Advertisement

Analyzing candidemia guideline adherence identifies opportunities for antifungal stewardship

  • Sibylle C. Mellinghoff
  • Pia Hartmann
  • Florian B. Cornely
  • Laura Knauth
  • Felix Köhler
  • Philipp Köhler
  • Carolin Krause
  • Christine Kronenberg
  • Sarah-Leonie Kranz
  • Vidya Menon
  • Hannah Müller
  • Jan-Hendrik Naendrup
  • Stefan Pützfeld
  • Anna Ronge
  • Jule Rutz
  • Danila Seidel
  • Hilmar Wisplinghoff
  • Oliver A. Cornely
Original Article

Abstract

Candidemia epidemiology varies significantly by region; thus, local data are essential for evidence-based decision-making in prophylaxis and treatment. Current management strategies are derived from large randomized controlled trials mostly executed in large high-volume tertiary care centers. Results may not be entirely transferable to smaller hospitals. This study investigates epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment standards in six hospitals in the Cologne metropolitan area (number of inhabitants approx. one million). We assessed adherence to the current guideline of the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) using the EQUAL Candida Score of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM). Data were documented by trained medical students as part of an integrated research and teaching concept at the University of Cologne. Between January 2014 and June 2017, 77 patients had candidemia, corresponding to an incidence of 0.2 cases/1000 admissions. While 55 patients were enrolled, 22 patients were excluded due to incompletely retrievable health records. Fluconazole monotherapy was the preferred first-line treatment in cases with Candida albicans infection (21/29). A central vascular catheter was present in 40 patients and was removed in 17 (43%) during treatment. Overall mortality at 30 days was 44%. Patients reached a mean EQUAL Candida Score of 9.9 (range 8–14), which was well below the maximum score of 22 for perfect guideline adherence. In summary, management of candidemia differed from current European recommendations. It remains unclear to what extent enhanced adherence would improve patient outcome. Larger prospective studies need to answer that question.

Keywords

Invasive Candida infection Invasive fungal disease Blood culture EQUAL Candida Score 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of the contributing hospitals.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

OAC is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education and the European Commission and has received research grants from, is an advisor to, or received lecture honoraria from Actelion, Amplyx, Arsanis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Cidara, Da Volterra, Duke University (NIH UM1AI104681), F2G, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Leeds University, Matinas, Medicines Company, MedPace, Menarini, Merck/MSD, Miltenyi, Paratek, Pfizer, PSI, Rempex, Roche, Sanofi Pasteur, Scynexis, Seres, Summit, Tetraphase, and Vical. FCK reports grants from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education, and non-financial support from Miltenyi Biotec GmbH. PK reports non-financial support from Merck/MSD, non-financial support from MedImmune, and lecture honoraria from Astellas, outside the submitted work. HW has received research grants from, is an advisor to, or received lecture honoraria from the German Society for Hematology/Oncology, BeckmanCoulter, BrukerDaltonics, BioMérieux, Hologic, Siemens, BioMérieux, Cepheid, Hologic, iSense, r-biopharm, and SpecificTechnologies. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Almirante B, Rodriguez D, Park BJ et al (2005) Epidemiology and predictors of mortality in cases of Candida bloodstream infection: results from population-based surveillance, Barcelona, Spain, from 2002 to 2003. J Clin Microbiol 43:1829–1835CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW et al (2012) 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 54:1110–1122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bassetti M, Merelli M, Ansaldi F et al (2015) Clinical and therapeutic aspects of candidemia: a five year single centre study. PLoS One 10:e0127534CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Betts RF, Nucci M, Talwar D et al (2009) A multicenter, double-blind trial of a high-dose caspofungin treatment regimen versus a standard caspofungin treatment regimen for adult patients with invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 48:1676–1684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bitar D, Lortholary O, Le Strat Y et al (2014) Population-based analysis of invasive fungal infections, France, 2001-2010. Emerg Infect Dis 20:1149–1155CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blumberg HM, Jarvis WR, Soucie JM et al (2001) Risk factors for candidal bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit patients: the NEMIS prospective multicenter study. The National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey. Clin Infect Dis 33:177–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borg-Von Zepelin M, Kunz L, Ruchel R et al (2007) Epidemiology and antifungal susceptibilities of Candida spp. to six antifungal agents: results from a surveillance study on fungaemia in Germany from July 2004 to August 2005. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:424–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bow EJ, Evans G, Fuller J et al (2010) Canadian clinical practice guidelines for invasive candidiasis in adults. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 21:e122–e150PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T et al (2012) ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Mircob Infect 18:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cornely OA, Gachot B, Akan H et al (2015) Epidemiology and outcome of fungemia in a cancer cohort of the Infectious Diseases Group (IDG) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC 65031). Clin Infect Dis 61:324–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cornely OA, Vazquez J, De Waele J et al (2014) Efficacy of micafungin in invasive candidiasis caused by common Candida species with special emphasis on non-albicans Candida species. Mycoses 57:79–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuenca-Estrella M, Verweij PE, Arendrup MC et al (2012) ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: diagnostic procedures. Clin Microb Infect 18(Suppl 7):9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falagas ME, Roussos N, Vardakas KZ (2010) Relative frequency of albicans and the various non-albicans Candida spp among candidemia isolates from inpatients in various parts of the world: a systematic review. Int J Infect Dis 14:e954–e966CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernandez-Cruz A, Cruz Menarguez M, Munoz P et al (2015) The search for endocarditis in patients with candidemia: a systematic recommendation for echocardiography? A prospective cohort. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34:1543–1549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glockner A, Cornely OA (2015) Candida glabrata—unique features and challenges in the clinical management of invasive infections. Mycoses 58:445–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glockner A, Cornely OA (2013) Practical considerations on current guidelines for the management of non-neutropenic adult patients with candidaemia. Mycoses 56:11–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gudlaugsson O, Gillespie S, Lee K et al (2003) Attributable mortality of nosocomial candidemia, revisited. Clin Infect Dis 37:1172–1177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horn DL, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Morris MI et al (2010) Factors related to survival and treatment success in invasive candidiasis or candidemia: a pooled analysis of two large, prospective, micafungin trials. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29:223–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karthaus M, Ruping MJ, Cornely OA et al (2011) Current issues in the clinical management of invasive candida infections—the AGIHO, DMykG, OGMM and PEG web-based survey and expert consensus conference 2009. Mycoses 54:e546–e556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koehler P, Tacke D, Cornely OA (2014) Our 2014 approach to candidaemia. Mycoses 57:581–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuse E-R, Chetchotisakd P, Da Cunha CA et al (2007) Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 369:1519–1527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luzzati R, Cavinato S, Deiana ML et al (2015) Epidemiology and outcome of nosocomial candidemia in elderly patients admitted prevalently in medical wards. Aging Clin Exp Res 27:131–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mellinghoff SC, Hoenigl M, Koehler P, Kumar A, Lagrou K, Lass-Flörl C, Meis JF, Menon V, Rautemaa-Richardson R, Cornely OA (2018) Equal Candida score: An ECMM score derived from current guidelines to measure Quality of Clinical Candidaemia Management. Mycoses 61(5):326–330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/myc.12746
  24. 24.
    Mellinghoff SC, Panse J, Alakel N et al (2018) 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 97(2):197–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer E, Geffers C, Gastmeier P et al (2013) No increase in primary nosocomial candidemia in 682 German intensive care units during 2006 to 2011. Euro Surveill 18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michalopoulos AS, Geroulanos S, Mentzelopoulos SD (2003) Determinants of candidemia and candidemia-related death in cardiothoracic ICU patients. Chest 124:2244–2255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C et al (2002) Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 347:2020–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Munoz P, Vena A, Padilla B et al (2017) No evidence of increased ocular involvement in candidemic patients initially treated with echinocandins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 88:141–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nucci M, Anaissie E, Betts RF et al (2010) 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 51:295–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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–e50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pappas PG, Rotstein CM, Betts RF et al (2007) Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 45:883–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ruhnke M, Rickerts V, Cornely OA et al (2011) Diagnosis and therapy of Candida infections: joint recommendations of the German Speaking Mycological Society and the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy. Mycoses 54:279–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shaked H, Paul M, Bishara J (2010) Catheter extraction does not improve survival in candidemia, or does it? Clin Infect Dis 51:1347–1348 author reply 1348-1350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shorr AF, Wu C, Kothari S (2011) Outcomes with micafungin in patients with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis due to Candida glabrata and Candida krusei. J Antimicrob Chomether 66:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spec A, Olsen MA, Raval K et al (2017) Impact of infectious diseases consultation on mortality of cryptococcal infection in patients without HIV. Clin Infect Dis 64:558–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tortorano AM, Peman J, Bernhardt H et al (2004) 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 23:317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG et al (2014) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg (London, England) 12:1500–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vena A, Muñoz P, Padilla B et al (2017) Is routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients? PLoS One 12:e0183485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wenzel RP (1995) Nosocomial candidemia: risk factors and attributable mortality. Clin Infect Dis 20:1531–1534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wey SB, Mori M, Pfaller MA et al (1988) Hospital-acquired candidemia. The attributable mortality and excess length of stay. Arch Intern Med 148:2642–2645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zaoutis TE, Argon J, Chu J et al (2005) The epidemiology and attributable outcomes of candidemia in adults and children hospitalized in the United States: a propensity analysis. Clin Infect Dis 41:1232–1239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibylle C. Mellinghoff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pia Hartmann
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Florian B. Cornely
    • 2
    • 6
  • Laura Knauth
    • 7
  • Felix Köhler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philipp Köhler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carolin Krause
    • 8
  • Christine Kronenberg
    • 7
  • Sarah-Leonie Kranz
    • 7
  • Vidya Menon
    • 9
  • Hannah Müller
    • 7
  • Jan-Hendrik Naendrup
    • 7
  • Stefan Pützfeld
    • 10
  • Anna Ronge
    • 7
  • Jule Rutz
    • 7
  • Danila Seidel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hilmar Wisplinghoff
    • 4
    • 5
    • 11
  • Oliver A. Cornely
    • 1
    • 2
    • 12
    • 13
  1. 1.Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases (CECAD)University of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department I of Internal Medicine, ECMM Diamond Center of Excellence in Medical Mycology, German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF)University of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF)CologneGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Hygiene (IMMIH)University of CologneCologneGermany
  5. 5.Wisplinghoff LaboratoriesCologneGermany
  6. 6.University of VarnaVarnaBulgaria
  7. 7.University of CologneCologneGermany
  8. 8.Evangelisches Krankenhaus KalkCologneGermany
  9. 9.Department of Medicine, Amrita Institute of Medical SciencesAmrita Vishwa VidyapeethamKochiIndia
  10. 10.Krankenhaus Porz am RheinCologneGermany
  11. 11.Institute for Virology and Clinical MicrobiologyWitten/Herdecke UniversityWittenGermany
  12. 12.Clinical Trials Centre Cologne (ZKS Köln)University of CologneCologneGermany
  13. 13.Department I for Internal MedicineECMM Excellence Center of Medical Mycology University HospitalCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations