Advertisement

Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 1668–1677 | Cite as

Biomarker-based strategy for early discontinuation of empirical antifungal treatment in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial

  • Anahita Rouzé
  • Séverine Loridant
  • Julien Poissy
  • Benoit Dervaux
  • Boualem Sendid
  • Marjorie Cornu
  • Saad NseirEmail author
  • for the S-TAFE study group
Seven-Day Profile Publication

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a biomarker-based strategy on early discontinuation of empirical antifungal treatment.

Methods

Prospective randomized controlled single-center unblinded study, performed in a mixed ICU. A total of 110 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy in which empirical antifungal treatment duration was determined by (1,3)-β-d-glucan, mannan, and anti-mannan serum assays, performed on day 0 and day 4; or to a routine care strategy, based on international guidelines, which recommend 14 days of treatment. In the biomarker group, early stop recommendation was determined using an algorithm based on the results of biomarkers. The primary outcome was the percentage of survivors discontinuing empirical antifungal treatment early, defined as a discontinuation strictly before day 7.

Results

A total of 109 patients were analyzed (one patient withdraw consent). Empirical antifungal treatment was discontinued early in 29 out of 54 patients in the biomarker strategy group, compared with one patient out of 55 in the routine strategy group [54% vs 2%, p < 0.001, OR (95% CI) 62.6 (8.1–486)]. Total duration of antifungal treatment was significantly shorter in the biomarker strategy compared with routine strategy [median (IQR) 6 (4–13) vs 13 (12–14) days, p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in the percentage of patients with subsequent proven invasive Candida infection, mechanical ventilation-free days, length of ICU stay, cost, and ICU mortality between the two study groups.

Conclusions

The use of a biomarker-based strategy increased the percentage of early discontinuation of empirical antifungal treatment among critically ill patients with suspected invasive Candida infection. These results confirm previous findings suggesting that early discontinuation of empirical antifungal treatment had no negative impact on outcome. However, further studies are needed to confirm the safety of this strategy. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02154178.

Keywords

Antifungal Empirical (1,3)-β-d-Glucan Mannan Candida Critical illness 

Notes

Author contribution

Study concept and design: AR, JP, BS, and SN. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting the manuscript: AR and SN. Statistical and cost-effectiveness analyses: BD and SN. Critical revision of the manuscript: all authors. Study supervision: SN

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

SN: Bayer, MSD, Ciel Medical, and Medtrocic (advisory board, and lecture); other authors: none.

Funding source

University Hospital of Lille received a grant from MSD to support this study in part. MSD had no role in the design, conduct of the study, nor in the analysis or interpretation of study results.

Supplementary material

134_2017_4932_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (237 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 237 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kett DH, Azoulay E, Echeverria PM, Vincent J-L (2011) Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study. Crit Care Med 39:665–670. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318206c1ca CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paiva J-A, Pereira JM, Tabah A et al (2016) Characteristics and risk factors for 28-day mortality of hospital acquired fungemias in ICUs: data from the EUROBACT study. Crit Care 20:53. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1229-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lortholary O, Renaudat C, Sitbon K et al (2014) Worrisome trends in incidence and mortality of candidemia in intensive care units (Paris area, 2002–2010). Intensive Care Med 40:1303–1312. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3408-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colombo AL, Guimarães T, Sukienik T et al (2014) Prognostic factors and historical trends in the epidemiology of candidemia in critically ill patients: an analysis of five multicenter studies sequentially conducted over a 9-year period. Intensive Care Med 40:1489–1498. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3400-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leroy O, Bailly S, Gangneux J-P et al (2016) Systemic antifungal therapy for proven or suspected invasive candidiasis: the AmarCAND 2 study. Ann Intensive Care 6:2. doi: 10.1186/s13613-015-0103-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kollef M, Micek S, Hampton N et al (2012) Septic shock attributed to Candida infection: importance of empiric therapy and source control. Clin Infect Dis 54:1739–1746. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis305 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ostrosky-Zeichner L (2012) Invasive mycoses: diagnostic challenges. Am J Med 125:S14–S24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.10.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leroy O, Gangneux J-P, Montravers P et al (2009) 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 37:1612–1618. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819efac0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cornely O, Bassetti M, Calandra T et al (2012) ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 18:19–37. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W et al (2017) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43:304–377. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR et al (2016) Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 62:e1–e50. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ933 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bailly S, Bouadma L, Azoulay E et al (2015) Failure of empirical systemic antifungal therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 191:1139–1146. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201409-1701OC CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timsit J-F, Azoulay E, Schwebel C et al (2016) Empirical micafungin treatment and survival without invasive fungal infection in adults with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization, and multiple organ failure. JAMA 316:1555. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14655 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Azoulay E, Dupont H, Tabah A et al (2012) Systemic antifungal therapy in critically ill patients without invasive fungal infection. Crit Care Med 40:813–822. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318236f297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bailly S, Leroy O, Montravers P et al (2015) Antifungal de-escalation was not associated with adverse outcome in critically ill patients treated for invasive candidiasis: post hoc analyses of the AmarCAND2 study data. Intensive Care Med 41:1931–1940. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4053-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    León C, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Schuster M (2014) What’s new in the clinical and diagnostic management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 40:808–819. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3281-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karageorgopoulos DE, Vouloumanou EK, Ntziora F et al (2011) β-d-Glucan assay for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 52:750–770. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq206 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poissy J, Sendid B, Damiens S et al (2014) Presence of Candida cell wall derived polysaccharides in the sera of intensive care unit patients: relation with candidaemia and Candida colonisation. Crit Care 18:R135. doi: 10.1186/cc13953 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanson KE, Pfeiffer CD, Lease ED et al (2012) β-d-Glucan surveillance with preemptive anidulafungin for invasive candidiasis in intensive care unit patients: a randomized pilot study. PLoS One 7:e42282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042282 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Posteraro B, De Pascale G, Tumbarello M et al (2011) Early diagnosis of candidemia in intensive care unit patients with sepsis: a prospective comparison of (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan assay, Candida score, and colonization index. Crit Care 15:R249. doi: 10.1186/cc10507 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martínez-Jiménez MC, Muñoz P, Valerio M et al (2015) Combination of Candida biomarkers in patients receiving empirical antifungal therapy in a Spanish tertiary hospital: a potential role in reducing the duration of treatment. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:3107–3115. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv241 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Posteraro B, Tumbarello M, De Pascale G et al (2016) (1,3)-β-d-Glucan-based antifungal treatment in critically ill adults at high risk of candidaemia: an observational study. J Antimicrob Chemother 71:2262–2269. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Sable C, Sobel J et al (2007) Multicenter retrospective development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for nosocomial invasive candidiasis in the intensive care setting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 26:271–276. doi: 10.1007/s10096-007-0270-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP et al (2008) Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis 46:1813–1821. doi: 10.1086/588660 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arendrup MC, Cuenca-Estrella M, Lass-Flörl C, Hope WW (2013) Breakpoints for antifungal agents: an update from EUCAST focussing on echinocandins against Candida spp. and triazoles against Aspergillus spp. Drug Resist Updat 16:81–95. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2014.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zein M, Parmentier-Decrucq E, Kalaoun A et al (2014) Factors predicting prolonged empirical antifungal treatment in critically ill patients. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. doi: 10.1186/1476-0711-13-11 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Velasquez T, Mackey G, Lusk J et al (2016) (2016) ESICM LIVES 2016: part three. Intensive Care Med Exp 41(4):28. doi: 10.1186/S40635-016-0100-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maubon D, Garnaud C, Calandra T et al (2014) Resistance of Candida spp. to antifungal drugs in the ICU: where are we now? Intensive Care Med 40:1241–1255. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3404-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lortholary O, Desnos-Ollivier M, Sitbon K et al (2011) Recent exposure to caspofungin or fluconazole influences the epidemiology of candidemia: a prospective multicenter study involving 2,441 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:532–538. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01128-10 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailly S, Maubon D, Fournier P et al (2016) Impact of antifungal prescription on relative distribution and susceptibility of Candida spp.—Trends over 10 years. J Infect 72:103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alexander BD, Johnson MD, Pfeiffer CD et al (2013) Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin Infect Dis 56:1724–1732. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit136 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bassetti M, Garnacho-Montero J, Calandra T et al (2017) Intensive care medicine research agenda on invasive fungal infection in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 43:1225–1238. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4731-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Held J, Kohlberger I, Rappold E et al (2013) Comparison of (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan, mannan/anti-mannan antibodies, and Cand-Tec Candida antigen as serum biomarkers for candidemia. J Clin Microbiol 51:1158–1164. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02473-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Azoulay E, Guigue N, Darmon M et al (2016) (1, 3)-β-d-Glucan assay for diagnosing invasive fungal infections in critically ill patients with hematological malignancies. Oncotarget 7:21484–21495. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7471 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany and ESICM 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U995-LIRIC-Lille Inflammation Research International CenterUniv. LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.U995InsermLilleFrance
  3. 3.Critical Care CenterCHU LilleLilleFrance
  4. 4.Laboratory of Mycology and ParasitologyCHU LilleLilleFrance
  5. 5.UMR 8179CNRSLilleFrance
  6. 6.Public Health and Epidemiology DepartmentCHU LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations