azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 4), (Annex 9 and 10)10.

134. AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily), may be considered as an alternative antifungal therapy but should be used with caution, particularly when the urinary tract is compromised (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Annex 13)10.

135. The consensus panel recommends in neonate patients diagnosed with candidemia/IC, the removal of CVC (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)10.

136. In neonate patients, without metastatic complications, the recommended duration of antifungal therapy is two weeks, after control blood cultures are negative and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10.

137. In patients with metastatic complications or in special clinical situations, longer antifungal therapy may be required (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10.

XXVII. What is the standard practice in neonate patients with CNS infection?

Recommendation

138. The consensus panel recommends in neonate patients diagnosed with candidal meningitis, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-D (1 mg/kg daily) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)10.

139. AmB-L (5 mg/kg daily), may be considered as an alternative antifungal therapy for neonate patients with candidal meningitis (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)10.

140. 5-FC (25 mg/kg 4 times daily), alone or in combination, may be considered as an antifungal salvage treatment in neonate patients without appropriate clinical response to AmB, but its adverse effects should be considered (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence10.

141. The consensus panel recommends in neonate patients implementing a therapy de-escalation scheme, after negative cultures, from AmB to FCZ (12 mg/kg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10)10.

142. The consensus panel considers that antifungal therapy duration will depend on the resolution of all signs, symptoms, and CSF and radiological abnormalities (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10.

143. The consensus panel recommends in these patients removing infected CNS devices (e.g. ventriculostomy drains, shunts, stimulators, and chemotherapy ports) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)10.

XXVIII. What is the recommendation for choosing the antifungal therapy for newborns according to the clinical setting?

Recommendation

144. AmB-D (1 mg/kg daily), may be considered as an antifungal therapy in neonate patients with candidemia/CI (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)10.

145. AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily), may be considered as an acceptable alternative antifungal therapy but should be used with caution, particularly when the urinary tract is compromised (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)10.

146. FCZ (25 mg/kg daily, then 12 mg/kg daily) OA. or IV., is an acceptable alternative antifungal therapy for azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and Annex 10)10.

147. The consensus panel recommends in patients with neonatal candidiasis (CNEO) implementing a therapy deescalation scheme (after 3-5 days) from AmB to FCZ (12 mg/kg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10)10.

148. The consensus panel considers that in patients with CNEO, echinocandins (CAS [25 mg/m2 daily or 2 mg/kg daily], MIC [4-10 mg/kg daily]) should be used with caution and generally be limited to salvage antifungal therapy or in clinical situations in which AmB-D or FCZ are contraindicated (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)10,85,86.

149. FCZ (12 mg/kg daily) is the antifungal therapy of choice for neonate patients with Candida Spp. urinary tract infection (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence) 87.

XXIX. Is antifungal prophylaxis recommended for neonate patients? In which clinical situations is antifungal prophylaxis initiation recommended?

150. The consensus panel recommends in neonate patients weighing < 1000 g in NICUs with an IC incidence > 10%, initiating antifungal prophylaxis with FCZ (3-6 mg/kg, twice a week, for 6 weeks) (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Annex 17)88-98.

151. Nystatin (100,000 IU 4 times daily, for 6 weeks) OA., is an alternative antifungal therapy for neonate patients weighing < 1500 g in situations in which FCZ is not available or clinical isolates are azole-resistant (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)90,99-101.

Management of candidemia/IC in special situations

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XXX. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in pregnant patients?

Recommendation

152. In pregnant women, AmB (AmB-D [0.7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily]) is considered the antifungal therapy of choice for IC, but data available are insufficient to recommend other lipid formulations (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and 14 Annex 14-102-104.

153. In pregnant women, especially during the first trimester, antifungal therapy with azoles should be avoided, because there is possibility of congenital defects (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)105,106.

154. Antifungal therapy with echinocandins is not recommended during pregnancy, because the available data on its use in this particular population of patients is insufficient (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)107.

155. Antifungal therapy with 5-FC is not recommended during pregnancy, because of fetal abnormalities observed in several studies, and available data on its use in this particular population of patients is insufficient (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)104.

XXXI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for candidal chorioretinitis without vitritis?

Recommendation

156. The consensus panel recommends in patients with candidal chorioretinitis without vitritis, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400-800 mg daily) IV., or VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg twice daily) IV., in azole treatment-naive patients with FCZ- and/or VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)108-115.

157. The consensus panel recommends for clinical isolates with suspected or documented resistance to FCZ/VCZ, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily), with or without 5-FC (25 mg/kg 4 times daily) OA. (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)108,109,116.

158. The consensus panel recommends in patients with macular involvement, in addition to the above mentioned antifungal agents administrating intravitreal injection of AmB-D (5-10 μg in 0.1 mL sterile water) or VCZ (100 μg in 0.1 mL sterile water or normal saline) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)117-120.

159. The duration of antifungal therapy should depend on the resolution of the lesions, as determined by serial ophthalmological examinations, and should be at least 4-6 weeks (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)109,121.

XXXII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for candidal chorioretinitis with vitritis?

Recommendation

160. The consensus panel recommends in patients with candidal chorioretinitis with vitritis, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400-800 mg daily) IV., or VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg twice daily) IV., in azole treatment-naïve patients with FCZ- and/or VCZ-susceptible clinical isolates. The consensus panel recommends administrating additional intravitreal injection of AmB-D (5-10 μg in 0.1 mL sterile water) or VCZ (100 μg in 0.1 mL sterile water or normal saline) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)120-122.

161. The consensus panel recommends in patients with candidal chorioretinitis with vitritis, considering vitrectomy in order to decrease the burden of microorganisms, and to allow the removal of fungal abscesses that are inaccessible to systemic antifungal agents (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)121.

162. The duration of antifungal therapy should depend on the resolution of the lesions, as determined by serial ophthalmological examinations, and should be at least 4-6 weeks (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)109,121.

XXXIII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for hepatosplenic candidiasis (HSC)?

Recommendation

163. The consensus panel recommends in patients with HSC, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily) or an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]), with a duration of antifungal therapy of two weeks, after control blood cultures are negative and symptoms attributable to IFD have resolved (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)123-131.

164. In patients with HSC, is recommended that consolidation antifungal therapy be continued with FCZ (400-800 mg daily), for azole treatment-naive patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13and Annex 14)128-130.

165. The duration of antifungal therapy should depend on the resolution of the lesions, with periodical imaging monitoring, which usually takes several months. Premature interruption of antifungal therapy may lead to relapse (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)132,133.

XXXIV. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for candidal meningitis?

Recommendation

166. In patients with candidal meningitis, the consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmBL (3-5 mg/kg daily) IV., with or without 5-FC (25 mg/ kg 4 times daily) OA. (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)131,134-138.

167. AmB-D (0.7-1 mg/kg daily), with or without 5-FC (25 mg/kg 4 times daily) OA., may be considered as an alternative antifungal therapy in situations in which AmB-L is not available (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)134-137.

168. In patients with candidal meningitis, the recommended consolidation antifungal therapy is FCZ (400-800 mg daily [6-12 mg/kg daily]), for azole treatment-naive patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates, following clinical improvement and documented mycological clearance (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)138,139.

169. The consensus panel recommends in these patients removing infected CNS devices (e.g. ventriculostomy drains, shunts, stimulators, and chemotherapy ports) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)140,141.

170. The consensus panel recommends that when infected CNS devices may not be removed, or in patients unresponsive to systemic antifungal therapy, considering intrathecal or intraventricular administration of AmB-D (0.01-1 mg in 2 mL 5% dextrose in distilled water) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)139,142-144.

XXXV. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for native valve and prosthetic valve candidal endocarditis?

Recommendation

171. The consensus panel recommends in patients with native valve candidal endocarditis, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-L (3-5 mg/kg daily) with or without 5-FC (25 mg/kg 4 times daily) OA., or a high-dose echinocandin (CAS [150 mg daily], ANI [200 mg daily], MIC [150 mg daily]) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)68,145-154.

172. In patients with native valve candidal endocarditis, the recommended consolidation antifungal therapy is FCZ (400-800 mg [6-12 mg/kg] daily), for at least 6 months, for azole treatment-naive patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates, following clinical improvement and documented mycological clearance (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)152 .

173. The consensus panel recommends in patients with native valve candidal endocarditis, performing valve replacement surgery at treatment initiation, and continuing with antifungal therapy for at least 6 weeks after the surgery (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)153-155.

174. The consensus panel recommends in patients in who valve replacement surgery is contraindicated, the administration of life-long antifungal therapy with FCZ (400- 800 mg [6-12 mg/kg] daily) in azole treatment-naïve patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)153-155.

175. The consensus panel recommends that patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis, follow the same regimens and interventions as those for patients with native valve endocarditis (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)153-155.

176. The consensus panel recommends in patients diagnosed with infection of implantable cardiac devices or suppurative thrombophlebitis, initiating antifungal therapy with a high-dose echinocandin (CAS [150 mg daily], ANI [200 mg daily], MIC [150 mg daily]), followed by chronic suppressive therapy with FCZ (400-800 mg [6-12 mg/ kg] daily) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)126,153-155.

XXXVI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for Candida Spp. osteomyelitis and/or bone infections?

Recommendation

177. The consensus panel recommends in patients with Candida Spp. osteomyelitis and bone infections, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily), for 6 to12 months provided that clinical isolates are susceptible to FCZ; or implementing an initial scheme with an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]), for 2 weeks followed by FCZ (400 mg daily), for 6 to 12 months (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)156-160.

178. In patients with Candida Spp. osteomyelitis or bone infections, the recommended duration of antifungal therapy is at least 6 months (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)156-160.

179. The consensus panel recommends in patients with Candida Spp. osteomyelitis or bone infections, considering surgical debridement and removal of osteosynthesis material on an individual basis (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) 161-163.

XXXVII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for esophageal candidiasis (EFC) and recurrent EFC?

Recommendation

180. The consensus panel recommends in patients with EFC initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (200-400 mg [3-6 mg/kg] daily) OA., for 14 to 21 days (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)164-173.

181. The consensus panel recommends in patients with EFC, who do not tolerate oral administration, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily) IV. (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)179-173.

182. The consensus panel recommends in patients with FCZrefractory EFC, the administration of ITZ (200 mg daily), oral solution, or VCZ (6 mg/kg twice daily for 2 doses, then 3 mg/kg twice daily) OA., for 14 to 21 days (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)170-171.

183. The consensus panel recommends in patients who cannot receive azole treatment, using echinocandins (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]), as an alternative antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14) 172-175.

184. The consensus panel recommends in patients with recurrent EFC, initiating suppressive antifungal therapy with FCZ (100-200 mg daily) three times a week (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)176.

185. The consensus panel recommends in patients with recurrent EFC and diagnosed with HIV infection, initiating antiretroviral treatment (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)165.

186. For recurrent EFC episodes, are recommended mycological cultures in order to identify the species and AFST to effectively guide the antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Annex 9)164,165.

XXXVIII.What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for candidal vulvovaginitis (CVV) and recurrent CVV?

Recommendation

187. The consensus panel recommends in patients with uncomplicated CVV, initiating antifungal therapy with any topical antifungal agent for 1-3 days, or initiating with single dose FCZ (150 mg daily) OA. (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and 14)177-180.

188. The consensus panel recommends in patients with complicated CVV, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (150 mg/72 h) OA. three doses, or with topical azole for 7 days (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)180,181.

189. The consensus panel recommends for recurrent CVV episodes, mycological cultures in order to identify the species and AFST to effectively guide the antifungal therapy (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) (Annex 9).

190. The consensus panel recommends in patients with recurrent CVV, with azole-susceptible clinical isolates, initiating induction antifungal therapy with a topical azole for 10 to 14 days, followed by FCZ (150 mg for week) OA., for 6 months (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)182,184.

191. The consensus panel recommends in patients with documented C. glabrata CVV, administrating topical intravaginal boric acid (600 mg daily) for 2 weeks, or nystatin intravaginal ovules (100,000 U/day) for 2 weeks (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)185,186.

XXXIX. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for candidal prostatitis (CP)?

Recommendation

192. The consensus panel recommends in patients with CP, with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates, initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) OA. for 6 weeks (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and 14)187,190.

193. The consensus panel recommends in patients with PC and FCZ-resistant clinical isolates, initiating antifungal therapy with AmB (AmB-D [0,7-1 mg/kg daily], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily]) (strong recommendation, lowquality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)187,190.

194. The consensus panel recommends in these patients considering supplemental surgical procedures, such as abscess drainage or transurethral resection of the prostate (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)190.

XL. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients with kidney failure?

Recommendation

195. The consensus panel recommends in patients with renal failure and a diagnosis of candidemia / IC, with a antifungal treatment with an azole, to adjust the initial doses (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)80,81,191.

196. The consensus panel recommends adjusting azole dosing according to the creatinine clearance value and/ or the type of received renal replacement therapy, in patients with kidney failure diagnosed with candidemia/ IC (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)80,81,191.

XLI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy?

Recommendation

197. The consensus panel recommends adjusting azole dosing during candidemia/IC treatment, in patients undergoing any type of renal replacement therapy (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)180,181.

XLII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients with liver failure or acute/chronic hepatic diseases?

Recommendation

198. The use of azoles for antifungal therapy of candidemia/ IC in patients with liver failure or acute/chronic hepatic diseases is not recommended (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)80,81.

199. Echinocandins (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 35 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]) are recommended, as antifungal therapy for candidemia/IC, in patients with liver failure or acute/chronic hepatic diseases (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13) 80,192,193.

XLIII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients with circulatory assist devices?

Recommendation

200. Adjusting the dose of antifungal agents during candidemia/IC treatment, in patients with circulatory assist devices is not recommended (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)80,194.

XLIV. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients with hypoalbuminemia?

Recommendation

201. The consensus panel recommends not adjusting the dose of antifungal agents during candidemia/IC treatment in patients with hypoalbuminemia (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)194-197.

Intraabdominal/peritoneal IC

Recommendation

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XLV. Do patients with a Candida Spp. isolate from an abdominal sample require antifungal therapy?

Recommendation

202. Initiation of targeted antifungal therapy in patients with a Candida Spp. isolate from an abdominal sample is not recommended. Isolates should be analyzed to distinguish between contamination, colonization, and infection based on the anatomical site and type of lesion, history of interventions, previous microbiological isolates and clinical setting of the patient. Antifungal therapy is not recommended for colonization or contamination isolates (strong recommendation, highquality evidence)198-202.

203. Targeted antifungal therapy should be initiated, in patients with clinical evidence of intraabdominal infection with a Candida Spp. isolate from an intraoperative abdominal sample or from drains placed within 24 hours (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)13,202-204.

204. Targeted antifungal therapy should be initiated in patients with sepsis, septic shock or spontaneous intestinal perforation and a Candida Spp. clinical isolate from an intraabdominal sample (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)14,202-205.

205. The consensus panel considers that targeted antifungal therapy, in patients with yeast-like isolates from swabs of superficial wounds or drainages that have been in place ≥ 24 hours should not be initiated (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)199.

XLVI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy for Candida Spp. abdominal sepsis?

Recommendation

206. The consensus panel recommends including in the antifungal therapy of choice an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]), in patients with Candida Spp. abdominal sepsis (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13)and Annex 14)43,206.

207. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of patients with abdominal sepsis. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)11,74,75.

208. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV., is an adequate alternative treatment for clinically stable, azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13) and Annex 14)1,43,206-208.

209. The consensus panel recommends in patients with abdominal sepsis, implementing a therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from an echinocandin to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10) (Section: Candidemia/IC in Non-Neutropenic Patients)43,206.

210. The duration of antifungal therapy should depend on the adequate surgical control of the abdominal infective foci and patient’s clinical response (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence)209.

XLVII. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and/or with secondary peritonitis?

Recommendation

211. The consensus panel recommends initiating EAFT in patients with Candida Spp. peritonitis or undergoing peritoneal dialysis (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence).

212. The consensus panel recommends adequate percutaneous or surgical drainage to control the infective foci, and removing the peritoneal catheter for Candida Spp. peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis with intraabdominal abscesses (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)208.

213. The consensus panel recommends initiating of antifungal therapy with an echinocandin (CAS [70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily], ANI [200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg daily], MIC [100 mg daily]), in patients with Candida Spp. peritonitis or undergoing peritoneal dialysis at risk of candidemia/IC (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)43,72,206.

214. The consensus panel considers that there are no differences between echinocandins in the clinical setting of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and/or with Candida Spp. secondary peritonitis. The choice will depend on interactions with other drugs, liver failure, side effects and treatment costs (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)11,74,75.

215. FCZ (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily) IV., is an adequate alternative treatment for clinically stable, azole antifungal therapy-naïve patients with FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)43,206.

216. The consensus panel recommends in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and/or with secondary peritonitis, implementing a therapy de-escalation scheme (after 5-7 days) from an echinocandin to FCZ (400-800 mg daily) OA. or IV., if patients are clinically stable, apt for oral administration, azole antifungal therapy-naïve, and have FCZ-susceptible clinical isolates (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9 and 10) (Section: Candidemia/IC in NonNeutropenic Patients)1,72,208.

217. The consensus panel recommends removing the peritoneal dialysis catheter and targeted antifungal therapy for at least 2 weeks, in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and/or with secondary peritonitis at risk of candidemia/IC (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)72,208-211.

Candida Spp. urinary tract infections

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

XLVIII. What is the diagnostic meaning of a Candida Spp. isolate from urine in asymptomatic patients?

Recommendation

218. Initiation of an antifungal therapy is not recommended in patients with asymptomatic candiduria or with minimal symptoms of candiduria (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10,212.

219. The consensus panel recommends eliminating existing predisposing factors such as indwelling bladder catheters in patients with asymptomatic candiduria, where possible (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10,212.

XLIX. What is the diagnostic meaning of a Candida Spp. isolate from urine in symptomatic patients? What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy?

Recommendation

220. The consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy in patients diagnosed with symptomatic candiduria (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)213,214.

221. The consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily) OA. or IV., for 2 weeks (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and 14)10,215.

222. The consensus panel recommends initiating single-dose antifungal therapy with AmB-D (0.3-1 mg/kg) IV. for clinical isolates suspected to be azole-resistant (weak recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9)10,215.

223. The consensus panel recommends eliminating existing predisposing factors such as indwelling bladder catheters in patients with symptomatic candiduria, where possible (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10,215.

224. Irrigation of the urinary tract with AmB is not recommended in patients with symptomatic candiduria (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)214.

L. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients diagnosed with candidal pyelonephritis?

Recommendation

225. The consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily) OA. or IV., for 2 weeks, in patients with candidal pyelonephritis (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)10,213.

226. The consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmB-D (0.3-1 mg/kg) IV. or CAS (70 mg loading dose, then 50 mg daily) for 2 weeks, for clinical isolates suspected to be azole-resistant (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9)10,213.

LI. What is the recommendation for choosing the type of drug, dose, and duration of antifungal therapy in patients diagnosed with fungus ball?

Recommendation

227. The consensus panel recommends a surgical intervention and initiating antifungal therapy with FCZ (400 mg [6 mg/kg] daily) OA. or IV. for two weeks, after surgical removal of urinary mycetoma, in patients diagnosed with fungus ball (strong recommendation, moderatequality evidence) (Table 8, Annex 13 and Annex 14)10,216.

228. The consensus panel recommends initiating antifungal therapy with AmB (AmB-D [0.3-1 mg/kg], AmB-L [3-5 mg/kg daily]) for 2 weeks, for clinical isolates suspected to be azole-resistant (weak recommendation, highquality evidence) (Table 4, Annex 9) 10.

Candida Spp. respiratory tract infection

Doses in adult patients are established in the following recommendations. See Table 8 for doses in pediatric patients.

LII. What is the diagnostic meaning of a Candida Spp. isolate from upper and/or lower respiratory tract samples?

Recommendation

229. Initiation of a targeted antifungal therapy besides an early antifungal therapy protocol for candidemia/IC is not recommended, in patients with Candida Spp. isolates from respiratory tract samples (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10,217.

LIII. What is the use of performing cultures of respiratory tract samples for the initiation of antifungal therapy in patients with suspected IC?

Recommendation

230. The performing of mycological cultures from respiratory tract samples is recommended as part of a protocol of early initiation of antifungal therapy for candidemia/IC (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)10,218.

LIV. Is antifungal therapy initiation recommended for Candida Spp. isolates from respiratory tract samples?

Recommendation

231. Initiation of targeted antifungal therapy is not recommended for Candida Spp. clinical isolates from respiratory tract samples, in the absence of a positive “Candida score” (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Table 3) (Section: Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis [IC])10,219.

Prevention of Candida Spp. IFDs

LV. What special considerations should be taken into account in the pharmacological and non-pharmacological prevention of Candida Spp. IFDs?

Recommendation

232. The consensus panel considers that a daily bathing with 2% chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of candidemia/ IC, in patients older than two months of age and in adults and may be considered in high-risk patients (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)220,221.

233. The consensus panel considers that bovine lactoferrin (100 mg daily) may be effective for preventing Candida Spp. IFDs, in neonate patients weighing < 1500 g (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)222.

234. Hands sanitization and adherence to guidelines for the prevention of CVC related infections are recommended as preventive measures against Candida Spp. IFDs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)223,224.

235. A rational protocol for the management of antimicrobial agents and control of bacterial infections, is considered a useful preventive measure against Candida Spp. IFDs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)225,226.

236. Knowledge of the local epidemiology of each healthcare center, is considered a useful preventive measure against Candida Spp. IFDs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)225,226.

237. When outbreaks of Candida species considered “emerging” occur, isolating the patients, following-up all the cases and implementing the required measures to contain the outbreak, are considered as useful preventive measures against IFDs (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)227,228.

238. The consensus panel considers that antifungal prophylaxis helps in reducing the prevalence of candidemia/IC in high-risk patients (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) (Section: Antifungal Prophylaxis for candidemia/IC)229,230.

Epidemiology

Persons with fungal infections are generally chronically ill patients with worsened health status, severe immunosuppression levels and using different medical devices1-7. Candida Spp. IFDs account for 70-90% of all IFDs3 . Candidemia has a global prevalence of 19% and is the fourth cause of IFDs in critical patients, only surpassed by Pseudomonas Spp. (19.9%) and Staphylococcus aureus (20.5%) IFDs in this population of patients. It is considered the 7th-10th cause of IFDs in hospitalized patients2 .

The epidemiology of Candida Spp. infections has significantly changed over the last years, mostly because of medical-scientific advancements developed for the care of hospitalized patients1,2. IC/candidemia is thought to affect over 250,000 patients around the world and is the direct cause of over 50,000 deaths; the incidence of infectious disease ranges from 2 to 14 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants3-5, and in most of the regions, these rates have increased or remain stable. In initially high-incidence zones, it was observed that incidence decreased after the implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic management improvements3-5.

The epidemiological profile of Candida Spp. IFDs varies between regions and countries with differences in the distribution of species per geographical area, local epidemiological factors, prior exposure to antifungal agents or patient underlying conditions231-233. The current incidence of IC has remained consistent over the last years, or has slightly decreased in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States; however, its incidence in Latin America and the rest of the world is increasing233. In Australia, Canada, Europe and Latin America the incidence of candidemia is significantly lower than in the United States, where 6-10 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants were reported6,7. In contrast, Europe reports incidence rates of 1.4-5.7 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants,except in Denmark and Spain where IC rates are higher. Most of the Nordic countries have reported IC/candidemia rates of 1.4-5.7 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants; the incidence in Australia (1.8 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants) and Canada (2.9 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants) is similar to that of Europe233-236.

Even though the epidemiology of candidemia in Latin America has not been comprehensively studied, a total incidence ranging from 1.18 to 2.49 cases out of 1000 hospital admissions has been reported76,237. Although wide variations were found among Latin American countries (0.33 cases in Chile vs 1.96 cases out of 1000 hospital admissions in Argentina and Colombia), the mean incidence is higher than that reported in the United States (0.28-0.96 cases out of 1000 hospital admissions) or Europe (0.2-0.38 cases out of 1000 hospital admissions)233. In Colombia, Cortes et al. reported a prevalence of candidemia in ICUs of 1.4-5.2%, with infection rates of 2.3 cases out of 1000 hospitalization days238,239. The Germen group reported that from 22,630 blood cultures taken between 2010 and 2011, 728 (3.3%) isolates corresponded to Candida Spp.; C. albicans was the most common (38.7%, n= 335), followed by C. parapsilosis (20.9%, n= 192), C. tropicalis (16.1%, n= 148) and C. glabrata (12.2%, n=112); susceptibility to fluconazole (FCZ) corresponded to 94.3%, 80.3%, 97.5% and 91.5%, respectively240. The CIDEIM Center et al. reported that from 2010 to 2013, Candida Spp. isolates from blood cultures from patients in an ICU held the third place, and the most common species were Candida non-albicans241. The GREBO group2383-242. reported that, in general, Candida Spp. isolates held the sixth place in prevalence with a trend towards Candida non-albicans isolates; in addition, they established an overall mortality rate of 36%, associated with the age and existence of septic shock at the moment of the diagnosis of candidemia238

There is no clear reason as to why the incidence of IC/candidemia is higher in Latin America, the United States, Denmark or Spain, but the heterogenicity of the methodology and the size of the sample reported, the diversity of the methodology of the investigations, the distribution of age, and risk factors of the populations studied may have contributed to those findings. In addition, in the Latin American setting the following aspects should also be considered: (1) differences in the available healthcare resources and training programs, (2) difficulties in the implementation of infection control programs in hospitals in developing countries, and (3) the limited number of healthcare workers available for taking care of this type of infections233.

Distribution of species and resistance to antifungal agents

In general, Candida Spp. IFDs are conditions associated with medical progress and they are one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the health setting. It has been observed that only five species (Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis, Candida parapsilosis, andCandida krusei) account for more than 90% of the isolates, and each species has a unique potential virulence, antifungal susceptibility, and epidemiology233,243 C. parapsilosis and C. krusei are less virulent than C. albicans, C. tropicalis and C. glabrata; this variation is reflected in the low mortality rate of patients with C. parapsilosis candidemia, and the low frequency of C. krusei invasive infection, except for patients with serious immunodeficiency and with a history of prior exposure to azoles. Despite its low virulence, C. parapsilosis may thrive in certain clinical niches, because of its ability to adhere to medical devices and its propensity for colonizing the human skin, less frequent characteristics in other species such as Candida dubliniensis, Candida lusitaniae, Candida kefyr and Candida guilliermondii, which are associated with reduced susceptibility patterns in specific populations233.

C. albicans is still the most common species worldwide (38%-70% of the cases), even though its incidence is decreasing because of the increased incidence of C. non-albicans species3,237,238,243; C. glabrata has emerged as an important pathogen in Northern Europe, the Unites States and Canada, while C. parapsilosis is more common in Southern Europe, Asia, and Latin America232. In the United States, C. albicans isolates have decreased, and C. glabrata isolates have increased, becoming the second most common cause of candidemia (after C. albicans) in 20%-26% of the cases. In Europe, C. albicans is still the first etiological agent associated with candidemia and C. non-albicans species account for 43.6% of IFDs, but are considered the most common species in hematological patients9,232.

In Latin America, C. albicans also hold the first place (37.6%) among isolates and, contrary to that reported in Europe and the United States, C. glabrata isolates are still a few (6.3%), and C. parapsilosis (26.5%) and C. tropicalis (17.6%) are considered the most common species after C. albicans76. In Colombia, the distribution of species is similar to that reported in Latin America76,240,242, isolates from blood cultures of patients in ICU are associated with C. albicans (56%), C. tropicalis (17.3%) and C. parapsilosis (16%)238,239 and increasing incidence of C. non-albicans has been reported241.

Recently, Candida auris, a cryptic species uncommon in most hospitals around the world, has appeared as an emerging species and a global threat capable of developing resistance to multiple antifungals and with great potential for nosocomial transmission, whose mortality percentages can be between 27 and 60%, although the burden of infection may be underestimated, since conventional automated methods fail to correctly identify the species, so molecular or protenomic methods are necessary; the appearance of candidemia by C. auris probably depends on the conditions of the patients, the control of the source of infection and the initiation of an adequate antifungal therapy243. To date, colombian reports reveal widespread environmental contamination and colonization among patients and health workers, where unlike different reports worldwide, the clinical and environmental isolates of C. auris present a good susceptibility to the echinocandins,with a variable resistance to Amphotericin B (AmB)242-244.

Risk factors associated with candidemia/IC

Increasing incidence of candidemia is associated with the higher complexity of surgical procedures, populations at higher risk of infection and changes in the demographic characteristics of patients. The clinical manifestation of candidemia varies depending on: (1) age (infants < 1 year of age, and adults > 65 years of age: 16 to 36 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants), (2) type of patient (in hemato-oncological patients [71 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants] and in diabetic patients [28 cases out of 100,000 inhabitants]), (3) presence of central vascular catheters (CVC), (4) surgical history (particularly in abdominal surgery with anastomotic leaks), and (5) administration of antimicrobial agents (Table 2)233.

Cancer is a common underlying disease in patients with candidemia, but different in its manifestation, depending on its oncologic diagnosis. In patients with hematological malignancies, chemotherapy and subsequent neutropenia, digestive tract mucositis, and treatment with corticosteroids are risk factors for IC/candidemia. In patients with solid tumors, candidemia is associated with surgical complications, admission to ICU, mechanical ventilation, overeating and the presence of CVC233. Survival of critically ill patients has resulted in increased use of invasive and therapeutic procedures which have favored increased rates of mortality associated with fungal multicolonization, the virulence of the species involved, inadequate antifungal therapy or delayed treatment initiation, the level of patient’s involvement and inadequate control of the infective foci36,245,246.

Methodology

Members of the panel

For developing this consensus, a multi-disciplinary Panel of 18 specialists (pediatrics, internal medicine, infectious diseases, mycology, and epidemiology) from the national territory, experts in the treatment of adult, pediatric and neonate patients with Invasive Mycoses (IM), ACIN-members, was convened. All members of the Panel were selected based on their experience in the research, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of IFDs.

Process overview

The work plan of the consensus was developed following the RAND/UCLA method, which is based on scientific evidence and collective judgment of an Expert Panel248. A series of questions were developed, taking into account critical factors conditioning decision making in patients with Candida Spp. infectious disease. Each member of the Panel was assigned to review recent literature on at least one topic of the consensus in order to evaluate the evidence, establish the strength of the recommendations and develop written evidence to support such recommendations. The Panel reviewed and discussed all the recommendations, their strength and the quality of evidence. Discrepancies associated with the presentation of evidence were collectively discussed and resolved, and the final recommendations represent the consensual opinion of the Panel. All the sections were collectively reviewed by the Panel for the final version of the consensus.

Review of evidence

To evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, the modified GRADE approach was used9,248whereby each recommendation is assigned a separated classification for the underlying quality of the evidence supporting the recommendation and for the strength with which the recommendation is made. The following levels of evidence were established: LOW (III): results can substantially change over time; MODERATE (II): results can change over time, but not substantially; HIGH (I): the likelihood that results could change is low. The strength of the recommendation (WEAK or STRONG) was evaluated taking into account the benefitrisk balance, quality of evidence, patient’s values and preferences, and cost or use of resources249. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the AGREE II instrument250-253, including selected guidelines with a mean score of evaluated domains > 60%, as substrates for the consensus (Annex 1 and 2)254. With the selected guidelines and consensus, a document issuing recommendations for the questions made was drafted; the Panel met in person once and attended several videoconferences for 10 months, where recommendations were individually pointed out via the modified Delphi technique33, with two rounds of voting (secret and open). A consensus was reached by over 75% agreement of the Expert Panel for each recommendation (Annex 1 and 2).

Systematic reviews

A bibliographic search of clinical practice guidelines for Candida Spp. infections and guidelines on Candidiasis including recommendations for different target population groups of the consensus (adult, pediatric and neonatal) was conducted, using sources from compilation bodies (NGC, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guideline International Network), clinical practices guidelines producers (New Zealand Guidelines Group, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Network), Iberoamerican clinical practice guidelines and general databases (Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE). The following terms were used MESH: Candidemia, Candidiasis, Invasive Candidiasis, antifungal prophylaxis, prophylaxis, diagnosis, adult patient, pediatric patient, neonate patient, nonneutropenic patient, neutropenic patient, critical patient, recommendations, antifungal therapy, consensus, consensus guidelines, amphotericin B, azoles, echinocandins, 5-fluorocytosine, fungal diagnosis, antifungal agents, biomarkers, development of guidelines, management, Latin America, antifungal stewardship, antifungal resistance, hematological malignancy, rapid diagnostic, transplantation, leukemia, cancer. Only guidelines published after 2012 and specific topic reviews from 2010 onwards were taken into account.

Table 1 Rating scale of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations8

Adapted from: Andrews JC et al8.

Table 2 Predisposing factors and populations at risk of candidemia/IC247

Adapted from: Pemán J et al247.

ICU: Intensive care unit; CVC: Central venous catheter.

Table 3 Description of clinical indexes used to determine the risk of developing IC17

Adapted from: Garnacho-Montero J et al17.

*S/Sp: Sensitivity/Specificity; PPC/NPV: Positive predictive value/Negative predictive value. a Heavy colonization: Candida spp. growth ≥105 UFC/ml NMC Rule: (1.537 × broad-spectrum antibioticsb) + (0.873 × CVCb) + (0.922 × PNb) + (0.402 × corticosteroidsc ) + (0.879 × abdominal surgery) + (0.039 × Mean length of hospital stay before admission to ICU) bDays 1 to 3 in ICU c Days 7 to 3 in ICU

Table 4 Common yeasts susceptibility to antifungal drugs11,23

Adapted from: Arendrup et al.; Pappas et al11,23,243.

a C. parapsilosis group comprises three species: C. metapsilosis, C. orthopsilosis and C. parapsilosis. bThe susceptibility of C. glabrata depends on the geographic area, fluconazole is not recommended. c ~ 50% and ~ 30% of C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates, respectively, are itraconazole-resistant. dSusceptible, even though available clinical data are limited. e 20% of the isolates are amphotericin B-resistant f This species resistance cutoff point has not been defined.

+https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/candidiasis/c-auris-treatment.html.

*Anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin.

S: Susceptible; I: Intermediate; R: Resistant; DDS: Dose-dependent susceptible.

Table 5 Risk factors and antifungal prophylaxis against IC in SOT38. 

Adapted from: Aguado JM et al38.

FCZ: Fluconazole; AmB-D: Amphotericin B deoxycholate; AmB-L: Liposomal amphotericin B; CAS: Caspofungin; OA: Oral administration; CMV: Cytomegalovirus.

Table 6 Recommendations for the administration of antifungal prophylaxis against Candida spp. to non-neutropenic adult patients in the ICU43. 

Adapted from: Cornely OA et al43.

ICU: Intensive care unit; MV: Mechanical ventilation; CVC: Central venous catheter; PN: Parenteral nutrition; IC: Invasive candidiasis; FCZ: Fluconazole; CAS: Caspofungin; IV.: Intravenous administration.

Table 7 Additional follow-up tests for adult patients following the diagnosis of candidemia10,14  

Adapted from: Nucci M et al.; Pappas PG et al10,14. CVC: Central venous catheter.

Table 8 ADME and doses of systemic antifungal drugs29,77,78,80,299,300

Adapted from: Mensa-Pueyo J. et al.; Gilbert DN et al.; Ruiz-Camps I. et al.; Cuenca-Estrella M.; Lewis RE.; Bellmann R et al29,77,78,80,299,300.

A: Administration; D: Distribution; M: Metabolism; E: Excretion; AmB-D: Amphotericin B deoxycholate; AmB-L: Liposomal amphotericin B; AmB-CL: Amphotericin B lipid complex; GF: Glomerular filtration; IV.: Intravenous administration; OA: Oral administration; d: Days; h: Hours; g: Grams; mg: Milligrams; kg: Kilograms; HD: Hemodialysis; CAPD: Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CRRT: Continuous renal replacement therapy; CNS: Central nervous system.

Table 9 Risk factors for the development of Candida spp. IFDs in pediatric population330. 

Adapted from: Figueras C et al330.

CVC: Central venous catheter; CNS: Central nervous system; PN: Parenteral nutrition; MV: Mechanical ventilation.

Table 10 Risk factors for neonatal candidiasis98. 

Adapted from: Kaufman DA98.

CVC: Central venous catheter; PN: Parenteral nutrition.

Material suplementario disponible en pdf: v23n3a12.pdf

References

1. Leroy O, Gangneux J-P, Montravers P, Mira J-P, Gouin F, Sollet J-P, et al. Epidemiology, management, and risk factors for death of invasive Candida infections in critical care: a multicenter, prospective, observational study in France (2005-2006). Crit Care Med. 2009;37(5):1612-8. [ Links ]

2. Vincent J-L, Rello J, Marshall J, Silva E, Anzueto A, Martin CD, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2323-9. [ Links ]

3. Delaloye J, Calandra T. Invasive candidiasis as a cause of sepsis in the critically ill patient. Virulence. 2014;5(1):161-9. [ Links ]

4. Marchetti O, Bille J, Fluckiger U, Eggimann P, Ruef C, Garbino J, et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Swiss tertiary care hospitals: secular trends, 1991-2000. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(3):311-20. [ Links ]

5. Tortorano AM, Biraghi E, Astolfi A, Ossi C, Tejada M, Farina C, et al. European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) prospective survey of candidaemia: report from one Italian region. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51(4):297-304. [ Links ]

6. Alvarez-Moreno CA, Cortes JA, Denning DW. Burden of Fungal Infections in Colombia. J Fungi (Basel). 2018 Mar 21;4(2). [ Links ]

7. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007;20(1):133-63. [ Links ]

8. Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendationdeterminants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726-35. [ Links ]

9. Alonso-Coello P, Rigau D, Sanabria AJ, Plaza V, Miravitlles M, Martinez L. Calidad y fuerza: el sistema GRADE para la formulación de recomendaciones en las guías de práctica clínica. Arch Bronconeumol. 2013;49(6):261-7. [ Links ]

10. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA, Ostrosky Zeichner L, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis . 2016;62(4):e1-50. [ Links ]

11. Chen SC, Sorrell TC, Chang CC, Paige EK, Bryant PA, Slavin MA. Consensus guidelines for the treatment of yeast infections in the haematology, oncology and intensive care setting, 2014. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1315-32. [ Links ]

12. Colombo AL, de Almeida Júnior JN, Slavin MA, Chen SC-A, Sorrell TC. Candida and invasive mould diseases in non-neutropenic critically ill patients and patients with haematological cancer. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Apr 18;17(11):e344-56. [ Links ]

13. Zaragoza R, Llinares P, Maseda E, Ferrer R, Rodríguez A. Proyecto Épico: Formulación de unas recomendaciones educativas con metodología DELPHI para pacientes adultos críticos no neutropénicos y con candidiasis invasiva. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2013;30(3 SUPPL.1):135-49. [ Links ]

14. Colombo AL, Cortes JA, Zurita J, Guzman-Blanco M, Alvarado Matute T, de Queiroz Telles F, et al. Recommendations for the diagnosis of candidemia in Latin America. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2013;30(3):150-7. [ Links ]

15. Cuenca-Estrella M. Diagnóstico de laboratorio de la enfermedad fúngica invasora. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2012;30(5):257-64. [ Links ]

16. Epelbaum O, Chasan R. Candidemia in the Intensive Care Unit. Clin Chest Med. 2017;38(3):493- 509. [ Links ]

17. Garnacho-Montero J, Díaz-Martín A, Ruiz-Pérez De Piappón M, García Cabrera E. Infección fúngica invasiva en los pacientes ingresados en las áreas de críticos. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2012;30(6):338-43. [ Links ]

18. Leon C, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Schuster M. What’s new in the clinical and diagnostic management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(6):808-19. [ Links ]

19. Arvanitis M, Anagnostou T, Fuchs BB, Caliendo AM, Mylonakis E. Molecular and nonmolecular diagnostic methods for invasive fungal infections. Clin Microbiol Rev . 2014;27(3):490-526. [ Links ]

20. Arendrup MC, Bille J, Dannaoui E, Ruhnke M, Heussel C-P, Kibbler C. ECIL-3 classical diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases in patients with leukaemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(8):1030-45. [ Links ]

21. Hamdy RF, Zaoutis TE, Seo SK. Antifungal stewardship considerations for adults and pediatrics. Virulence . 2017 Aug;8(6):658-72. [ Links ]

22. Albataineh MT, Sutton DA, Fothergill AW, Wiederhold NP. Update from the Laboratory: Clinical Identification and Susceptibility Testing of Fungi and Trends in Antifungal Resistance. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2016;30(1):13-35. [ Links ]

23. Amsden JR. Fungal Biomarkers, Antifungal Susceptibility Testing, and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-Practical Applications for the Clinician in a Tertiary Care Center. Curr Fungal Infect Rep. 2015;9(2):111-21. [ Links ]

24. Peman J, Aguilar G, Valia JC, Salavert M, Navarro D, Zaragoza R. Javea consensus guidelines for the treatment of Candida peritonitis and other intra-abdominal fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2017;34(3):130-42. [ Links ]

25. Perlin DS, Rautemaa-Richardson R, Alastruey-Izquierdo A. The global problem of antifungal resistance: prevalence, mechanisms, and management. Lancet Infect Dis . 2017;17(12):e383-92. [ Links ]

26. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, Benjamin DKJ, Calandra TF, Edwards JEJ, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(5):503-35. [ Links ]

27. Nachimuthu N, Ostrosky-Zeichner L. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Evolution, Indications, and Role in Clinical Practice. Curr Treat Options Infect Dis. 2015;7(3):155-62. [ Links ]

28. Ramanan P, Wengenack NL, Theel ES. Laboratory Diagnostics for Fungal Infections: A Review of Current and Future Diagnostic Assays. Clin Chest Med. 2017;38(3):535-54. [ Links ]

29. Marchetti O, Lamoth F, Mikulska M, Viscoli C, Verweij P, Bretagne S. ECIL recommendations for the use of biological markers for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases in leukemic patients and hematopoietic SCT recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant . 2012;47(6):846-54. [ Links ]

30. Powers-Fletcher M V, Hanson KE. Non-culture Diagnostics in Fungal Disease. Infect Dis Clin North Am . 2016;30(1):37-49. [ Links ]

31. Mancini N, Carletti S, Ghidoli N, Cichero P, Burioni R, Clementi M. The era of molecular and other non-culture-based methods in diagnosis of sepsis. Clin Microbiol Rev . 2010;23(1):235-51. [ Links ]

32. Brady AC, Wong B, Pfeiffer CD. Utilizing Rapid Diagnostics for Detection of Candida Species. Curr Treat Options Infect Dis . 2015;7(3):127-41. [ Links ]

33. Varela-Ruiz M, Díaz-Bravo L, García-Durán R. Descripción y usos del método Delphi en investigación del área de la salud. Inv Ed Med. 2012;1(2):90-5. [ Links ]

34. Vanichanan J, Ostrosky-Zeichner L. Molecular Diagnosis in Fungal Infection Control. Curr Treat Options Infect Dis . 2015;7(1):1-13. [ Links ]

35. Mylonakis E, Zacharioudakis IM, Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH, Pappas PG. Efficacy of T2 Magnetic Resonance Assay in Monitoring Candidemia after Initiation of Antifungal Therapy: the Serial Therapeutic and Antifungal Monitoring Protocol (STAMP) Trial. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01756-17. [ Links ]

36. Tumbarello M, Posteraro B, Trecarichi EM, Fiori B, Rossi M, Porta R, et al. Biofilm production by Candida species and inadequate antifungal therapy as predictors of mortality for patients with candidemia. J Clin Microbiol . 2007;45(6):1843-50. [ Links ]

37. Lortholary O, Petrikkos G, Akova M, Arendrup MC, Arikan-Akdagli S, Bassetti M, et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: patients with HIV infection or AIDS. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Dec;18 Suppl 7:68-77. [ Links ]

38. Aguado JM, Ruiz-Camps I, Muñoz P, Mensa J, Almirante B, Vázquez L, et al. Recomendaciones sobre el tratamiento de la candidiasis invasiva y otras infecciones por levaduras de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC). Actualización 2011. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2011;29(5):345-61. [ Links ]

39. Benedetti E, Gruessner AC, Troppmann C, Papalois BE, Sutherland DE, Dunn DL, et al. Intra-abdominal fungal infections after pancreatic transplantation: incidence, treatment, and outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;183(4):307-16. [ Links ]

40. Eschenauer GA, Kwak EJ, Humar A, Potoski BA, Clarke LG, Shields RK, et al. Targeted versus Universal Antifungal Prophylaxis among Liver Transplant Recipients. Am J Transplant. 2015;15(1):180-9. [ Links ]

41. Lavezzo B, Stratta C, Ballaris MA, Tandoi F, Panio A, Donadio PP, et al. Invasive Candida infections in low risk liver transplant patients given no antifungal prophylaxis in the post-operative period. Transplant Proc. 2014;46(7):2312-3. [ Links ]

42. Gavalda J, Ruiz I. Guidelines for the treatment of invasive fungal infection. Invasive fungal infection by Candida Spp. Invasive Fungal Infection Study Group (MICOMED) and Infection in Transplantation Study Group (GESITRA) of the Spanish Society for Infectious Diseases and. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2003;21(9):498-508. [ Links ]

43. Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T, Garbino J, Kullberg BJ, Lortholary O, et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2012;18 Suppl 7:19-37. [ Links ]

44. Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA, Park BJ, Alexander BD, Anaissie EJ, Walsh TJ, et al. Prospective surveillance for invasive fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, 2001-2006: overview of the TransplantAssociated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET) Database. Clin Infect Dis . 2010;50(8):1091-100. [ Links ]

45. Goodman JL, Winston DJ, Greenfield RA, Chandrasekar PH, Fox B, Kaizer H, et al. A controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent fungal infections in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(13):845-51. [ Links ]

46. Kyi C, Hellmann MD, Wolchok JD, Chapman PB, Postow MA. Opportunistic infections in patients treated with immunotherapy for cancer. J Immunother cancer. 2014;2:19. [ Links ]

47. Wingard JR, Carter SL, Walsh TJ, Kurtzberg J, Small TN, Baden LR, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of fluconazole versus voriconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2010;116(24):5111-8. [ Links ]

48. Cornely OA, Bohme A, Buchheidt D, Einsele H, Heinz WJ, Karthaus M, et al. Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancies. Recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology. Haematologica. 2009;94(1):113-22. [ Links ]

49. Mellinghoff SC, Panse J, Alakel N, Behre G, Buchheidt D, Christopeit M, et al. Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancies: 2017 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). Ann Hematol. 2018;97(2):197-207. [ Links ]

50. Gafter-Gvili A, Vidal L, Goldberg E, Leibovici L, Paul M. Treatment of invasive candidal infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(9):1011-21. [ Links ]

51. Reboli AC, Rotstein C, Pappas PG, Chapman SW, Kett DH, Kumar D, et al. Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med . 2007;356(24):2472-82. [ Links ]

52. Kett DH, Shorr AF, Reboli AC, Reisman AL, Biswas P, Schlamm HT. Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole in severely ill patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: support for the 2009 IDSA treatment guidelines for candidiasis. Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R253. [ Links ]

53. De la Torre P, Reboli AC. Micafungin: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy. Core Evid. 2014;9:27-39. [ Links ]

54. Zaas AK. Echinocandins: a wealth of choice--how clinically different are they? Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008;21(4):426-32. [ Links ]

55. Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW, Playford G, Reboli AC, Rex JH, et al. Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis . 2012;54(8):1110-22. [ Links ]

56. Colombo A, Guimaraes T, Aranha L, Richtmann R, Queiroz-Telles F d, Salles MJ, et al. Brazilian guidelines for the managament of candidiasis -a joint meeting report of three medical societies: Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Paulista de Infectologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical. Braz J Infect Dis. 2013;17(3):283-312. [ Links ]

57. Rex JH, Bennett JE, Sugar AM, Pappas PG, van der Horst CM, Edwards JE, et al. A randomized trial comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B for the treatment of candidemia in patients without neutropenia. Candidemia Study Group and the National Institute. N Engl J Med . 1994;331(20):1325- 30. [ Links ]

58. Quinteros A R, Fica C A, Abusada A N, Muñoz C L, Novoa M C, Gallardo A C. Uso de anfotericina B deoxicolato y sus reacciones adversas en un hospital universitario en Chile. Rev Chil infectología. 2010;27(1):25-33. [ Links ]

59. Walsh TJ, Teppler H, Donowitz GR, Maertens JA, Baden LR, Dmoszynska A, et al. Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med . 2004;351(14):1391-402. [ Links ]

60. Walsh TJ, Finberg RW, Arndt C, Hiemenz J, Schwartz C, Bodensteiner D, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. N Engl J Med . 1999;340(10):764-71. [ Links ]

61. Pettigrew RA, Lang SD, Haydock DA, Parry BR, Bremner DA, Hill GL. Catheter-related sepsis in patients on intravenous nutrition: a prospective study of quantitative catheter cultures and guidewire changes for suspected sepsis. Br J Surg. 1985;72(1):52-5. [ Links ]

62. Carlisle EJ, Blake P, McCarthy F, Vas S, Uldall R. Septicemia in long-term jugular hemodialysis catheters; eradicating infection by changing the catheter over a guidewire. Int J Artif Organs. 1991;14(3):150-3. [ Links ]

63. Robinson D, Suhocki P, Schwab SJ. Treatment of infected tunneled venous access hemodialysis catheters with guidewire exchange. Kidney Int. 1998;53(6):1792-4. [ Links ]

64. Tanriover B, Carlton D, Saddekni S, Hamrick K, Oser R, Westfall AO, et al. Bacteremia associated with tunneled dialysis catheters: comparison of two treatment strategies. Kidney Int . 2000;57(5):2151-5. [ Links ]

65. Beathard GA. Management of bacteremia associated with tunneledcuffed hemodialysis catheters. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10(5):1045-9. [ Links ]

66. Nucci M, Thompson-Moya L, Guzman-Blanco M, Tiraboschi IN, Cortes JA, Echevarría J, et al. Recomendaciones para el manejo de la candidemia en adultos en América Latina. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2013;30(3):179-88. [ Links ]

67. Vinikoor MJ, Zoghby J, Cohen KL, Tucker JD. Do all candidemic patients need an ophthalmic examination? Int J Infect Dis. 2013;17(3):e146-8. [ Links ]

68. Card L, Lofland D. Candidal endocarditis presenting with bilateral lower limb ischemia. Clin Lab Sci. 2012;25(3):130-4. [ Links ]

69. Kullberg BJ, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, Pappas PG, Viscoli C, Rex JH, et al. Voriconazole versus a regimen of amphotericin B followed by fluconazole for candidaemia in non-neutropenic patients: a randomised noninferiority trial. Lancet (London, England). 2005;366(9495):1435-42. [ Links ]

70. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis . 2011;52(4):e56-93. [ Links ]

71. Nucci M, Anaissie E. How we treat invasive fungal diseases in patients with acute leukemia: the importance of an individualized approach. Blood . 2014;124(26):3858-69. [ Links ]

72. Vazquez J, Reboli AC, Pappas PG, Patterson TF, Reinhardt J, Chin-Hong P, et al. Evaluation of an early step-down strategy from intravenous anidulafungin to oral azole therapy for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: results from an open-label trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:97. [ Links ]

73. Parkins MD, Sabuda DM, Elsayed S, Laupland KB. Adequacy of empirical antifungal therapy and effect on outcome among patients with invasive Candida species infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(3):613-8. [ Links ]

74. Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, Roberts D, Light B, Parrillo JE, et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest. 2009;136(5):1237-48. [ Links ]

75. Kullberg BJ, Arendrup MC. Invasive Candidiasis. N Engl J Med . 2015;373(15):1445-56. [ Links ]

76. Nucci M, Queiroz-Telles F, Alvarado-Matute T, Tiraboschi IN, Cortes J, Zurita J, et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Latin America: a laboratorybased survey. PLoS One. 2013 Jan 19;8(3):e59373. [ Links ]

77. Mensa-Pueyo J, Gatell-Artigas J, Garcìa-Sànchez JE. Guía De Terapéutica Antimicrobiana. Barcelona, España: Antares; 2016. [ Links ]

78. Ruiz-Camps I, Cuenca-Estrella M. Antifúngicos para uso sistémico. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2009;27(6):353-62. [ Links ]

79. Johnson MD, Perfect JR. Use of Antifungal Combination Therapy: Agents, Order, and Timing. Curr Fungal Infect Rep . 2010;4(2):87-95. [ Links ]

80. Bellmann R, Smuszkiewicz P. Pharmacokinetics of antifungal drugs: practical implications for optimized treatment of patients. Infection. 2017;45(6):737-79. [ Links ]

81. Gonzalez JM, Rodriguez CA, Agudelo M, Zuluaga AF, Vesga O. Antifungal pharmacodynamics: Latin America’s perspective. Braz J Infect Dis . 2017;21(1):79-87. [ Links ]

82. Ashbee HR, Barnes RA, Johnson EM, Richardson MD, Gorton R, Hope WW. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungal agents: guidelines from the British Society for Medical Mycology. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2014;69(5):1162-76. [ Links ]

83. Lass-Florl C. Triazole antifungal agents in invasive fungal infections: a comparative review. Drugs. 2011;71(18):2405-19. [ Links ]

84. Santolaya ME, Alvarado Matute T, de Queiroz Telles F, Colombo AL, Zurita J, Tiraboschi IN, et al. Recommendations for the management of candidemia in neonates in Latin America. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2013;30(3):158-70. [ Links ]

85. Queiroz-Telles F, Berezin E, Leverger G, Freire A, van der Vyver A, Chotpitayasunondh T, et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for pediatric patients with invasive candidiasis: substudy of a randomized double-blind trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(9):820-6. [ Links ]

86. Sáez-Llorens X, Macias M, Maiya P, Pineros J, Jafri HS, Chatterjee A, et al. Pharmacocinetics and safety of caspofungin in neonates and infants less than 3 months of age. 2009;53:869-75. [ Links ]

87. Triolo V, Gari-Toussaint M, Casagrande F, Garraffo R, Dageville C, Boutte P, et al. Fluconazole therapy for Candida albicans urinary tract infections in infants. Pediatr Nephrol. 2002;17(7):550-3. [ Links ]

88. Manzoni P, Stolfi I, Pugni L, Decembrino L, Magnani C, Vetrano G, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of prophylactic fluconazole in preterm neonates. N Engl J Med . 2007;356(24):2483-95. [ Links ]

89. Manzoni P, Arisio R, Mostert M, Leonessa M, Farina D, Latino MA, et al. Prophylactic fluconazole is effective in preventing fungal colonization and fungal systemic infections in preterm neonates: a single-center, 6-year, retrospective cohort study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(1):e22-32. [ Links ]

90. Violaris K, Carbone T, Bateman D, Olawepo O, Doraiswamy B, LaCorte M. Comparison of fluconazole and nystatin oral suspensions for prophylaxis of systemic fungal infection in very low birthweight infants. Am J Perinatol. 2010;27(1):73-8. [ Links ]

91. Weitkamp J, Ozdas A, LaFleur B, Potts A. Fluconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive fungal infections in targeted highest risk preterm infants limits drug exposure. J Perinatol. 2008;28:405-11. [ Links ]

92. Uko S, Soghier LM, Vega M, Marsh J, Reinersman GT, Herring L, et al. Targeted Short-Term Fluconazole Prophylaxis Among Very Low Birth Weight and Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants. Pediatrics . 2006;117(4):1243-52. [ Links ]

93. Rolnitsky A, Levy I, Sirota L, Shalit I, Klinger G. Targeted fluconazole prophylaxis for high-risk very low birth weight infants. Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171(10):1481-7. [ Links ]

94. Kicklighter SD, Springer SC, Cox T, Hulsey TC, Turner RB. Fluconazole for prophylaxis against candidal rectal colonization in the very low birth weight infant. Pediatrics . 2001;107(2):293-8. [ Links ]

95. Martin A, Pappas A, Lulic-Botica M, Natarajan G. Impact of “targeted” fluconazole prophylaxis for preterm neonates: efficacy of a highly selective approach? J Perinatol . 2012;32(1):21-6. [ Links ]

96. Healy CM, Campbell JR, Zaccaria E, Baker CJ. Fluconazole prophylaxis in extremely low birth weight neonates reduces invasive candidiasis mortality rates without emergence of fluconazole-resistant Candida species. Pediatrics . 2008;121(4):703-10. [ Links ]

97. Healy CM, Baker CJ, Zaccaria E, Campbell JR. Impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on incidence and outcome of invasive candidiasis in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Pediatr. 2005;147(2):166-71. [ Links ]

98. Kaufman D. Neonatal Candidiasis:Clinical Manifestations, Management and Prevention Strategies. J Pediatr . 2010;156(4):A1-S86. [ Links ]

99. Ozturk MA, Gunes T, Koklu E, Cetin N, Koc N. Oral nystatin prophylaxis to prevent invasive candidiasis in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Mycoses. 2006;49(6):484-92. [ Links ]

100. Sims ME, Yoo Y, You H, Salminen C, Walther FJ. Prophylactic oral nystatin and fungal infections in very-low-birthweight infants. Am J Perinatol . 1988;5(1):33-6. [ Links ]

101. Howell A, Isaacs D, Halliday R. Oral nystatin prophylaxis and neonatal fungal infections. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009;94(6):F429-33. [ Links ]

102. Pilmis B, Jullien V, Sobel J, Lecuit M, Lortholary O, Charlier C. Antifungal drugs during pregnancy: an updated review. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2015;70(1):14-22. [ Links ]

103. Moudgal V V, Sobel JD. Antifungal drugs in pregnancy: a review. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2003;2(5):475-83. [ Links ]

104. Briggs G, Freeman R, Yaffe S. Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation: A Reference Guide to Fetal and Neonatal Risk. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. [ Links ]

105. Tiboni GM. Second branchial arch anomalies induced by fluconazole, a bis-triazole antifungal agent, in cultured mouse embryos. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol. 1993;79(3):381-4. [ Links ]

106. Shoai Tehrani M, Sicre de Fontbrune F, Roth P, Allisy C, Bougnoux M-E, Hermine O, et al. Case report of exposure to voriconazole in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2013; 57:1094-5. [ Links ]

107. Cappelletty D, Eiselstein-McKitrick K. The echinocandins. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(3):369-88. [ Links ]

108. Louie A, Liu W, Miller DA, Sucke AC, Liu QF, Drusano GL, et al. Efficacies of high-dose fluconazole plus amphotericin B and high-dose fluconazole plus 5-fluorocytosine versus amphotericin B, fluconazole, and 5-fluorocytosine monotherapies in treatment of experimental endocarditis, endophthalmitis, and pyelonephritis d. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(12):2831-40. [ Links ]

109. Khan FA, Slain D, Khakoo RA. Candida endophthalmitis: focus on current and future antifungal treatment options. Pharmacotherapy . 2007;27(12):1711-21. [ Links ]

110. Tod M, Lortholary O, Padoin And C, Chaine G. Intravitreous penetration of fluconazole during endophthalmitis. Clin Microbiol Infect . 1997;3(3):379A. [ Links ]

111. Luttrull JK, Wan WL, Kubak BM, Smith MD, Oster HA. Treatment of ocular fungal infections with oral fluconazole. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;119(4):477- 81. [ Links ]

112. Blennow O, Tallstedt L, Hedquist B, Gardlund B. Duration of treatment for candidemia and risk for late-onset ocular candidiasis. Infection . 2013;41(1):129-34. [ Links ]

113. Hariprasad SM, Mieler WF, Lin TK, Sponsel WE, Graybill JR. Voriconazole in the treatment of fungal eye infections: a review of current literature. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(7):871-8. [ Links ]

114. Breit SM, Hariprasad SM, Mieler WF, Shah GK, Mills MD, Grand MG. Management of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis with voriconazole and caspofungin. Am J Ophthalmol . 2005;139(1):135-40. [ Links ]

115. Osthoff M, Hilge R, Schulze-Döbold C, Bogner JR. Endogenous endophthalmitis with azole-resistant Candida albicans--Case report and review of the literature. Infection . 2006;34(5):285-8. [ Links ]

116. Goldblum D, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Theurillat R, Thormann W, Zimmerli S. Ocular distribution of intravenously administered lipid formulations of amphotericin B in a rabbit model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2002;46(12):3719-23. [ Links ]

117. Chhablani J. Fungal endophthalmitis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011;9(12):1191-201. [ Links ]

118. Sen P, Gopal L, Sen PR. Intravitreal voriconazole for drug-resistant fungal endophthalmitis: case series. Retina. 2006;26(8):935-9. [ Links ]

119. Wingard LBJ, Zuravleff JJ, Doft BH, Berk L, Rinkoff J. Intraocular distribution of intravitreally administered amphotericin B in normal and vitrectomized eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30(10):2184-9. [ Links ]

120. Shen X, Xu G. Vitrectomy for endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2009;17(3):148-52. [ Links ]

121. Zhang Y-Q, Wang W-J. Treatment outcomes after pars plana vitrectomy for endogenous endophthalmitis. Retina . 2005;25(6):746-50. [ Links ]

122. Sallam A, Taylor SRJ, Khan A, McCluskey P, Lynn WA, Manku K, et al. Factors determining visual outcome in endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Retina . 2012;32(6):1129-34. [ Links ]

123. Anttila VJ, Elonen E, Nordling S, Sivonen A, Ruutu T, Ruutu P. Hepatosplenic candidiasis in patients with acute leukemia: incidence and prognostic implications. Clin Infect Dis . 1997;24(3):375-80. [ Links ]

124. Gokhale PC, Barapatre RJ, Advani SH, Kshirsagar NA, Pandya SK. Successful treatment of disseminated candidiasis resistant to amphotericin B by liposomal amphotericin B: a case report. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1993;119(10):569-71. [ Links ]

125. Sallah S, Semelka RC, Sallah W, Vainright JR, Philips DL. Amphotericin B lipid complex for the treatment of patients with acute leukemia and hepatosplenic candidiasis. Leuk Res. 1999;23(11):995-9. [ Links ]

126. Cornely OA, Lasso M, Betts R, Klimko N, Vazquez J, Dobb G, et al. Caspofungin for the treatment of less common forms of invasive candidiasis. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2007;60(2):363-9. [ Links ]

127. Poon L-M, Chia H-Y, Tan L-K, Liu T-C, Koh L-P. Successful intensive chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in a patient with acute myeloid leukemia and hepatosplenic candidiasis: case report and review of literature. Transpl Infect Dis. 2009;11(2):160-6. [ Links ]

128. Kauffman CA, Bradley SF, Ross SC, Weber DR. Hepatosplenic candidiasis: successful treatment with fluconazole. Am J Med. 1991;91(2):137-41. [ Links ]

129. Anaissie E, Bodey GP, Kantarjian H, David C, Barnett K, Bow E, et al. Fluconazole therapy for chronic disseminated candidiasis in patients with leukemia and prior amphotericin B therapy. Am J Med . 1991;91(2):142-50. [ Links ]

130. De Castro N, Mazoyer E, Porcher R, Raffoux E, Suarez F, Ribaud P, et al. Hepatosplenic candidiasis in the era of new antifungal drugs: a study in Paris 2000-2007. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2012;18(6):E185-7. [ Links ]

131. Sanchez-Portocarrero J, Perez-Cecilia E, Corral O, Romero-Vivas J, Picazo JJ. The central nervous system and infection by Candida species. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;37(3):169-79. [ Links ]

132. Anttila VJ, Lamminen AE, Bondestam S, Korhola O, Farkkila M, Sivonen A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging is superior to computed tomography and ultrasonography in imaging infectious liver foci in acute leukaemia. Eur J Haematol. 1996;56(1-2):82-7. [ Links ]

133. Hot A, Maunoury C, Poiree S, Lanternier F, Viard JP, Loulergue P, et al. Diagnostic contribution of positron emission tomography with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose for invasive fungal infections. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2011;17(3):409-17. [ Links ]

134. Fennelly AM, Slenker AK, Murphy LC, Moussouttas M, DeSimone JA. Candida cerebral abscesses: a case report and review of the literature. Med Mycol. 2013;51(7):779-84. [ Links ]

135. Voice RA, Bradley SF, Sangeorzan JA, Kauffman CA. Chronic candidal meningitis: an uncommon manifestation of candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis . 1994;19(1):60-6. [ Links ]

136. Montero A, Romero J, Vargas JA, Regueiro CA, Sanchez-Aloz G, De Prados F, et al. Candida infection of cerebrospinal fluid shunt devices: report of two cases and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2000;142(1):67-74. [ Links ]

137. Casado JL, Quereda C, Oliva J, Navas E, Moreno A, Pintado V, et al. Candidal meningitis in HIV-infected patients: analysis of 14 cases. Clin Infect Dis . 1997;25(3):673-6. [ Links ]

138. Groll AH, Giri N, Petraitis V, Petraitiene R, Candelario M, Bacher JS, et al. Comparative efficacy and distribution of lipid formulations of amphotericin B in experimental Candida albicans infection of the central nervous system. J Infect Dis. 2000;182(1):274-82. [ Links ]

139. Chen T-L, Chen H-P, Fung C-P, Lin M-Y, Yu K-W, Liu C-Y. Clinical characteristics, treatment and prognostic factors of candidal meningitis in a teaching hospital in Taiwan. Scand J Infect Dis . 2004;36(2):124-30. [ Links ]

140. Pepper J, Zrinzo L, Mirza B, Foltynie T, Limousin P, Hariz M. The risk of hardware infection in deep brain stimulation surgery is greater at impulse generator replacement than at the primary procedure. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2013;91(1):56-65. [ Links ]

141. Glick JA, Graham RS, Voils SA. Candida meningitis post Gliadel wafer placement successfully treated with intrathecal and intravenous amphotericin B. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(1):215-8. [ Links ]

142. Epelbaum S, Laurent C, Morin G, Berquin P, Piussan C. Failure of fluconazole treatment in Candida meningitis. The Journal of pediatrics. 1993; 123: 168-9. [ Links ]

143. Hope WW, Mickiene D, Petraitis V, Petraitiene R, Kelaher AM, Hughes JE, et al. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of micafungin in experimental hematogenous Candida meningoencephalitis: implications for echinocandin therapy in neonates. J Infect Dis . 2008;197(1):163-71. [ Links ]

144. Warn PA, Livermore J, Howard S, Felton TW, Sharp A, Gregson L, et al. Anidulafungin for neonatal hematogenous Candida meningoencephalitis: identification of candidate regimens for humans using a translational pharmacological approach. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2012;56(2):708-14. [ Links ]

145. Tacke D, Koehler P, Cornely OA. Fungal endocarditis. Curr Opin Infect Dis . 2013;26(6):501-7. [ Links ]

146. Ellis ME, Al-Abdely H, Sandridge A, Greer W, Ventura W. Fungal endocarditis: evidence in the world literature, 1965-1995. Clin Infect Dis . 2001;32(1):50-62. [ Links ]

147. Steinbach WJ, Perfect JR, Cabell CH, Fowler VG, Corey GR, Li JS, et al. A meta-analysis of medical versus surgical therapy for Candida endocarditis. J Infect. 2005;51(3):230-47. [ Links ]

148. Nguyen MH, Nguyen ML, Yu VL, McMahon D, Keys TF, Amidi M. Candida prosthetic valve endocarditis: prospective study of six cases and review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis . 1996;22(2):262-7. [ Links ]

149. Rubinstein E, Noriega ER, Simberkoff MS, Rahal JJJ. Tissue penetration of amphotericin B in Candida endocarditis. Chest . 1974;66(4):376-7. [ Links ]

150. Smego RAJ, Ahmad H. The role of fluconazole in the treatment of Candida endocarditis: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2011;90(4):237-49. [ Links ]

151. Kuhn DM, George T, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Ghannoum MA. Antifungal susceptibility of Candida biofilms: unique efficacy of amphotericin B lipid formulations and echinocandins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2002;46(6):1773-80. [ Links ]

152. Rivoisy C, Vena A, Schaeffer L, Charlier C, Fontanet A, Delahaye F, et al. Prosthetic Valve Candida Spp. Endocarditis: New Insights Into Long-term Prognosis-The ESCAPE Study. Clin Infect Dis . 2018;66(6):825-32. [ Links ]

153. Jimenez-Exposito MJ, Torres G, Baraldes A, Benito N, Marco F, Pare JC, et al. Native valve endocarditis due to Candida glabrata treated without valvular replacement: a potential role for caspofungin in the induction and maintenance treatment. Clin Infect Dis . 2004;39(7):e70-3. [ Links ]

154. Rajendram R, Alp NJ, Mitchell AR, Bowler ICJW, Forfar JC. Candida prosthetic valve endocarditis cured by caspofungin therapy without valve replacement. Clin Infect Dis . 2005;40(9):e72-4. [ Links ]

155. De Rosa FG, D’Avolio A, Corcione S, Baietto L, Raviolo S, Centofanti P, et al. Anidulafungin for Candida glabrata infective endocarditis. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy . 2012;56: 4552-3. [ Links ]

156. Miller DJ, Mejicano GC. Vertebral osteomyelitis due to Candida species: case report and literature review. Clin Infect Dis . 2001;33(4):523-30. [ Links ]

157. Neofytos D, Huprikar S, Reboli A, Schuster M, Azie N, Franks B, et al. Treatment and outcomes of Candida osteomyelitis: review of 53 cases from the PATH Alliance(R) registry. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;33(1):135-41. [ Links ]

158. Malani PN, McNeil SA, Bradley SF, Kauffman CA. Candida albicans sternal wound infections: a chronic and recurrent complication of median sternotomy. Clin Infect Dis . 2002;35(11):1316-20. [ Links ]

159. Dan M, Priel I. Failure of fluconazole therapy for sternal osteomyelitis due to Candida albicans., Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1994; 18 p. 126-7. [ Links ]

160. Slenker AK, Keith SW, Horn DL. Two hundred and eleven cases of Candida osteomyelitis: 17 case reports and a review of the literature. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis . 2012;73(1):89-93. [ Links ]

161. Marra F, Robbins GM, Masri BA, Duncan C, Wasan KM, Kwong EH, et al. Amphotericin B-loaded bone cement to treat osteomyelitis caused by Candida albicans. Can J Surg. 2001;44(5):383-6. [ Links ]

162. Sealy PI, Nguyen C, Tucci M, Benghuzzi H, Cleary JD. Delivery of antifungal agents using bioactive and nonbioactive bone cements. Ann Pharmacother . 2009;43(10):1606-15. [ Links ]

163. Vazquez J, Sobel J. Candidiasis. In: Kauffman C, Pappas P, Sobel J, Dismukes W, editors. Essentials of Clinical Mycology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2011. [ Links ]

164. Bodhade AS, Ganvir SM, Hazarey VK. Oral manifestations of HIV infection and their correlation with CD4 count. J Oral Sci. 2011;53(2):203-11. [ Links ]

165. Schwarcz L, Chen M-J, Vittinghoff E, Hsu L, Schwarcz S. Declining incidence of AIDS-defining opportunistic illnesses: results from 16 years of population-based AIDS surveillance. AIDS. 2013;27(4):597-605. [ Links ]

166. Bonacini M, Young T, Laine L. The causes of esophageal symptoms in human immunodeficiency virus infection. A prospective study of 110 patients. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(8):1567-72. [ Links ]

167. Wilcox CM, Alexander LN, Clark WS, Thompson SE 3rd. Fluconazole compared with endoscopy for human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with esophageal symptoms. Gastroenterology. 1996; 110 (6): 1803-9. [ Links ]

168. Barbaro G, Barbarini G, Calderon W, Grisorio B, Alcini P, Di Lorenzo G. Fluconazole versus itraconazole for Candida esophagitis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Candida Esophagitis. Gastroenterology . 1996;111(5):1169-77. [ Links ]

169. Wilcox CM, Darouiche RO, Laine L, Moskovitz BL, Mallegol I, Wu J. A randomized, double-blind comparison of itraconazole oral solution and fluconazole tablets in the treatment of esophageal candidiasis. J Infect Dis . 1997;176(1):227-32. [ Links ]

170. Saag MS, Fessel WJ, Kaufman CA, Merrill KW, Ward DJ, Moskovitz BL, et al. Treatment of fluconazole-refractory oropharyngeal candidiasis with itraconazole oral solution in HIV-positive patients. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1999;15(16):1413-7. [ Links ]

171. Hegener P, Troke PF, Fatkenheuer G, Diehl V, Ruhnke M. Treatment of fluconazole-resistant candidiasis with voriconazole in patients with AIDS . AIDS . 1998;12(16):2227-8. [ Links ]

172. Krause DS, Simjee AE, van Rensburg C, Viljoen J, Walsh TJ, Goldstein BP, et al. A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Anidulafungin versus Fluconazole for the Treatment of Esophageal Candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis . 2004;39(6):770-5. [ Links ]

173. de Wet N, Llanos-Cuentas A, Suleiman J, Baraldi E, Krantz EF, Della Negra M, et al. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-response study of micafungin compared with fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in HIV-positive patients. Clin Infect Dis . 2004;39(6):842-9. [ Links ]

174. Villanueva A, Gotuzzo E, Arathoon EG, Noriega LM, Kartsonis NA, Lupinacci RJ, et al. A randomized double-blind study of caspofungin versus fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis. Am J Med . 2002;113(4):294-9. [ Links ]

175. de Wet NTE, Bester AJ, Viljoen JJ, Filho F, Suleiman JM, Ticona E, et al. A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(7):899-907. [ Links ]

176. Goldman M, Cloud GA, Wade KD, Reboli AC, Fichtenbaum CJ, Hafner R, et al. A randomized study of the use of fluconazole in continuous versus episodic therapy in patients with advanced HIV infection and a history of oropharyngeal candidiasis: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 323/Mycoses Study Group Study 40. Clin Infect Dis . 2005;41(10):1473-80. [ Links ]

177. Sobel JD, Faro S, Force RW, Foxman B, Ledger WJ, Nyirjesy PR, et al. Vulvovaginal candidiasis: epidemiologic, diagnostic, and therapeutic considerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(2):203-11. [ Links ]

178. Reef SE, Levine WC, McNeil MM, Fisher-Hoch S, Holmberg SD, Duerr A, et al. Treatment options for vulvovaginal candidiasis, 1993. Clin Infect Dis . 1995;20 Suppl 1:S80-90. [ Links ]

179. Watson MC, Grimshaw JM, Bond CM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A. Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal agents for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush): a systematic review. BJOG. 2002;109(1):85-95. [ Links ]

180. Sobel JD, Brooker D, Stein GE, Thomason JL, Wermeling DP, Bradley B, et al. Single oral dose fluconazole compared with conventional clotrimazole topical therapy of Candida vaginitis. Fluconazole Vaginitis Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995;172(4 Pt 1):1263-8. [ Links ]

181. Sobel JD, Kapernick PS, Zervos M, Reed BD, Hooton T, Soper D, et al. Treatment of complicated Candida vaginitis: comparison of single and sequential doses of fluconazole. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2001;185(2):363-9. [ Links ]

182. Sobel JD, Wiesenfeld HC, Martens M, Danna P, Hooton TM, Rompalo A, et al. Maintenance fluconazole therapy for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. N Engl J Med . 2004;351(9):876-83. [ Links ]

183. Rosa MI, Silva BR, Pires PS, Silva FR, Silva NC, Silva FR, et al. Weekly fluconazole therapy for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167(2):132-6. [ Links ]

184. Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID, Zarkada IM, Falagas ME. Boric acid for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: the clinical evidence. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20(8):1245-55. [ Links ]

185. Sobel JD, Chaim W, Nagappan V, Leaman D. Treatment of vaginitis caused by Candida glabrata: use of topical boric acid and flucytosine. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2003;189(5):1297-300. [ Links ]

186. White D, Habib A, Vanthuyne A, Langford S, Symonds M. Combined topical flucytosine and amphotericin B for refractory vaginal Candida glabrata infections. Sex Transm Infect. 2001;77(3):212-3. [ Links ]

187. Lentino JR, Zielinski A, Stachowski M, Cummings JE, Maliwan N, Reid RW. Prostatic abscess due to Candida albicans. J Infect Dis . 1984;149(2):282. [ Links ]

188. Elert A, von Knobloch R, Nusser R, Heidenreich A, Hofmann R. Isolated candidal prostatitis. J Urol. 2000;163(1):244. [ Links ]

189. Yu S, Provet J. Candida tropicalis in a nonacquired immunodeficiency syndrome patient. J Urol . 1992;148:1536-8. [ Links ]

190. Haas CA, Bodner DR, Hampel N, Resnick MI. Systemic candidiasis presenting with prostatic abscess. Br J Urol . 1998;82(3):450-1. [ Links ]

191. Andes D. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antifungals. Infect Dis Clin North Am . 2006;20(3):679-97. [ Links ]

192. Shibata Y, Hagihara M, Kato H, Kawasumi N, Hirai J, Nishiyama N, et al. Caspofungin versus micafungin in the incidence of hepatotoxicity in patients with normal to moderate liver failure. J Infect Chemother. 2017;23(6):349-53. [ Links ]

193. Martial LC, Bruggemann RJM, Schouten JA, van Leeuwen HJ, van Zanten AR, de Lange DW, et al. Dose Reduction of Caspofungin in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Child Pugh B Will Result in Suboptimal Exposure. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(6):723-33. [ Links ]

194. Sherwin J, Heath T, Watt K. Pharmacokinetics and Dosing of Anti-infective Drugs in Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Review of the Current Literature. Clin Ther. 2016;38(9):1976-94. [ Links ]

195. Roberts JA, Pea F, Lipman J. The clinical relevance of plasma protein binding changes. Clin Pharmacokinet . 2013;52(1):1-8. [ Links ]

196. Vanstraelen K, Wauters J, Vercammen I, de Loor H, Maertens J, Lagrou K, et al. Impact of hypoalbuminemia on voriconazole pharmacokinetics in critically ill adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2014;58(11):6782-9. [ Links ]

197. Jullien V, Blanchet B, Benyamina M, Tod M, Vinsonneau C. Pharmacokinetics of Caspofungin in Two Patients with Burn Injuries. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2012;56(8):4550-1. [ Links ]

198. Sandven P, Qvist H, Skovlund E, Giercksky KE. Significance of Candida recovered from intraoperative specimens in patients with intra-abdominal perforations. Crit Care Med . 2002;30(3):541-7. [ Links ]

199. Calandra T, Bille J, Schneider R, Mosimann F, Francioli P. Clinical significance of Candida isolated from peritoneum in surgical patients. Lancet (London, England). 1989;2(8677):1437-40. [ Links ]

200. Rutledge R, Mandel SR, Wild RE. Candida species. Insignificant contaminant or pathogenic species. Am Surg. 1986;52(6):299-302. [ Links ]

201. Li W-S, Lee C-H, Liu J-W. Antifungal therapy did not improve outcomes including 30-day all-cause mortality in patients suffering communityacquired perforated peptic ulcer-associated peritonitis with Candida species isolated from their peritoneal fluid. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2017;50(3):370-6. [ Links ]

202. Montravers P, Dupont H, Gauzit R, Veber B, Auboyer C, Blin P, et al. Candida as a risk factor for mortality in peritonitis. Crit Care Med . 2006;34(3):646-52. [ Links ]

203. Hasibeder W, Halabi M. Candida peritonitis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80(4):470-81. [ Links ]

204. de Ruiter J, Weel J, Manusama E, Kingma WP, van der Voort PHJ. The epidemiology of intra-abdominal flora in critically ill patients with secondary and tertiary abdominal sepsis. Infection . 2009;37(6):522-7. [ Links ]

205. Montravers P, Perrigault PF, Timsit JF, Mira JP, Lortholary O, Leroy O, et al. Antifungal therapy for patients with proven or suspected Candida peritonitis: Amarcand2, a prospective cohort study in French intensive care units. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2017;23(2):117.e1-117.e8. [ Links ]

206. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA, OstroskyZeichner L, et al. Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis . 2016;62(4):409-17. [ Links ]

207. Bassetti M, Righi E, Ansaldi F, Merelli M, Scarparo C, Antonelli M, et al. A multicenter multinational study of abdominal candidiasis: epidemiology, outcomes and predictors of mortality. Intensive Care Med . 2015;41(9):1601-10. [ Links ]

208. Kollef M, Micek S, Hampton N, Doherty JA, Kumar A. Septic shock attributed to Candida infection: importance of empiric therapy and source control. Clin Infect Dis . 2012;54(12):1739-46. [ Links ]

209. Sartelli M, Catena F, Abu-Zidan FM, Ansaloni L, Biffl WL, Boermeester MA, et al. Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;12:22. [ Links ]

210. Bassetti M, Marchetti M, Chakrabarti A, Colizza S, Garnacho-Montero J, Kett DH, et al. A research agenda on the management of intra-abdominal candidiasis: results from a consensus of multinational experts. Intensive Care Med . 2013;39(12):2092-106. [ Links ]

211. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, Rodvold KA, Goldstein EJC, Baron EJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis . 2010;50(2):133-64. [ Links ]

212. Padawer D, Pastukh N, Nitzan O, Labay K, Aharon I, Brodsky D, et al. Catheter-associated candiduria: Risk factors, medical interventions, and antifungal susceptibility. Infect Control. 2015;43(7):e19-22. [ Links ]

213. Hollenbach E. To treat or not to treat--critically ill patients with candiduria. Mycoses . 2008 Sep;51 Suppl 2:12-24. [ Links ]

214. Tuon FF, Amato VS, Penteado Filho SR . Bladder irrigation with amphotericin B and fungal urinary tract infection--systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis . 2009;13(6):701-6. [ Links ]

215. Malani AN, Kauffman CA. Candida urinary tract infections: treatment options. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther . 2007;5(2):277-84. [ Links ]

216. Sobel JD, Bradshaw SK, Lipka CJ, Kartsonis NA. Caspofungin in the treatment of symptomatic candiduria. Clin Infect Dis . 2007;44(5):e46-9. [ Links ]

217. Meersseman W, Lagrou K, Spriet I, Maertens J, Verbeken E, Peetermans WE, et al. Significance of the isolation of Candida species from airway samples in critically ill patients: a prospective, autopsy study. Intensive Care Med . 2009 Sep;35(9):1526-31. [ Links ]

218. Azoulay E, Cohen Y, Zahar J-R, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Adrie C, Moine P, et al. Practices in non-neutropenic ICU patients with Candida-positive airway specimens. Intensive Care Med . 2004;30(7):1384-9. [ Links ]

219. Ahmed A, Baronia AK, Azim A, Marak RSK, Yadav R, Sharma P, et al. External Validation of Risk Prediction Scores for Invasive Candidiasis in a Medical/Surgical Intensive Care Unit: An Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med . 2007;21(8):514-20. [ Links ]

220. Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K, Moody J, Hickok J, Avery TR, et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N Engl J Med . 2013 Jun;368(24):2255-65. [ Links ]

221. Climo MW, Yokoe DS, Warren DK, Perl TM, Bolon M, Herwaldt LA, et al. Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection. N Engl J Med . 2013;368(6):533-42. [ Links ]

222. Manzoni P, Stolfi I, Messner H, Cattani S, Laforgia N, Romeo MG, et al. Bovine Lactoferrin Prevents Invasive Fungal Infections in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics . 2012;129(1):116-23. [ Links ]

223. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Prof. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-16):1-45, NaN-4. [ Links ]

224. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control.2011 ;39(4 Suppl 1):S1-34. [ Links ]

225. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med . 2006;355(26):2725-32. [ Links ]

226. Molina J, Penalva G, Gil-Navarro M V, Praena J, Lepe JA, Perez-Moreno MA, et al. Long-Term Impact of an Educational Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Hospital-Acquired Candidemia and Multidrug-Resistant Blood stream Infection s: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Interrupted TimeSeries Analysis. Clin Infect Dis . 2017;65(12):1992-9. [ Links ]

227. Tsay S, Kallen A, Jackson BR, Chiller TM, Vallabhaneni S. Approach to the Investigation and Management of Patients With Candida auris, an Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Yeast. Clin Infect Dis . 2018;66(2):306-11. [ Links ]

228. Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL, Abdolrasouli A, Chowdhary A, Hall A, et al. First hospital outbreak of the globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016;5:35. [ Links ]

229. Kullberg BJ, Vasquez J, Mootsikapun P, Nucci M, Paiva J-A, Garbino J, et al. Efficacy of anidulafungin in 539 patients with invasive candidiasis: a patient-level pooled analysis of six clinical trials. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2017;72(8):2368-77. [ Links ]

230. Paramythiotou E, Frantzeskaki F, Flevari A, Armaganidis A, Dimopoulos G. Invasive fungal infections in the ICU: how to approach, how to treat. Molecules. 2014 Jan;19(1):1085-119. [ Links ]

231. Arendrup MC, Boekhout T, Akova M, Meis JF, Cornely OA, Lortholary O. ESCMID and ECMM joint clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of rare invasive yeast infections. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2014;20 Suppl 3:76-98. [ Links ]

232. Guinea J. Global trends in the distribution of Candida species causing candidemia. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2014;20 Suppl 6:5-10. [ Links ]

233. Quindos G. Epidemiology of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. A changing face. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2014;31(1):42-8. [ Links ]

234. Bassetti M, Merelli M, Righi E, Diaz-Martin A, Rosello EM, Luzzati R, et al. Epidemiology, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, and outcome of candidemia across five sites in Italy and Spain. J Clin Microbiol . 2013 Dec;51(12):4167-72. [ Links ]

235. Tortorano AM, Peman J, Bernhardt H, Klingspor L, Kibbler CC, Faure O, et al. Epidemiology of candidaemia in Europe: results of 28-month European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) hospital-based surveillance study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23(4):317-22. [ Links ]

236. Chen S, Slavin M, Nguyen Q, Marriott D, Playford EG, Ellis D, et al. Active surveillance for candidemia, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(10):1508-16. [ Links ]

237. Colombo AL, Nucci M, Park BJ, Nouer SA, Arthington-Skaggs B, da Matta DA, et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Brazil: a nationwide sentinel surveillance of candidemia in eleven medical centers. J Clin Microbiol . 2006;44(8):2816-23. [ Links ]

238. Cortes JA, Reyes P, Gomez C, Buitrago G, Leal AL. Fungal bloodstream infections in tertiary care hospitals in Colombia. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2011;28(2):74-8. [ Links ]

239. Cortes JA, Jaimes JA, Leal AL. Incidencia y prevalencia de candidemia en pacientes criticamente enfermos en Colombia. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2013 Dec;30(6):599-604. [ Links ]

240. Maldonado NA, Cano LE, De Bedout C, Arbelaez CA, Roncancio G, Tabares AM, et al. Association of clinical and demographic factors in invasive candidiasis caused by fluconazole-resistant Candida species: a study in 15 hospitals, Medellin, Colombia 2010-2011. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis . 2014;79(2):280-6. [ Links ]

241. Motoa G, Munoz JS, Onate J, Pallares CJ, Hernandez C, Villegas MV. Epidemiology of Candida isolates from Intensive Care Units in Colombia from 2010 to 2013. Rev Iberoam Micol . 2017;34(1):17-22. [ Links ]

242. Escandón P, Chow NA, Caceres DH, Gade L, Berkow EL, Armstrong P, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Candida auris in Colombia reveals a highlyrelated, country-wide colonization with regional patterns in Amphotericin B resistance. Clin Infect Dis . 2018 May 16. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy411. [ Links ]

243. Colombo AL, Júnior JNA, Guinea J. Emerging multidrug-resistant Candida species. Curr Opin Infect Dis . 2017 Dec;30(6):528-538. [ Links ]

244. Morales-López S, Parra C, Ceballos AP, Parra Martínez H, Rodríguez G, Alvarez C, et al. Invasive Infections with Multidrug-Resistant Yeast Candida auris, Colombia. Emerg Infect Dis . 2017;23(1):162-4. [ Links ]

245. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of Candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2005;49(9):3640-5. [ Links ]

246. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, Mingo DE, Suda KJ, Turpin RS, et al. Time to initiation of fluconazole therapy impacts mortality in patients with candidemia: a multi-institutional study. Clin Infect Dis . 2006;43(1):25-31. [ Links ]

247. Pemán J, Salavert M. Epidemiología general de la enfermedad fúngica invasora. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2012;30(2):90-8. [ Links ]

248. Martínez-Sahuquillo Amuedo M aE., Echevarría Ruiz De Vargas Ma C. Métodos de consenso. Uso adecuado de la evidencia en la toma de decisiones. «Método RAND/UCLA». Rehabilitación. 2001;35(6):388-92. [ Links ]

249. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ Br Med J. 2008 May 24;336(7654):1170-3. [ Links ]

250. Cluzeau F. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:18-23. [ Links ]

251. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ. 2010;182(10):1045-52. [ Links ]

252. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ . 2010;182(10):E472-8. [ Links ]

253. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. C Can Med Assoc J. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42. [ Links ]

254. Flórez ID, Montoya DC. Las guías de práctica clínica y el instrumento AGREE II. Psiquiat. 2011 ;40(3):563-76. [ Links ]

255. Ibanez-Martinez E, Ruiz-Gaitan A, Peman-Garcia J. Update on the diagnosis of invasive fungal infection. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2017;30 Suppl 1:16-21. [ Links ]

256. Timsit J-F, Chemam S, Bailly S. Empiric/pre-emptive anti-Candida therapy in non-neutropenic ICU patients. F1000Prime Rep. 2015;7:21. [ Links ]

257. Ayats J, Martín-Mazuelos E, Pemán J, Quindós G, Sánchez F, GarcíaRodríguez J, et al. Recomendaciones sobre el diagnóstico de la enfermedad fúngica invasora de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC). Actualización 2010. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin . 2011 ;29(1):39.e1-39.e15. [ Links ]

258. Rivas P, Pemán J, Córdoba J, Melhem M, editors. Aproximación clínicodiagnóstica de la enfermedad fúngica invasora. Bogotá: Pfizer SAS; 2014. [ Links ]

259. Marriott DJE, Geoffrey EG, Chen S, Slavin M, Nguyen Q, Ellis D, et al. Determinants of mortality in non-neutropenic ICU patients with candidaemia. Crit Care . 2009;13(4):6-13. [ Links ]

260. Horn DL, Neofytos D, Anaissie EJ, Fishman JA, Steinbach WJ, Olyaei AJ, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 2019 patients: data from the prospective antifungal therapy alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis . 2009;48(12):1695-703. [ Links ]

261. Powderly WG, Finkelstein D, Feinberg J, Frame P, He W, van der Horst C, et al. A randomized trial comparing fluconazole with clotrimazole troches for the prevention of fungal infections in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. NIAID AIDS Clinical Trials Group. N Engl J Med . 1995;332(11):700-5. [ Links ]

262. Abbott KC, Hypolite I, Poropatich RK, Hshieh P, Cruess D, Hawkes CA, et al. Hospitalizations for fungal infections after renal transplantation in the United States. Transpl Infect Dis . 2001;3(4):203-11. [ Links ]

263. Safdar N, Slattery WR, Knasinski V, Gangnon RE, Li Z, Pirsch JD, et al. Predictors and outcomes of candiduria in renal transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis . 2005;40(10):1413-21. [ Links ]

264. Singh N, Wagener MM, Marino IR, Gayowski T. Trends in invasive fungal infections in liver transplant recipients: correlation with evolution in transplantation practices. Transplantation. 2002 Jan;73(1):63-7. [ Links ]

265. Giannella M, Ercolani G, Cristini F, Morelli M, Bartoletti M, Bertuzzo V, et al. High-dose weekly liposomal amphotericin b antifungal prophylaxis in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a prospective phase II trial. Transplantation . 2015;99(4):848-54. [ Links ]

266. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Alexander BD, Kett DH, Vazquez J, Pappas PG, Saeki F, et al. Multicenter clinical evaluation of the (1-->3) beta-D-glucan assay as an aid to diagnosis of fungal infections in humans. Clin Infect Dis . 2005;41(5):654-9. [ Links ]

267. Zaragoza R, Peman J, Salavert M. Is the use of antifungal management advisable in critical patients with positive isolation of Candida Spp. from intraabdominal clinical samples? Rev Iberoam Micol . 2008;25(4):203-7. [ Links ]

268. Dupont H, Mahjoub Y, Chouaki T, Lorne E, Zogheib E. Antifungal Prevention of Systemic Candidiasis in Immunocompetent ICU Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Crit Care Med . 2017;45(11):1937-45. [ Links ]

269. Bow EJ, Vanness DJ, Slavin M, Cordonnier C, Cornely OA, Marks DI, et al. Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. BMC Infect Dis . 2015;15:128. [ Links ]

270. Keighley CL, Manii P, Larsen SR, van Hal S. Clinical effectiveness of itraconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy in the modern era. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36(2):213-7. [ Links ]

271. Ullmann AJ, Akova M, Herbrecht R, Viscoli C, Arendrup MC, ArikanAkdagli S, et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) . Clin Microbiol Infect . 2012;18 Suppl 7:53-67. [ Links ]

272. Lopez-Cortes LE, Almirante B, Cuenca-Estrella M, Garnacho-Montero J, Padilla B, Puig-Asensio M, et al. Empirical and targeted therapy of candidemia with fluconazole versus echinocandins: a propensity scorederived analysis of a population-based, multicentre prospective cohort. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2016;22(8):733.e1-8. [ Links ]

273. Falagas ME, Apostolou KE, Pappas VD. Attributable mortality of candidemia: a systematic review of matched cohort and case-control studies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Jul;25(7):419-25. [ Links ]

274. Eggimann P, Ostrosky-Zeichner L. Early antifungal intervention strategies in ICU patients. Curr Opin Crit Care . 2010;16(5):465-9. [ Links ]

275. Leon C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P, Castro C, Loza A, Zakariya I, et al. Contribution of Candida biomarkers and DNA detection for the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients with severe abdominal conditions. Crit Care . 2016;20(1):149. [ Links ]

276. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Shoham S, Vazquez J, Reboli A, Betts R, Barron MA, et al. MSG-01: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin prophylaxis followed by preemptive therapy for invasive candidiasis in high-risk adults in the critical care setting. Clin Infect Dis . 2014;58(9):1219-26. [ Links ]

277. Schuster MG, Edwards JEJ, Sobel JD, Darouiche RO, Karchmer AW, Hadley S, et al. Empirical fluconazole versus placebo for intensive care unit patients: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(2):83-90. [ Links ]

278. Pelz RK, Hendrix CW, Swoboda SM, Diener-West M, Merz WG, Hammond J, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent candidal infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg. 2001;233(4):542-8. [ Links ]

279. Timsit J-F, Azoulay E, Schwebel C, Charles PE, Cornet M, Souweine B, et al. Empirical Micafungin Treatment and Survival Without Invasive Fungal Infection in Adults With ICU-Acquired Sepsis, Candida Colonization, and Multiple Organ Failure: The EMPIRICUS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA . 2016;316(15):1555-64. [ Links ]

280. Golan Y, Wolf MP, Pauker SG, Wong JB, Hadley S. Empirical anti-Candida therapy among selected patients in the intensive care unit: a costeffectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med . 2005;143(12):857-69. [ Links ]

281. Ullmann AJ, Cornely OA, Donnelly JP, Akova M, Arendrup MC, ArikanAkdagli S, et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: developing European guidelines in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2012;18 Suppl 7:1-8. [ Links ]

282. Das I, Nightingale P, Patel M, Jumaa P. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcome of candidemia: experience in a tertiary referral center in the UK. Int J Infect Dis . 2011;15(11):e759-63. [ Links ]

283. Corzo-Leon DE, Alvarado-Matute T, Colombo AL, Cornejo-Juarez P, Cortes J, Echevarria JI, et al. Surveillance of Candida Spp bloodstream infections: epidemiological trends and risk factors of death in two Mexican tertiary care hospitals. PLoS One . 2014;9(5):e97325. [ Links ]

284. Nucci M, Anaissie E, Betts RF, Dupont BF, Wu C, Buell DN, et al. Early removal of central venous catheter in patients with candidemia does not improve outcome: analysis of 842 patients from 2 randomized clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(3):295-303. [ Links ]

285. Lewis RE. Current concepts in antifungal pharmacology. Mayo Clin Proc . 2011;86(8):805-17. [ Links ]

286. Rex JH, Pappas PG, Karchmer AW, Sobel J, Edwards JE, Hadley S, et al. A randomized and blinded multicenter trial of high-dose fluconazole plus placebo versus fluconazole plus amphotericin B as therapy for candidemia and its consequences in nonneutropenic subjects. Clin Infect Dis . 2003;36(10):1221-8. [ Links ]

287. Nucci M, Colombo AL, Petti M, Magana M, Abreu P, Schlamm HT, et al. An open-label study of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia/ invasive candidiasis in Latin America. Mycoses . 2014;57(1):12-8. [ Links ]

288. Walsh TJ, Pappas P, Winston DJ, Lazarus HM, Petersen F, Raffalli J, et al. Voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med . 2002;346(4):225-34. [ Links ]

289. Pappas PG, Rotstein CMF, Betts RF, Nucci M, Talwar D, De Waele JJ, et al. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis . 2007;45(7):883-93. [ Links ]

290. Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C, Colombo AL, Thompson-Moya L, Smietana J, et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med . 2002;347(25):2020-9. [ Links ]

291. Kuse E-R, Chetchotisakd P, da Cunha CA, Ruhnke M, Barrios C, Raghunadharao D, et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised doubleblind trial. Lancet (London, England) . 2007;369(9572):1519-27. [ Links ]

292. Abele-Horn M, Kopp A, Sternberg U, Ohly A, Dauber A, Russwurm W, et al. A randomized study comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B/5- flucytosine for the treatment of systemic Candida infections in intensive care patients. Infection . 1996;24(6):426-32. [ Links ]

293. Malani AN, Kerr LE, Kauffman CA. Voriconazole: How to Use This Antifungal Agent and What to Expect. Semin Respir Crit Care Med . 2015;36(5):786-95. [ Links ]

294. Tan J, Zhang J, Chen W, Sun Y, Wan Z, Li R, et al. The A395T mutation in ERG11 gene confers fluconazole resistance in Candida tropicalis causing candidemia. Mycopathologia. 2015;179(3-4):213-8. [ Links ]

295. Scorzoni L, de Paula E Silva ACA, Marcos CM, Assato PA, de Melo WCMA, de Oliveira HC, et al. Antifungal Therapy: New Advances in the Understanding and Treatment of Mycosis. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:36. [ Links ]

296. Pfaller M, Neofytos D, Diekema D, Azie N, Meier-Kriesche H-U, Quan S-P, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 3648 patients: data from the Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH Alliance(R)) registry, 2004-2008. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis . 2012;74(4):323-31. [ Links ]

297. Schuster MG, Meibohm A, Lloyd L, Strom B. Risk factors and outcomes of Candida krusei bloodstream infection: a matched, case-control study. J Infect . 2013;66(3):278-84. [ Links ]

298. Arendrup MC, Patterson TF. Multidrug-Resistant Candida: Epidemiology, Molecular Mechanisms, and Treatment. J Infect Dis . 2017;216(suppl_3):S445-51. [ Links ]

299. Cuenca-Estrella M. Antifúngicos en el tratamiento de las infecciones sistémicas: importancia del mecanismo de acción, espectro de actividad y resistencias. Rev Esp Quim. 2010;23(4):169-76. [ Links ]

300. Gilbert D, Chambers H, Eliopoulos G, Chambers H, Saag M, Pavia A. The Sanford Guide. To Antimicrobial Therapy 2017. 47th Editi. USA: Antimicrobial Therapy, INC; 2017. [ Links ]

301. Denning DW. Echinocandin antifungal drugs. Lancet (London, England) . 2003;362(9390):1142-51. [ Links ]

302. van Burik J-AH, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, Miller CB, Lipton JH, Vesole DH, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis . 2004;39(10):1407-16. [ Links ]

303. Reboli AC, Shorr AF, Rotstein C, Pappas PG, Kett DH, Schlamm HT, et al. Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans: a multivariate analysis of factors associated with improved outcome. BMC Infect Dis . 2011 ;11:261. [ Links ]

304. Wiederhold NP. Antifungal resistance: current trends and future strategies to combat. Infect Drug Resist. 2017;10:249-59. [ Links ]

305. Cortés J a, Russi J a. Equinocandinas. Rev Chil Infect. 2011 ;28(6):529-36. [ Links ]

306. González de Molina FJ, Martínez-Alberici M de LÁ, Ferrer R. Treatment with echinocandins during continuous renal replacement therapy. Crit Care . 2014;18(2):218. [ Links ]

307. Stone NRH, Bicanic T, Salim R, Hope W. Liposomal Amphotericin B (AmBisome((R))): A Review of the Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, Clinical Experience and Future Directions. Drugs . 2016;76(4):485-500. [ Links ]

308. Azanza JR, Sadada B, Reis J. Liposomal formulations of amphotericin B: differences according to the scientific evidence. Rev Esp Quimioter . 2015;28(6):275-81. [ Links ]

309. Falagas ME, Karageorgopoulos DE, Tansarli GS. continuous versus conventional infusion of amphotericin B deoxycholate: a meta-analysis. PLoS One . 2013;8(10):e77075. [ Links ]

310. Karthaus M. Prophylaxis and treatment of invasive aspergillosis with voriconazole, posaconazole and caspofungin: review of the literature. Eur J Med Res. 2011 ;16(4):145-52. [ Links ]

311. Kethireddy S, Andes D. CNS pharmacokinetics of antifungal agents. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2007;3(4):573-81. [ Links ]

312. Purkins L, Wood N, Greenhalgh K, Eve MD, Oliver SD, Nichols D. The pharmacokinetics and safety of intravenous voriconazole - a novel wide-spectrum antifungal agent. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56 Suppl 1:2-9. [ Links ]

313. Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Bohrmuller J, Marchillo K, Lepak A. In vivo comparison of the pharmacodynamic targets for echinocandin drugs against Candida species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2010;54(6):2497-506. [ Links ]

314. Wilson DT, Dimondi VP, Johnson SW, Jones TM, Drew RH. Role of isavuconazole in the treatment of invasive fungal infections. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016;12:1197-206. [ Links ]

315. Isavuconazole (BAL8557) in the Treatment of Candidemia and Other Invasive Candida Infections [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jun 21]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00413218Links ]

316. Campitelli M, Zeineddine N, Samaha G, Maslak S. Combination Antifungal Therapy: A Review of Current Data. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(6):451-6. [ Links ]

317. Baddley JW, Benjamin DKJ, Patel M, Miro J, Athan E, Barsic B, et al. Candida infective endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27(7):519-29. [ Links ]

318. Muilwijk EW, Lempers VJC, Burger DM, Warris A, Pickkers P, Aarnoutse RE, et al. Impact of special patient populations on the pharmacokinetics of echinocandins. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther . 2015;13(6):799-815. [ Links ]

319. Ezzet F, Wexler D, Courtney R, Krishna G, Lim J, Laughlin M. Oral bioavailability of posaconazole in fasted healthy subjects: comparison between three regimens and basis for clinical dosage recommendations. Clin Pharmacokinet . 2005;44(2):211-20. [ Links ]

320. Hocevar SN, Edwards JR, Horan TC, Morrell GC, Iwamoto M, Lessa FC. Device-associated infections among neonatal intensive care unit patients: incidence and associated pathogens reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2006-2008. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(12):1200-6. [ Links ]

321. Aliaga S, Clark RH, Laughon M, Walsh TJ, Hope WW, Benjamin DK, et al. Changes in the Incidence of Candidiasis in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Pediatrics . 2014 Feb 14;133(2):236-42. [ Links ]

322. Chitnis AS, Magill SS, Edwards JR, Chiller TM, Fridkin SK, Lessa FC. Trends in Candida central line-associated bloodstream infections among NICUs, 1999-2009. Pediatrics . 2012;130(1):e46-52. [ Links ]

323. Jr BD, BJ S, AA F, SA MD, W O, RD H, et al. Neonatal candidiasis among extremely low birth weight infants: risk factors, mortality rates, and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months. 2006;117:84-92. [ Links ]

324. Kelly MS, Benjamin DK, Smith PB. The Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis Among Premature Infants. Clin Perinatol. 2015 Mar 28;42(1):105-17. [ Links ]

325. Santolaya ME, Alvarado T, Queiroz-Telles F, Colombo AL, Zurita J, Tiraboschi IN, et al. Active surveillance of candidemia in children from latin america: A key requirement for improving disease outcome. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2014;33(2). [ Links ]

326. Saiman L, Ludington E, Pfaller M, Rangel-Frausto S, Wiblin RT, Dawson J, et al. Risk factors for candidemia in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit patients. The National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey study group. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2000;19(4):319-24. [ Links ]

327. Makhoul IR, Kassis I, Smolkin T, Tamir A, Sujov P. Review of 49 neonates with acquired fungal sepsis: further characterization. Pediatrics . 2001;107(1):61-6. [ Links ]

328. Oguz SS, Sipahi E, Dilmen U. C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 responses for differentiating fungal and bacterial aetiology in late-onset neonatal sepsis. Mycoses. 2011 ;54(3):212-6. [ Links ]

329. Benjamin DKJ, Poole C, Steinbach WJ, Rowen JL, Walsh TJ. Neonatal candidemia and end-organ damage: a critical appraisal of the literature using meta-analytic techniques. Pediatrics . 2003;112(3 Pt 1):634-40. [ Links ]

330. Figueras C, Heredia CD De, García JJ, Navarro M, Ruiz-Contreras J, Rossich R, et al. Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Infectología Pediátrica sobre diagnóstico y tratamiento de la candidiasis invasiva. An Pediatr. 2011 ;74(5):337.e1-337.e17. [ Links ]

331. Cahan H, Deville JG. Outcomes of Neonatal Candidiasis: The Impact of Delayed Initiation of Antifungal Therapy. Int J Pediatr . 2011 Nov 3; 2011:813871. [ Links ]

332. Driessen M, Ellis JB, Cooper PA, Wainer S, Muwazi F, Hahn D, et al. Fluconazole vs amphotericin B for the treatment of neonatal fungal septicemia: a prospective randomized trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 1996;15(12):1107-12. [ Links ]

333. Linder N, Klinger G, Shalit I, Levy I, Ashkenazi S, Haski G, et al. Treatment of candidaemia in premature infants: Comparison of three amphotericin B preparations. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2003;52(4):663-7. [ Links ]

334. Ascher SB, Smith PB, Watt K, Benjamin DK, Cohen-Wolkowiez M, Clark RH, et al. Antifungal therapy and outcomes in infants with invasive Candida infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2012;31(5):439-43. [ Links ]

335. Benson J, Nahata MC. Pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B in children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 1989;33(11):1989-93. [ Links ]

336. Karlowicz MG, Hashimoto LN, Kelly REJ, Buescher ES. Should central venous catheters be removed as soon as candidemia is detected in neonates? Pediatrics . 2000;106(5):E63. [ Links ]

337. Cohen-Wolkowiez M, Smith PB, Mangum B, Steinbach WJ, Alexander BD, Cotten CM, et al. Neonatal Candida meningitis: significance of cerebrospinal fluid parameters and blood cultures. J Perinatol . 2007;27(2):97-100. [ Links ]

338. Zaoutis TE, Heydon K, Localio R, Walsh TJ, Feudtner C. Outcomes Attributable to Neonatal Candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis . 2007;44(9):1187-93. [ Links ]

339. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Adams-Chapman I, Fanaroff AA, Hintz SR, Vohr B, et al. Neurodevelopmental and growth impairment among extremely lowbirth-weight infants with neonatal infection. JAMA . 2004;292(19):2357- 65. [ Links ]

340. Wynn JL, Tan S, Gantz MG, Das A, Goldberg RN, Adams-Chapman I, et al. Outcomes Following Candiduria in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants. Clin Infect Dis . 2012 Feb 1;54(3):331-9. [ Links ]

341. Le J, Adler-Shohet FC, Nguyen C, Lieberman JM. Nephrotoxicity associated with amphotericin B deoxycholate in neonates. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2009 Dec;28(12):1061-3. [ Links ]

342. Holler B, Omar SA, Farid MD, Patterson MJ. Effects of fluid and electrolyte management on amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity among extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics . 2004 Jun;113(6):e608-16. [ Links ]

343. Kaufman D, Boyle R, Hazen KC, Patrie JT, Robinson M, Donowitz LG. Fluconazole prophylaxis against fungal colonization and infection in preterm infants. N Engl J Med . 2001;345(23):1660-6. [ Links ]

344. Cleminson J, Austin N, McGuire W. Prophylactic systemic antifungal agents to prevent mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:CD003850. [ Links ]

345. Mueller M, Balasegaram M, Koummuki Y, Ritmeijer K, Santana MR, Davidson R. A comparison of liposomal amphotericin B with sodium stibogluconate for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in pregnancy in Sudan. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2006;58(4):811-5. [ Links ]

346. Pagliano P, Carannante N, Rossi M, Gramiccia M, Gradoni L, Faella FS, et al. Visceral leishmaniasis in pregnancy: a case series and a systematic review of the literature. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2005;55(2):229-33. [ Links ]

347. Pursley TJ, Blomquist IK, Abraham J, Andersen HF, Bartley JA. Fluconazoleinduced congenital anomalies in three infants. Clin Infect Dis . 1996;22(2):336-40. [ Links ]

348. Lee BE, Feinberg M, Abraham JJ, Murthy AR. Congenital malformations in an infant born to a woman treated with fluconazole. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 1992;11(12):1062-4. [ Links ]

349. Vlachadis N, Iliodromiti Z, Vrachnis N. Oral fluconazole during pregnancy and risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med . 2013;369(21):2061. [ Links ]

350. Riddell J, Comer GM, Kauffman CA. Treatment of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: focus on new antifungal agents. Clin Infect Dis . 2011;52(5):648-53. [ Links ]

351. Eltoukhy NS, Crank CW. Antifungal distribution into cerebrospinal fluid, vitreous humor, bone, and other difficult sites. Curr Fungal Infect Rep . 2010;4(2):111-9. [ Links ]

352. Lingappan A, Wykoff CC, Albini TA, Miller D, Pathengay A, Davis JL, et al. Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: causative organisms, management strategies, and visual acuity outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol . 2012;153(1):162-6.e1. [ Links ]

353. Shah CP, McKey J, Spirn MJ, Maguire J. Ocular candidiasis: a review. Br J Ophthalmol . 2008;92(4):466-8. [ Links ]

354. Suzuki T, Uno T, Chen G, Ohashi Y. Ocular distribution of intravenously administered micafungin in rabbits. J Infect Chemother. 2008;14(3):204-7. [ Links ]

355. Essman TF, Flynn HWJ, Smiddy WE, Brod RD, Murray TG, Davis JL, et al. Treatment outcomes in a 10-year study of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28(3):185-94. [ Links ]

356. Kontoyiannis DP, Luna MA, Samuels BI, Bodey GP. HEPATOSPLENIC CANDIDIASIS: A Manifestation of Chronic Disseminated Candidiasis. Infect Dis Clin North Am . 2000;14(3):721-39. [ Links ]

357. Rammaert B, Desjardins A, Lortholary O. New insights into hepatosplenic candidosis, a manifestation of chronic disseminated candidosis. Mycoses . 2012;55(3):e74-84. [ Links ]

358. Masood A, Sallah S. Chronic disseminated candidiasis in patients with acute leukemia: emphasis on diagnostic definition and treatment. Leuk Res . 2005;29(5):493-501. [ Links ]

359. Liu K-H, Wu C-J, Chou C-H, Lee H-C, Lee N-Y, Hung S-T, et al. Refractory Candidal Meningitis in an Immunocompromised Patient Cured by Caspofungin. J Clin Microbiol . 2004;42(12):5950-3. [ Links ]

360. O’Brien D, Stevens NT, Lim CH, O’Brien DF, Smyth E, Fitzpatrick F, et al. Candida infection of the central nervous system following neurosurgery: a 12-year review. Acta Neurochir (Wien) . 2011;153(6):1347-50. [ Links ]

361. Lye DCB, Hughes A, O’Brien D, Athan E. Candida glabrata prosthetic valve endocarditis treated successfully with fluconazole plus caspofungin without surgery: a case report and literature review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis . 2005;24(11):753-5. [ Links ]

362. Penk A, Pittrow L. Role of fluconazole in the long-term suppressive therapy of fungal infections in patients with artificial implants. Mycoses . 1999;42(Suppl 2):91-6. [ Links ]

363. Arias F, Mata-Essayag S, Landaeta ME, Capriles CH de, Perez C, Nunez MJ, et al. Candida albicans osteomyelitis: case report and literature review. Int J Infect Dis. 2004;8(5):307-14. [ Links ]

364. Gamaletsou MN, Kontoyiannis DP, Sipsas N V, Moriyama B, Alexander E, Roilides E, et al. Candida osteomyelitis: analysis of 207 pediatric and adult cases (1970-2011). Clin Infect Dis . 2012;55(10):1338-51. [ Links ]

365. Kaldau NC, Brorson S, Jensen P-E, Schultz C, Arpi M. Bilateral polymicrobial osteomyelitis with Candida tropicalis and Candida krusei: a case report and an updated literature review. Int J Infect Dis . 2012;16(1):e16-22. [ Links ]

366. Bartkowski DP, Lanesky JR. Emphysematous prostatitis and cystitis secondary to Candida albicans. J Urol . 1988;139(5):1063-5. [ Links ]

367. Oude Lashof AML, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, Pappas PG, Viscoli C, Schlamm HT, et al. Safety and tolerability of voriconazole in patients with baseline renal insufficiency and candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2012;56(6):3133-7. [ Links ]

368. Neofytos D, Lombardi LR, Shields RK, Ostrander D, Warren L, Nguyen MH, et al. Administration of voriconazole in patients with renal dysfunction. Clin Infect Dis . 2012;54(7):913-21. [ Links ]

369. de Souza MCP, Santos AG Dos, Reis AMM. Adverse Drug Reactions in Patients Receiving Systemic Antifungal Therapy at a High-Complexity Hospital. J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;56(12):1507-15. [ Links ]

370. Gharibian KN, Mueller BA. Fluconazole dosing predictions in critically-ill patients receiving prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy: a Monte Carlo simulation approach. Clin Nephrol. 2016;86(7):43-50. [ Links ]

371. Bagdasarian N, Heung M, Malani PN. Infectious complications of dialysis access devices. Infect Dis Clin North Am . 2012;26(1):127-41. [ Links ]

372. Li PK-T, Szeto CC, Piraino B, Bernardini J, Figueiredo AE, Gupta A, et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 update. Perit Dial Int. 2010;30(4):393-423. [ Links ]

373. Miles R, Hawley CM, McDonald SP, Brown FG, Rosman JB, Wiggins KJ, et al. Predictors and outcomes of fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int . 2009;76(6):622-8. [ Links ]

374. Matuszkiewicz-Rowinska J. Update on fungal peritonitis and its treatment. Perit Dial Int. 2009;29 Suppl 2:S161-5. [ Links ]

375. Nadeau-Fredette A-C, Bargman JM. Characteristics and outcomes of fungal peritonitis in a modern North American cohort. Perit Dial Int. 2015;35(1):78-84. [ Links ]

376. Basturk T, Koc Y, Unsal A, Ahbap E, Sakaci T, Yildiz I, et al. Fungal peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a 10 year retrospective analysis in a single center. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(12):1696-700. [ Links ]

377. Chang TI, Kim HW, Park JT, Lee DH, Lee JH, Yoo T-H, et al. Early catheter removal improves patient survival in peritoneal dialysis patients with fungal peritonitis: results of ninety-four episodes of fungal peritonitis at a single center. Perit Dial Int. 2011;31(1):60-6. [ Links ]

378. Kauffman CA, Vazquez JA, Sobel JD, Gallis HA, McKinsey DS, Karchmer AW, et al. Prospective multicenter surveillance study of funguria in hospitalized patients. The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Mycoses Study Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(1):14-8. [ Links ]

379. Sobel JD, Kauffman CA, McKinsey D, Zervos M, Vazquez JA, Karchmer AW, et al. Candiduria: a randomized, double-blind study of treatment with fluconazole and placebo. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Mycoses Study Group. Clin Infect Dis . 2000;30(1):19-24. [ Links ]

380. Terraneo S, Ferrer M, Martin-Loeches I, Esperatti M, Di Pasquale M, Giunta V, et al. Impact of Candida Spp. isolation in the respiratory tract in patients with intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect . 2016;22(1):94.e1-94.e8. [ Links ]

381. Wood GC, Mueller EW, Croce MA, Boucher BA, Fabian TC. Candida sp. isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage: clinical significance in critically ill trauma patients. Intensive Care Med . 2006 Apr;32(4):599-603. [ Links ]

382. Albert M, Williamson D, Muscedere J, Lauzier F, Rotstein C, Kanji S, et al. Candida in the respiratory tract secretions of critically ill patients and the impact of antifungal treatment: a randomized placebo controlled pilot trial (CANTREAT study). Intensive Care Med . 2014;40(9):1313-22. [ Links ]

383. Montecalvo MA, McKenna D, Yarrish R, Mack L, Maguire G, Haas J, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheterassociated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability. Am J Med . 2012;125(5):505-11. [ Links ]

384. Palomar Martínez M, Álvarez Lerma F, Riera Badía MA, León Gil C, López Pueyo MJ, Díaz Tobajas C, et al. Prevención de la bacteriemia relacionada con catéteres en UCI mediante una intervención multifactorial. Informe del estudio piloto. Med Intensiva. 2010;34(9):581-9. [ Links ]

385. Marquez F, Iturrieta I, Calvo M, Urrutia M, Godoy-Martinez P. Epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility of species producing candidemia in Valdivia, Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol . 2017;34(5):441-6. [ Links ]

386. Gilbert RE, Mok Q, Dwan K, Harron K, Moitt T, Millar M, et al. Impregnated central venous catheters for prevention of bloodstream infection in children (the CATCH trial): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10029):1732-42. [ Links ]

387. Arendrup MC. Candida and candidaemia. Susceptibility and epidemiology. Dan Med J. 2013;60(11):B4698. [ Links ]

388. Correia MITD, Perman MI, Waitzberg DL. Hospital malnutrition in Latin America: A systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(4):958-67. [ Links ]

389. Tissot F, Agrawal S, Pagano L, Petrikkos G, Groll AH, Skiada A, et al. ECIL-6 guidelines for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, aspergillosis and mucormycosis in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Haematologica . 2017;102(3):433-44. [ Links ]

390. Lehrnbecher T, Robinson P, Fisher B, Alexander S, Ammann RA, Beauchemin M, et al. Guideline for the Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Children With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients: 2017 Update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(18):2082-94. [ Links ]

391. Maertens J, Marchetti O, Herbrecht R, Cornely OA, Fluckiger U, Frere P, et al. European guidelines for antifungal management in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: summary of the ECIL 3-- 2009 update. Bone Marrow Transplant . 2011;46(5):709-18. [ Links ]

392. Groll AH, Castagnola E, Cesaro S, Dalle J-H, Engelhard D, Hope W, et al. Fourth European Conference on Infection s in Leukaemia (ECIL-4): guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of invasive fungal diseases in paediatric patients with cancer or allogeneic haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jul;15(8):e327-40. [ Links ]

* Del Grupo de Micosis de la ACIN, para el Desarrollo del Consenso Colombiano para el Manejo de la Enfermedad Fúngica Invasora. * ACIN Mycoses Group for Development of Colombian Consensus on Management of the Invasive Fungal Disease.

+ Preprint version of this work was presented at the 16th Infocus -Forum on Fungal Infection in the Clinical Practice- Santiago de Cali, November 15 to 17, 2018

Cómo citar este artículo: J.M. Oñate, et al. Colombian consensus on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Candida spp. disease in children and adults. Infectio 2019; 23(3): 271-304

Consensus revision and approval process The panel requested 2 external reviewers, international experts on the specific topic of the consensus, to conduct a review and issue additional comments. All the Panel members reviewed and approved the guidelines before the dissemination.

Future consensus reviews Every year, Panel leaders will be asked for their opinion on the need for updating the guidelines, on the basis of an examination of current literature, and the need and time for an update will be determined pursuant to this consideration. When appropriate, the entire Expert Panel or a subset, will be reconvened to analyze potential changes.

Financial support Support for this guideline was provided by Pfizer Colombia, Merck Colombia, Astellas Farma Colombia.

Ethical disclosures

Confidentiality of data.In this consensus there are not data from patients.

Right to privacy and informed consent.No data from patients is published.

Conflict of interest and Funding. The authors have presented a list of potential conflicts of interest in one dedicated section to this topic. The funders do not intervened in the manuscript writing or approval.

Protection of human and animal subjects. There are not experimental data from humans and animals in this work. Supplementary material online The tables that are described as Annex on the text, are available at the link for supplementary material online, of this manuscript, at the website of Infectio journal.

SUPLEMENTARY ONLINE MATERIAL Colombian consensus on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of Candida Spp. disease in children and adults*,+

Annex 1. Vote on questions of the modules of the consensus (Delphi methodology) 

Annex 2

Annex 2. Score of guidelines found in the bibliographical search by AGREE II methodology38,40,42,46,70,72,108,178,388-392

Annex 3

Annex 3. Table of Authors’ affiliation 

Annex 4

Annex 4. Table of conflict of interest disclosed by authors 

Annex 5

Annex 5. Recommendations for the identification of yeast-like specie43

Adapted from: Colombo AL et al43. PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; MALDI-TOF MS: Matrix assisted laser desorption ionization Time-of-Flight.

Annex 6.

Annex 6. Chromogenic media for the identification of Candida species43

Adapted from: Colombo AL et al43.

Annex 7.

Annex 7. Automated methods for the identification of yeast-like fungus species 

*Information taken from the manufacturer package inserts

Annex 8.

Annex 8. Considerations on in vitro antifungal susceptibility commercial tests258

Adapted from: Rivas P et al258. CLSI: Clinical and laboratory standards institute; EUCAST: European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing; MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration.

Annex 9.

Annex 9. Clinical cut off points for common antifungal agents againstCandida species38,55

Adapted from: Pappas PG et al.; Albataineh MT et al38,55. Blank spaces mean that there are insufficient data to establish clinical cut off points. I: intermediate; MIC; Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; R: Resistant; S: Susceptible; DDS: Dose-Dependent Susceptible. * CLSI clinical cut off points adopted by CLSI.

Annex 10.

Annex 10. Emerging Candida species associated with human infections10  

Adapted from Arendrup MC et al10. MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration; FCZ: Fluconazole; AB: Amphotericin B; ITZ: Itraconazole; CAS; Caspofungin; VCZ: Voriconazole; 5FC: 5-Flucitosine.

Annex 11.

Annex 11. Serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of candidemia/IC37,41,56,57

Adapted from: Arvanitis M et al.; León C et al.; Ayats J et al.; Colombo AL et al37,41,56,57. ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Ab: Antibody; Ag.: Antigen; S: Sensitivity; Sp: Specificity; PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; MN: Mannan; BD: (1,3)-β-D-glucan; CAGTA: Anti-mycelium antibodies.

Annex 12.

Annex 12. Available molecular and proteomic biomarkers for the diagnosis of candidemia/IC37,39,55,66,68

Adapted from: Arvanitis M et al.; Brady AC et al.; Vanichanan J et al.; Powers-Fletcher MV et al.; Albataineh MT et al37,39,55,66,68. DL: Detection Limit; S: Sensitivity; Sp: Specificity; (%): Percentage; NAAT: Nucleic acid amplification test; PNA FISH: Fluorescent in situ hybridization using peptide nucleic acid; MALDI-TOF MS: Matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight; PCR/ESI-MS: PCR + mass spectrometry + electrospray ionization.

Annex 13.

Annex 13. Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of Systemic Antifungal Agents65,124,149,148,150,151  

Adapted from: Mensa-Pueyo J. et al.; Gilbert DN et al.; Ruiz-Camps I. et al.; Cuenca-Estrella M; Lewis RE; Bellmann R et al65,124,149,148,150,151. Cmax : Maximum concentration (Serum peak concentration); AUC24h: Area under the curve (total drug, including that bound to proteins) 24h; T½: Elimination halflife; DV: Distribution volume; MEC: Minimum effective concentration; MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration; h: Hours; g: Grams; min: Minutes; IV.: Administered intravenously; OA: Oral administration; kg: Kilogram; L: Liter; mEq: Milliequivalent; g: gram; min: Minutes; SOT: Solid organ transplant; HPCT: Hematopoietic progenitor cells transplant; CNS: Central nervous system.

Annex 14.

Annex 14. Antifungal treatment per isolated Candida species 

(Adapted by experts of the consensus) *https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/candidiasis/c-auris-treatment.html. Take into account the hemodynamic situation of the patient and the in vitro sensitivity of the specific isolation, for the start of combined treatment. FCZ: Fluconazole; VCZ: Voriconazole; AmB-D: Amphotericin B deoxycholate; AmB-L: Liposomal amphotericin B; CAS: Caspofungin; ANI: Anidulafungin; MIC: Micafungin; Day/days; h: Hours; mg: Milligrams; kg: Kilograms.

Annex 15.

Annex 15. PK/PD Parameters of Antifungal Agents65,124

Adapted from: Lewis RE; Bellmann R et al65,124. PAE: Post-antifungal effect.

Annex 16.

Annex 16. Candida species and predisposing factors for IFD in pediatric patients189

Adapted from: Figueras C et al189. CVC: central venous catheter; PN: Parenteral nutrition: FCZ: Fluconazole

Annex 17.

Annex 17. Algorithm of antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole in preterm neonates98

Adapted from: Kaufman DA98. AI and BII abbreviations refer to the level of evidence/degree of standard recommendation. CVC: Central Venous Catheter; IV.: Administered Intravenously; AmB: Amphotericin B.

Received: September 26, 2017; Accepted: February 02, 2018

** Autor para correspondencia. Correo electrónico: jprivasp@unal.edu.co

Conflicts of interests

The expert panel complied with the international policy on conflicts of interest, which requires disclosure of any financial or other interest that might be construed as constituting an actual, potential, or apparent conflict. All members of the panel were provided with the conflict of interest disclosure statement and were asked to clearly identify ties to companiesdeveloping products that might be affected by promulgation of the consensus. In addition, information was requested regarding employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and membership on company advisory committees. Potential conflicts of interests are listed in the appended document (Annexes 3 and 4).

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License