BACKGROUND: Echinocandins are recommended as firstline therapy in patients with candidemia. However, there is debate on their efficacy in survival outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the choice of initial antifungal therapy improves mortality in patients with candidemia in relation to the presence of septic shock. METHODS: Patients with candidemia hospitalized in internal medicine wards of 5 tertiary care centers were included in the study (December 2012-December 2014). Patient characteristics, therapeutic interventions, and outcome were reviewed. Propensity score (PS) was used as a covariate of the multivariate analysis to perform a stratified analysis according to PS quartiles and to match patients receiving "echinocandins" or "azoles." RESULTS: Overall, 439 patients with candidemia were included in the study. A total of 172 (39.2%) patients had septic shock. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with septic shock (45.3%) compared with those without septic shock (31.5%; P = .003). Among patients with septic shock, the use of echinocandins in the first 48 hours, compared with azoles, did not affect 30-day mortality in the PS-adjusted Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.59; P = .48), the PS-stratified analysis, or the logistic regression model in matched cohorts (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.51-1.63; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Echinocandin therapy seems not to improve the outcome of non-intensive care unit patients with septic shock due to candidemia. These findings support the urgent need of further studies in this patient population.

Impact of Initial Antifungal Therapy on the Outcome of Patients With Candidemia and Septic Shock Admitted to Medical Wards: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

Roberto, Luzzati
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2019-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Echinocandins are recommended as firstline therapy in patients with candidemia. However, there is debate on their efficacy in survival outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the choice of initial antifungal therapy improves mortality in patients with candidemia in relation to the presence of septic shock. METHODS: Patients with candidemia hospitalized in internal medicine wards of 5 tertiary care centers were included in the study (December 2012-December 2014). Patient characteristics, therapeutic interventions, and outcome were reviewed. Propensity score (PS) was used as a covariate of the multivariate analysis to perform a stratified analysis according to PS quartiles and to match patients receiving "echinocandins" or "azoles." RESULTS: Overall, 439 patients with candidemia were included in the study. A total of 172 (39.2%) patients had septic shock. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with septic shock (45.3%) compared with those without septic shock (31.5%; P = .003). Among patients with septic shock, the use of echinocandins in the first 48 hours, compared with azoles, did not affect 30-day mortality in the PS-adjusted Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.59; P = .48), the PS-stratified analysis, or the logistic regression model in matched cohorts (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.51-1.63; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Echinocandin therapy seems not to improve the outcome of non-intensive care unit patients with septic shock due to candidemia. These findings support the urgent need of further studies in this patient population.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ofz251.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 324.12 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
324.12 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2948212
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact