Regardless of the available antifungals, intraabdominal candidiasis (IAC) mortality continues to be high and represents a challenge for clinicians.
This opinion paper discusses alternative antifungal options for treating IAC. This clinical entity should be addressed separately from candidemia due to the peculiarity of the required penetration of antifungals into the peritoneal cavity. Intraabdominal concentrations may be further restricted in critically ill patients where pathophysiological facts alter normal drug distribution. Echinocandins are recommended as first-line treatment in guidelines for invasive candidiasis. However, considering published data, our pharmacodynamic analysis suggests the required increase of doses, postulated by some authors, to attain adequate pharmacokinetic (PK) levels in peritoneal fluid. Given the limited evidence in the literature on PK/PD-based treatments of IAC, an algorithm is proposed to guide antifungal treatment. Liposomal amphotericin B is advocated as first-line therapy in patients with sepsis/septic shock presenting candidemia or endophthalmitis, or with prior exposure to echinocandins and/or fluconazole, or with infections by Candida glabrata. Other situations and alternatives, such as new compounds or combination therapy, are also analysed.
There is a critical need for more robust clinical trials, studies examining patient heterogeneity and surveillance of antifungal resistance to enhance patient care and optimise treatment outcomes. Such evidence will help refine the existing guidelines and contribute to a more personalised and effective approach to treating this serious medical condition. Meanwhile, it is suggested to broaden the consideration of other options, such as liposomal amphotericin B, as first-line treatment until the results of the fungogram are available and antifungal stewardship could be implemented to prevent the development of resistance.

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) may differ and cause confusion. Our objective was to appraise CPGs for antifungal treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for CPGs published between 2008 and 2018. We assessed the quality of each guideline using six domains of the AGREE II instrument. We extracted and compared recommendations for different treatment strategies and assessed content quality.
RESULTS: Of 19 guidelines, the mean overall AGREE II score was 58%. The domain \'clarity of presentation\' received the highest scores (88%) and \'applicability\' the lowest (18%). CPGs provided detailed recommendations on antifungal prophylaxis (n = 10), with fluconazole recommended as initial prophylaxis in all seven CPGs citing a specific drug. Echinocandin was recommended as the initial drug in all 16 CPGs supporting empirical/pre-emptive treatment; and in 18 of 19 for targeted invasive candidiasis treatment. However, it remains unclear when to initiate prophylaxis, empirical or pre-emptive therapy or when to step down.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of CPGs for antifungal treatment of IC in non-neutropenic critically ill patients is suboptimal. Some treatment recommendations were inconsistent across indications and require local guidance to help clinicians make better informed decisions.

We aimed to analyze whether the lack of inclusion of specific recommendations for the management of candidemia is an independent risk factor for early and overall mortality. Multicenter study of adult patients with candidemia in 13 hospitals. We assessed the proportion of patients on whom nine specific ESCMID and IDSA guidelines recommendations had been applied, and analyzed its impact on mortality. 455 episodes of candidemia were documented. Patients who died within the first 48 hours were excluded. Sixty-two percent of patients received an appropriate antifungal treatment. Either echinocandin or amphotericin B therapy were administered in 43% of patients presenting septic shock and in 71% of those with neutropenia. Sixty-one percent of patients with breakthrough candidemia underwent a change in antifungal drug class. Venous catheters were removed in 79% of cases. Follow-up blood cultures were performed in 72% of cases. Ophthalmoscopy and echocardiogram were performed in 48% and 50% of patients, respectively. Length of treatment was appropriate in 78% of cases. Early (2-7 days) and overall (2-30 days) mortality were 8% and 27.7%, respectively. Inclusion of less than 50% of the specific recommendations was independently associated with a higher early (HR = 7.02, 95% CI: 2.97-16.57; P < .001) and overall mortality (HR = 3.55, 95% CI: 2.24-5.64; P < .001). In conclusion, ESCMID and IDSA guideline recommendations were not performed on a significant number of patients. Lack of inclusion of these recommendations proved to be an independent risk factor for early and overall mortality.

Candida species frequently cause blood stream infections and are reported to be the third to tenth most commonly isolated pathogens. Guidelines and standardised treatment algorithms provided by professional organisations aim to facilitate decision-making regarding diagnosis, management and treatment of candidaemia. In routine clinical practise, however, it may be challenging to comply with these guidelines. The reasons include lack of familiarity or feasibility to adherence, but also their length and complexity. There is no tool to measure guideline adherence currently. To provide such a tool, we reviewed the current guidelines provided by the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and selected the strongest recommendations for management quality as the bases for our scoring tool. Factors incorporated were diagnostic (blood cultures, echocardiography, ophthalmoscopy, species identification) and follow-up procedures (repeat blood cultures until negative result) as well as key treatment parameters (echinocandin treatment, step down to fluconazole depending on susceptibility result, CVC removal). The EQUAL Candida Score weighs and aggregates factors recommended for the ideal management of candidaemia and provides a tool for antifungal stewardship as well as for measuring guideline adherence.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in haematological patients. Antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) is indicated for a number of clinical scenarios in this group of patients. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on IFD prophylaxis in haematological patients in order to optimize their management.
METHODS: A committee of experts in haematology and infectious diseases compiled a survey of 79 items with controversial aspects about antifungal prophylaxis in haematological patients. The survey was evaluated in two rounds by a panel of experts following a modified Delphi methodology.
RESULTS: Forty-four experts in haematology and infectious diseases answered the survey. After two evaluation rounds, consensus was reached in 67 of the 79 items (84.8%), specifically 48 items were consensually agreed on (60.7%) and 19 were disagreed on (24.0%). Consensus was reached on prophylaxis candidates profiles and questions related to indications, mechanisms of action, spectrum of activity, toxicity and interactions of antifungal were elucidated. The usefulness of micafungin in IFD prophylaxis was particularly analysed. The consensus reached was that micafungin is an antifungal to be considered in this context as its safety profile and lower interaction potential may be advantageous.
CONCLUSIONS: A broad consensus was found in the management of IFD prophylaxis in the haematological patient. This consensus provides practical indications about its optimal management and can help determine the profile of patients eligible for this type of intervention.

BACKGROUND: A majority of invasive Candida infections occur in medical wards; however, evidence for management in this setting is scarce and based primarily on the intensive care or surgical setting. On behalf of the Italian Society for Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Federation of Associations of Hospital Doctors on Internal Medicine (FADOI), the MEDICAL group produced practical management algorithms for patients in internal medicine wards.
METHODS: The MEDICAL group panel, composed of 30 members from internal medicine, infectious disease, clinical pharmacology, clinical microbiology and clinical epidemiology, provided expert opinion through the RAND/UCLA method.
RESULTS: Seven clinical scenarios were constructed based on clinical severity and probability of invasive candidiasis. For each scenario, the appropriateness of 63 different diagnostic, imaging, management, or therapeutic procedures was determined in two Delphi rounds. The necessity for performing each appropriate procedure, was then determined in a third Delphi round. Results were summarized in algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithms provide internal medicine physicians and managers with an easy to interpret tool that is exhaustive, clear and suitable for adaption to individual local settings. Attention was paid to individual patient management and resource allocation.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient\'s individual circumstances.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient\'s individual circumstances.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient\'s individual circumstances.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient\'s individual circumstances.