Management of histoplasmosis by infectious disease physicians

BACKGROUND: The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for the management of histoplasmosis were last revised 15 years ago. Since those guidelines were compiled, new antifungal treatment options have been developed. Furthermore, the ongoing development of immunomodulatory therapies has increased the population at increased risk to develop histoplasmosis. METHODS: An electronic survey about the management practices of histoplasmosis was distributed to the adult infectious disease (ID) physician members of the IDSA\u27s Emerging Infections Network. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 37% (551/1477). Only 46% (253/551) of respondents reported seeing patients with histoplasmosis. Regions considered endemic had 82% (158/193) of physicians report seeing patients with histoplasmosis compared to 27% (95/358) of physicians in regions not classically considered endemic ( CONCLUSIONS: Though there are increased reports of histoplasmosis diagnoses outside regions classically considered endemic, a majority of ID physicians reported not seeing patients with histoplasmosis. Most respondents reported adherence to IDSA guidelines recommending itraconazole in each clinical situation. New histoplasmosis guidelines need to reflect the growing need for updated general guidance, particularly for immunocompromised populations

Coronavirus disease 2019-associated invasive fungal infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19-associated fungal infections

The epidemiology and outcomes of invasive \u3ci\u3eCandida\u3c/i\u3e infections among organ transplant recipients in the United States: results of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET)

Background: Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a common cause of mortality in solid organ transplant recipients (OTRs), but knowledge of epidemiology in this population is limited. Method: The present analysis describes data from 15 US centers that prospectively identified IC from nearly 17 000 OTRs. Analyses were undertaken to determine predictors of infection and mortality. Results: A total of 639 cases of IC were identified. The most common species was Candida albicans (46.3%), followed by Candida glabrata (24.4%) and Candida parapsilosis (8.1%). In 68 cases \u3e1 species was identified. The most common infection site was bloodstream (44%), followed by intra-abdominal (14%). The most frequently affected allograft groups were liver (41.1%) and kidney (35.3%). All-cause mortality at 90 days was 26.5% for all species and was highest for Candida tropicalis (44%) and C. parapsilosis (35.2%). Non-white race and female gender were more commonly associated with non-albicans species. A high rate of breakthrough IC was seen in patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis (39%). Factors associated with mortality include organ dysfunction, lung transplant, and treatment with a polyene antifungal. The only modifiable factor identified was choice of antifungal drug class based upon infecting Candida species. Conclusion: These data highlight the common and distinct features of IC in OTRs

Effect of Algorithm-Based Therapy vs Usual Care on Clinical Success and Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Staphylococcal Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The appropriate duration of antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia is unknown. Objective: To test whether an algorithm that defines treatment duration for staphylococcal bacteremia vs standard of care provides noninferior efficacy without increasing severe adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized trial involving adults with staphylococcal bacteremia was conducted at 16 academic medical centers in the United States (n = 15) and Spain (n = 1) from April 2011 to March 2017. Patients were followed up for 42 days beyond end of therapy for those with Staphylococcus aureus and 28 days for those with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had 1 or more blood cultures positive for S aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients were excluded if they had known or suspected complicated infection at the time of randomization. Interventions: Patients were randomized to algorithm-based therapy (n = 255) or usual practice (n = 254). Diagnostic evaluation, antibiotic selection, and duration of therapy were predefined for the algorithm group, whereas clinicians caring for patients in the usual practice group had unrestricted choice of antibiotics, duration, and other aspects of clinical care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were (1) clinical success, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee and tested for noninferiority within a 15% margin; and (2) serious adverse event rates in the intention-to-treat population, tested for superiority. The prespecified secondary outcome measure, tested for superiority, was antibiotic days among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia. Results: Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.6 [SD, 16.8] years; 226 [44.4%] women), 480 (94.3%) completed the trial. Clinical success was documented in 209 of 255 patients assigned to algorithm-based therapy and 207 of 254 randomized to usual practice (82.0% vs 81.5%; difference, 0.5% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.2% to ∞]). Serious adverse events were reported in 32.5% of algorithm-based therapy patients and 28.3% of usual practice patients (difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%]). Among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia, mean duration of therapy was 4.4 days for algorithm-based therapy vs 6.2 days for usual practice (difference, -1.8 days [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with staphylococcal bacteremia, the use of an algorithm to guide testing and treatment compared with usual care resulted in a noninferior rate of clinical success. Rates of serious adverse events were not significantly different, but interpretation is limited by wide confidence intervals. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the algorithm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191840