RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

How much European presennth

nciveti

large number of physicians in tertiary care hospitals. Thedifficulties for establishing a proven diagnosis, the better

tals [2-5]. The implementation of antifungal stewardshippolicies based on first instances on continuous education

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0809-z2Instituto de Investigacin Sanitaria Gregorio Maran, Madrid, SpainFull list of author information is available at the end of the articletolerance of new antifungal drugs and the demonstratedimpact of early therapy have led to an extended use of em-pirical antifungal therapies (AF), mainly in critical and sur-gical patients. A recent cross sectional cohort studyshowed that systemic antifungal therapy was administered

of healthcare workers may be a partial solution to thisproblem [6]. However, there are no multicenter studiesevaluating the gaps in knowledge on diagnosis and treat-ment of IFIs and on compliance with current guidelines inEuropean prescribing physicians.The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of poten-

tial AF prescribers in order to design and apply operativetraining strategies for European physicians, which will

* Correspondence: pmunoz@hggm.es1Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, HospitalGeneral Universitario Gregorio Maran, Madrid, SpainMethods: Staff physicians and residents of 4 European countries were invited to complete a 20-point questionnairethat was based on current guidelines of invasive candidiasis and invasive aspergillosis.

Results: 121 physicians (44.6% staff, 55.4% residents) from Spain 53.7%, Italy 17.4%, Denmark 16.5% and Germany12.4% completed the survey. Hospital departments involved were: medical 51.2%, ICUs 43%, surgical 3.3% andpharmaceutical 2.5%. The mean score of adequate responses ( SD) was 5.8 1.7 points, with statistically significantdifferences between study site and type of physicians. Regarding candidiasis, 69% of the physicians clearlydistinguished colonization from infection and the local rate of fluconazole resistance was known by 24%. Theaccepted indications of antifungal prophylaxis were known by 38%. Regarding aspergillosis, 52% of responderscould differentiate colonization from infection and 42% knew the diagnostic value of galactomannan. Radiologicalfeatures of invasive aspergillosis were well recognized by 58% of physicians and 57% of them were aware of theantifungal considered as first line treatment. However, only 37% knew the recommended length of therapy.

Conclusions: This simple, easily completed questionnaire enabled us to identify some weakness in the knowledgeof invasive fungal infection management among European physicians. This survey could serve as a guide to designa future tailored European training program.

Keywords: Antifungal use, Invasive aspergillosis, Candins, Fluconazole, Antifungal stewardship

BackgroundInvasive fungal infections (IFIs), mainly invasive candidia-sis (IC) and pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA), are a majorclinical problem due to its high morbidity and mortalityand affect many different patient populations cared by a

to 7% of all patients admitted to an intensive care unit(ICU), with only one-third of them having a documentedIFI [1].Previous studies have shown that inappropriate use of

antifungal drugs may reach 67-74% in tertiary care hospi-about invasive fungal infMaricela Valerio1,2, Antonio Vena1,2,3, Emilio Bouza1,2,3, NaMaddalena Giannella5, Patricia Muoz1,2,3* and on behalf

Abstract

Background: The use of systemic antifungal agents has istewardship has deserved very little attention. Our objectphysicians as a first step of an international program of an 2015 Valerio et al.; licensee BioMed Central.Commons Attribution License (http://creativecreproduction in any medium, provided the orDedication waiver (http://creativecommons.orunless otherwise stated.cribing physicians knowctions management?a Reiter4, Pierluigi Viale5, Marcel Hochreiter6,e COMIC study group (Collaborative group on Mycosis)

reased in most tertiary care centers. However, antifungalwas to assess the knowledge of European prescribing

fungal stewardship.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creativeommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andiginal work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domaing/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 2 of 8subsequently affect behavioral changes and lead to a moreappropriate use of antifungal agents.

MethodsStudy design and settingWe performed a cross-sectional multicenter survey evaluat-ing European prescribing physicians attitudes and know-ledge about diagnosis and treatment of invasive candidiasisand aspergillosis, and the compliance with current IFIinternational guidelines [7-9]. Five European tertiary carehospitals participated in the study: Hospital GeneralUniversitario Gregorio Maran, Madrid, Spain; UniversityHospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Rigshospitalet,Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Hospital SantOrsola-Malpighi at Bologna, Italy and Hospital LazzaroSpallanzani at Rome, Italy. Hospital General UniversitarioGregorio Maran served as the coordinating centre.Attending physicians and residents, working in areas

typically associated with the largest consumption ofantifungal drugs (i.e. Hematology, Oncology, InternalMedicine, Surgical wards and, ICUs), were invited to par-ticipate to the survey. During the study period (February-March 2013), a responsible investigator for each centre(M.V.; M.H.; N.R.; P.V.; M.G.) personally invited allphysicians belonging to the departments with larger an-tifungal consumption to answer the questionnaire. Theparticipation to the survey was voluntary and if thephysician agreed, they were given 20 minutes tocomplete the test. The questionnaire was personallycollected and subsequently sent through email/fax tothe coordinating centre by responsible investigators.No incentives were used to perform the survey andconsultation of any medical support (i.e. books, appsand websites) was forbidden.

QuestionnaireAccording to current international guidelines [7-9], aquestionnaire was developed by the steering committeeof the Collaboration in Mycology Study Group (COMIC),a multidisciplinary team including infectious diseaseand clinical microbiology physicians, pharmacologistand different medical and surgical specialities. Thequestionnaire was anonymously completed and in-cluded 20 multiple-choice questions assessing diagnosisand management of IFI (see Additional file 1). Ques-tions targeted to evaluate the inadequate indication ofantifungals, such as the clinical interpretation of posi-tive cultures or current recommendations for pre-emptive therapy, were specifically included. Each cor-rect answer was scored as 0.5 points and each incorrectanswer as 0 points. Accordingly, the maximum scorewas 10 points. We also collect information regarding

age, sex, department to which physicians belonged andpost- graduate years.In order to evaluate the readability, the comprehensibil-ity, and the length, the survey was first tested among atotal of 20 physicians working at the Hospital GeneralUniversitario Gregorio Maran, Madrid. The study wasapproved by the Ethics Committee of the coordinatingcenter (Comit tico de Investigacin Clnica del HospitalGeneral Universitario Gregorio Maran). Local centersdid not consider necessary further approval. Participatingphysicianss consent was obtained by local coordinators inorder to use the survey results for research purposes.This study was partially supported by the PROMULGAII Project, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (grant numberPI13/01148).

Statistical analysisOur endpoint was the median knowledge score obtainedby the physicians prescribing antifungals in tertiary careinstitutions. We also decided to compare the performanceof different groups of physicians (residents/fellows vs. staffphysicians, hospital department: ICUs, medical, surgicaland pharmaceutical departments) in the different coun-tries. Haematology and oncology physicians were includedin the medical group. Not all physicians answered eachquestions and, consequently numbers were adjusted as ap-propriate for each question. The qualitative variables ap-pear with their frequency distribution. The quantitativevariables are summarized as the mean and SD when theyhad a normal distribution and median with range (mini-mum-maximum) when they had a non-normal distribu-tion. In order to compare how scores differ according toparticipants characteristics we used the parametric t test orthe non-parametric ANOVA test. Multiple lineal regressionanalysis was performed to detect differences in knowledgebetween different departments, physician categories, andcountry after adjusting by sex and postgraduate education.Statistical significant was set at p 0.05. Statistical analysiswas made using SPSS 18.0(SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

ResultsOne hundred and twenty-one physicians fulfilled the ques-tionnaire. Demographic characteristics of participants andmean score obtained according to sex, type of depart-ments and country are summarized in Table 1. Mean ageand years of clinical practice after post-graduate educationof participating physicians were 36.5 and 10.6 respectively.Overall, 54.5% of the physicians were women and themean score of adequate response was 5.8 1.7 points.When scores were compared according to different vari-ables (Table 1) a higher significant mean score was associ-ated with staff physicians (p = 0.01), medical departments(p = 0.01) and with Italians respondents (p < 0.01).The response rate to the different questions of the sur-vey ranged from 85% to 100. The percentage of adequateanswers regarding departments and physician category

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 3 of 8Table 1 Demographics characteristics of participants andmean score obtained according to sex, type ofphysicians, medical departments and country

Variable N (%) Score(Mean SD)

P value

Demographics characteristics

Age

Table 2 Percentage of adequate answers regarding department and physician category

Question Adequate answer Overall Medical ICU P Residents Staff PN = 121 n = 62 N = 52 n = 67 n = 54

Q1.When Candida is isolated in a urineculture, choose the answer that bestdescribes what you would do:

Start antifungal treatment only insome cases.

69.4 79 63.5 0.09 62.7 77.8 0.08

Q2.On a patient with mechanicalventilation and a probable VAP atracheal aspirate culture showsCandida sp. Which of the followingstatements best show yourinterpretation:

Requires antifungal treatment only ifthe patient has a high Candida score.

42.1 46.5 38.5 0.44 38.8 46.3 0.46

Q3. In which of the following clinicalscenarios you would start Candidaprophylaxis?

AML (Acute Myeloid Leukemia)patients on induction chemotherapy.

38 45.2 32.7 0.18 29.9 48.1 0.05

Q4.In your opinion, the best choicefor Candida prophylaxis is:.

Fluconazole in most of the cases. 88.4 83.9 92.3 0.25 85.1 92.6 0.25

Q5.In a patient with sepsis possiblycaused by a femoral catheterinfection, you would prescribe

Treatment against Gram positive andGram negative bacteria and yeasts.

41.3 51.6 28.8 0.02 56.7 22.2

eofithCT

apynt

ate

besed

; it

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 5 of 8Table 2 Percentage of adequate answers regarding departm

Q16.Which of the following areconsidered invasive aspergillosisradiological findings?

All of the above are true: Presencedense, well-circumscribed lesions wor without a halo sign in a thoracicscanner; presence of a cavity in athoracic CT scanner; presence of anair-crescent sign in a thoracic CTscanner; sinusitis.

Q17.In a patient with invasivepulmonary aspergillosis, whichantifungal treatment would youchoose before having the antifungalsusceptibility data?

Voriconazole

Q18.In your opinion, which are theindications of combined antifungaltherapy in invasive aspergillosis?

It is recommended as rescue therwhen previous antifungal treatmehas failed.

Q19.What is your opinion concerningthe measurement of antifungallevels?

All of the above are true: Up-to-dguidelines do not recommend itssystematical determination; it canuseful to identify azoles under-dopatients; there is no indication todetermine serum levels of L-AmBcan help to identify azoles relatedtoxicity.

Q20.In your opinion, which would bethe proper length of treatment ofaspergillosis in a solid organrecipient

A minimum of 6 to 12 weeks.

VAP (Ventilator Associated Pneumonia).When evaluating diagnostic criteria, 42% were ac-quainted with the use of galactomannan assay as adiagnostic and follow up test (Q15), and more than halfof the physicians (58.5%) recognized the radiologicalfeatures of IA (Q16).Concerning therapy (Q17), 57% of the physicians were

aware that voriconazole was the first line IA treatment.Many physicians believed that combined antifungal ther-apy with L-AmB and voriconazole (13.3%) or with vori-conazole and caspofungin (11.5%) was accepted as firstline therapy for treating IA. L-AmB was believed to bethe drug of choice by 14.1% of the physicians (3.5%10 mg/kg/day and 10.6% 3 mg/kg/day). When asked spe-cifically on the indications of combined treatment forIA, 29% considered it appropriate as initial therapy ofneutropenic patients or transplant recipients, and 38.8%only for rescue therapy (Q18).More than half of physicians (62%) were aware of the

clinical benefits of measuring voriconazole and posacona-zole plasma levels during patient treatment (Q19) and fi-nally, the recommended length of therapy for IA accordingto current guidelines was only known by 36.7% of the phy-sicians 29% wrongly considered that 4 to 6 weeks wereenough to treat most IA episodes (Q20).

DiscussionWe report the first multicenter European study assessingphysicians knowledge about current recommendationsnt and physician category (Continued)

58.7 67.7 51.9 0.12 59.7 57.4 0.85

57 56.5 61.5 0.70 43.3 74.1

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 6 of 8or clinical manifestations. A probable reason for a such in-adequate management could be related to the results of atleast four prospective studies of ICU and surgical patientssuggesting a reduction in Candida infection and mortalityunder fluconazole prophylaxis [11-14]. However, since theuniversal administration of antifungal prophylaxis remainsan inefficient strategy that may increase subsequent azole-resistance or non-albicans candidemia [15-17], it is cur-rently warranted only in selected ICU patients at highestrisk (>10%) of invasive candidiasis [7,18].On the other hand, we observed a partial impact on med-

ical practice of the articles demonstrating the importanceof an early initiation of targeted antifungal treatmentwhen there is a clinical suspicion of invasive candidiasis[19-21]. Unfortunately, about 20% of physicians delay thestart of antifungal treatment after being informed of posi-tive blood cultures, whereas the critical window of oppor-tunity for antifungal initiation appears to be 1224 hoursfollowing the first positive blood cultures were drawn[20,22]. Moreover, we reported that 60% of physicians(staff more frequently than residents and intensivists morefrequently than medical physicians) failed to identify theindications of antifungal treatment in patients with suspi-cion of catheter related infection [23].However, the clinical outcome in IFI related sepsis is

not only related to adequacy and timeliness of antifungaladministration, but also on appropriate dosing, all thesefactors associated with length of hospital stay, healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality [20,22,24]. We foundthat another critical point regarding knowledge ofCandida infections management is the appropriatefluconazole dosage, that was correctly known by only62% of the physicians. In a retrospective cohort studyperformed by Labelle et al., inadequate initial flucona-zole dose was prescribed in about half of the critical pa-tients with invasive candidiasis and it was associatedwith an increased risk of in-hospital mortality [25]. In-deed, failure to achieve pharmacodynamic targets forfluconazole has been associated with worse outcomes[26-29]. For this reason, to obtain clinical success, doseof fluconazole should be tailored to achieve AUC/MICratios of at least 25 (using Clinical and LaboratoryStandards Institute MIC methodology) [30] or 100(using European Committee on Antimicrobial Suscepti-bility Testing MIC methodology). These targets usuallyrequire 6 mg/kg/day (following 12 mg/kg loading) forsusceptible isolates or 12 mg/kg/day for C. glabrata orother isolates with MICs of 16-32 mg/L [7].Most physicians were not aware of their local inci-

dence of azoles resistance in Candida, which could en-hance the prescription of broad-spectrum antifungals.Although non-albicans strains have clearly increased, in

many European centers the rate of fluconazole resistanceis still less than 5% [31-34].More surprisingly to us was to find that 12% and 9.2%of physicians would select L-AmB and voriconazole, re-spectively, instead of a candin to treat these fluconazole-resistant Candida infections. L-AmB should be restrictedto selected cases of intra-abdominal candidiasis [35,36] orintolerance to other antifungal agents due to its potentialtoxicity and higher cost, and voriconazole should be lim-ited to step-down oral therapy for selected cases of can-didiasis due to C. krusei or voriconazole-susceptible C.glabrata [7]. Finally, we would like to stress that there aredifferences among published guidelines regarding somediagnostic and therapeutic aspects of candidiasis that needto be clarified for the sake of a more clear understandingby the prescribing physicians [37].Regarding IA, problems to differentiate colonization

from infection were also evident. As previously demon-strated only 22.3% of Aspergillus isolates from respira-tory tract corresponds to probable/proven IA episodes.For this reason, Bouza et al. proposed a prediction scoretaking into account the procedure used to obtain thesample, the presence of leukaemia, neutropenia or theuse of corticoids to help clinicians in the interpretationof Aspergillus cultures [38].Another problem was that a high percentage of the

prescribing physicians still consider L-AmB as the firstline therapy for IA, whereas the largest prospective,randomized trial for the treatment of IA demonstratedthat voriconazole was superior to D-AmB [8,39]. Fur-thermore, 3.5% of the physicians continue to believe thathigh doses of L-AmB are necessary to treat IA, ignor-ing the results of the AmBiLoad Trial [40,41]. The effi-cacy of voriconazole was further demonstrated inpaediatric and adult patients receiving voriconazole fortreatment of IA who were refractory or intolerant toconventional antifungal therapy [8,39,42,43]. The role ofcombination therapy as primary or salvage therapy isuncertain and it is not actually recommended in inter-national guidelines [8].The majority of physicians ignored that current guide-

lines recommend that treatment of IA should be contin-ued for a minimum of 612 weeks and that voriconazoleplasma levels should be monitored during treatment toavoid toxicity and therapeutic failure [44-47].Finally, we found differences in knowledge between

experimented physicians and residents. As we expected,the haematologists and infectious disease specialists(medical departments), are more proficient in the use ofantifungal therapy. However, ICU physicians that aredirectly responsible for many pre-emptive and empiricalantifungal prescriptions did not score so well compara-tively. Interestingly, Apisarnthanarak et al. reported that44% and 31% of inappropriate antifungal use was de-

tected in medical departments and ICUs respectively,and 15% in surgical departments [4].

et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 7 of 8The primary limitations of our study include the selec-tion of physicians that more frequently prescribe antifun-gal agents and the hospitals for the questionnaire. Thismeans that the results could be worse if all the physiciansof all institutions had been offered to participate. We alsoincluded a heterogeneous group of physicians who aremainly involved in different fields of IFI infection and onlyaddressed knowledge in Candida and Aspergillus invasiveinfections. Finally, although the response rate to differentquestions was high (85-100%), potential bias could resultdue to non-response to specific questions.Given the findings of our study assessing the basal

knowledge of antifungal prescribers in 5 European insti-tutions, operative attempts to ameliorate the inappropri-ate use of medications should be performed. We believethat these European interventions should be based on:1) Educational programs focusing on correct drugs anddose administration of antifungals; 2) Improvement inappropriate clinical interpretation of fungal isolates; 3)Establishment of antifungal management programs thatincorporate infectious diseases specialists that as previ-ously documented [5,48] are important in order to im-prove quality of care while optimizing hospital costs andantifungal use.

ConclusionsIn conclusion, a simple survey enabled us to assess theknowledge and practice of European prescribing physi-cians in important aspects of diagnosis, prophylaxis andantifungal treatment of IFIs. This study has revealed thatthere are serious lacks in knowledge in this area that re-quires a tailored educational program as a first step ofan international antifungal stewardship implementation.

Additional file

Additional file 1: Consists in the 20- point survey administered toparticipants.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors contributionsDesign of the study: PM, EB. Data retrieval: MV, AV, EB, NR, PV, MH, MG, PM.Data analysis: MV, AV, EB, NR, PV, MH, MG, PM. Writing of the manuscript: MV,AV, PM, EB. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the entire COMIC study group (Collaborative groupon Mycosis). Melanie Adda, Roberto Alonso, Fernando Anaya, Rafael Baares,Emilio Bouza, Amaya Bustinza, Betsab Cliz, Ana Fernndez-Cruz, PilarEscribano, Lorenzo Fernndez-Quero, Isabel Frias, Jorge Gayoso, PalomaGijn, Jess Guinea, Javier Hortal, Marta Kestler, Maria del Carmen Martnez,Ivn Mrquez, Patricia Muoz, Beln Padilla, Teresa Pelez, Jos Peral, Blanca

Pinilla, Diego Rincn, Carmen Guadalupe Rodrguez, Magdalena Salcedo,Carlos Snchez, Mar Snchez-Somolinos, Maria Sanjurjo, David Serrano,Maricela Valerio, Eduardo Verde, Encarnacin Vilalta, and Elena Zamora.diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect.2012;18 Suppl 7:1937.

10. El-Ebiary M, Torres A, Fabregas N, de la Bellacasa JP, Gonzalez J, Ramirez J,et al. Significance of the isolation of Candida species from respiratorysamples in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients. An immediate postmortemhistologic study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156(2 Pt 1):58390.

11. Eggimann P, Francioli P, Bille J, Schneider R, Wu MM, Chapuis G, et al.Fluconazole prophylaxis prevents intra-abdominal candidiasis in high-risksurgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(6):106672.

12. Garbino J, Lew DP, Romand JA, Hugonnet S, Auckenthaler R, Pittet D.Prevention of severe Candida infections in nonneutropenic, high-risk,critically ill patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial inpatients treated by selective digestive decontamination. Intensive Care Med.2002;28(12):170817.

13. Jacobs S, Price Evans DA, Tariq M, Al Omar NF. Fluconazole improvessurvival in septic shock: a randomized double-blind prospective study.Crit Care Med. 2003;31(7):193846.

14. Pelz RK, Hendrix CW, Swoboda SM, Diener-West M, Merz WG, Hammond J,FundingsThis study was partially financed by PROMULGA Project. Instituto de SaludCarlos III. PI1002868.

Author details1Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, HospitalGeneral Universitario Gregorio Maran, Madrid, Spain. 2Instituto deInvestigacin Sanitaria Gregorio Maran, Madrid, Spain. 3Department ofMedicine, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,Madrid, Spain. 4Intensive Care Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen UniversityHospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5Department of Medical and SurgicalSciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum, University ofBologna, Bologna, Italy. 6Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive CareMedicine, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Received: 9 June 2014 Accepted: 6 February 2015

References1. Azoulay E, Dupont H, Tabah A, Lortholary O, Stahl JP, Francais A, et al.

Systemic antifungal therapy in critically ill patients without invasive fungalinfection*. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(3):81322.

2. Valerio M, Rodriguez-Gonzalez CG, Munoz P, Caliz B, Sanjurjo M, Bouza E.Evaluation of antifungal use in a tertiary care institution: antifungalstewardship urgently needed. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(7):19939.

3. Nivoix Y, Launoy A, Lutun P, Moulin JC, Phai Pang KA, Fornecker LM, et al.Adherence to recommendations for the use of antifungal agents in atertiary care hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(10):250613.

4. Apisarnthanarak A, Yatrasert A, Mundy LM. Impact of education and anantifungal stewardship program for candidiasis at a Thai tertiary care center.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(7):7227.

5. Sutepvarnon A, Apisarnthanarak A, Camins B, Mondy K, Fraser VJ.Inappropriate use of antifungal medications in a tertiary care center inThailand: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.2008;29(4):3703.

6. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan Jr JE, Gerding DN, Weinstein RA, Burke JP,et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for HealthcareEpidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutionalprogram to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis.2007;44(2):15977.

7. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, Benjamin Jr DK, Calandra TF, Edwards JrJE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis:2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis.2009;48(5):50335.

8. Walsh TJ, Anaissie EJ, Denning DW, Herbrecht R, Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA,et al. Treatment of aspergillosis: clinical practice guidelines of the InfectiousDiseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(3):32760.

9. Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T, Garbino J, Kullberg BJ, Lortholary O,et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole to preventcandidal infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg.2001;233(4):5428.

JW, et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasiveaspergillosis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(6):40815.

40. Cornely OA, Maertens J, Bresnik M, Ebrahimi R, Ullmann AJ, Bouza E, et al.Liposomal amphotericin B as initial therapy for invasive mold infection: arandomized trial comparing a high-loading dose regimen with standarddosing (AmBiLoad trial). Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(10):128997.

41. Munoz P, Guinea J, Narbona MT, Bouza E. Treatment of invasive fungalinfections in immunocompromised and transplant patients: AmBiLoad trialand other new data. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32 Suppl 2:S12531.

42. Walsh TJ, Pappas P, Winston DJ, Lazarus HM, Petersen F, Raffalli J, et al.

Valerio et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2015) 15:80 Page 8 of 815. Playford EG, Eggimann P, Calandra T. Antifungals in the ICU. Curr OpinInfect Dis. 2008;21(6):6109.

16. Slavin MA, Sorrell TC, Marriott D, Thursky KA, Nguyen Q, Ellis DH, et al.Candidaemia in adult cancer patients: risks for fluconazole-resistant isolatesand death. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(5):104251.

17. Garnacho-Montero J, Diaz-Martin A, Garcia-Cabrera E, Ruiz Perez de Pipaon M,Hernandez-Caballero C, Aznar-Martin J, et al. Risk factors for fluconazole-resistant candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(8):314954.

18. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Sable C, Sobel J, Alexander BD, Donowitz G, Kan V,et al. Multicenter retrospective development and validation of a clinicalprediction rule for nosocomial invasive candidiasis in the intensive caresetting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26(4):2716.

19. Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, Roberts D, Light B, Parrillo JE, et al. Initiation ofinappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survivalin human septic shock. Chest. 2009;136(5):123748.

20. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of candidabloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: apotential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.2005;49(9):36405.

21. Kollef M, Micek S, Hampton N, Doherty JA, Kumar A. Septic shock attributedto Candida infection: importance of empiric therapy and source control.Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(12):173946.

22. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, Mingo DE, Suda KJ, Turpin RS, et al. Time toinitiation of fluconazole therapy impacts mortality in patients withcandidemia: a multi-institutional study. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(1):2531.

23. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P, O'Grady NP, et al. Clinicalpractice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascularcatheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society ofAmerica. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(1):145.

24. Zilberberg MD, Kollef MH, Arnold H, Labelle A, Micek ST, Kothari S, et al.Inappropriate empiric antifungal therapy for candidemia in the ICU andhospital resource utilization: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis.2010;10:150.

25. Labelle AJ, Micek ST, Roubinian N, Kollef MH. Treatment-related risk factorsfor hospital mortality in Candida bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med.2008;36(11):296772.

26. Clancy CJ, Yu VL, Morris AJ, Snydman DR, Nguyen MH. Fluconazole MIC andthe fluconazole dose/MIC ratio correlate with therapeutic response amongpatients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(8):31717.

27. Pai MP, Turpin RS, Garey KW. Association of fluconazole area under theconcentration-time curve/MIC and dose/MIC ratios with mortality innonneutropenic patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.2007;51(1):359.

28. Baddley JW, Patel M, Bhavnani SM, Moser SA, Andes DR. Association offluconazole pharmacodynamics with mortality in patients with candidemia.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(9):30228.

29. Rodriguez-Tudela JL, Almirante B, Rodriguez-Pardo D, Laguna F, Donnelly JP,Mouton JW, et al. Correlation of the MIC and dose/MIC ratio of fluconazoleto the therapeutic response of patients with mucosal candidiasis andcandidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(10):3599604.

30. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Sheehan DJ. Interpretive breakpoints forfluconazole and Candida revisited: a blueprint for the future of antifungalsusceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006;19(2):43547.

31. Tortorano AM, Kibbler C, Peman J, Bernhardt H, Klingspor L, Grillot R.Candidaemia in Europe: epidemiology and resistance. Int J AntimicrobAgents. 2006;27(5):35966.

32. Guinea J, Pelaez T, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Torres-Narbona M, Munoz P,Alcala L, et al. Empirical treatment of candidemia in intensive care units:fluconazole or broad-spectrum antifungal agents? Med Mycol.2009;47(5):51520.

33. Munoz P, Fernandez-Turegano CP, Alcala L, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Pelaez T,Bouza E. Frequency and clinical significance of bloodstream infectionscaused by C albicans strains with reduced susceptibility to fluconazole.Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;44(2):1637.

34. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Woosley LN, Jones RN, Castanheira M. Echinocandinand triazole antifungal susceptibility profiles for clinical opportunistic yeastand mold isolates collected from 2010 to 2011: application of new CLSIclinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values for characterization of

geographic and temporal trends of antifungal resistance. J Clin Microbiol.2013;51(8):257181.Voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empiricalantifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever.N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):22534.

43. Perfect JR, Marr KA, Walsh TJ, Greenberg RN, DuPont B, de la Torre-CisnerosJ, et al. Voriconazole treatment for less-common, emerging, or refractoryfungal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(9):112231.

44. Smith J, Andes D. Therapeutic drug monitoring of antifungals:pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Ther Drug Monit.2008;30(2):16772.

45. Pasqualotto AC, Xavier MO, Andreolla HF, Linden R. Voriconazoletherapeutic drug monitoring: focus on safety. Expert Opin Drug Saf.2010;9(1):12537.

46. Pascual A, Csajka C, Buclin T, Bolay S, Bille J, Calandra T, et al. Challengingrecommended oral and intravenous voriconazole doses for improvedefficacy and safety: population pharmacokinetics-based analysis of adultpatients with invasive fungal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(3):38190.

47. Pascual A, Calandra T, Bolay S, Buclin T, Bille J, Marchetti O. Voriconazoletherapeutic drug monitoring in patients with invasive mycoses improvesefficacy and safety outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(2):20111.

48. McQuillen DP, Petrak RM, Wasserman RB, Nahass RG, Scull JA, Martinelli LP.The value of infectious diseases specialists: non-patient care activities.Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(8):105163.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Centraland take full advantage of:

Convenient online submission

Thorough peer review

No space constraints or color gure charges

Immediate publication on acceptance

Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar

Research which is freely available for redistribution35. Bassetti M, Marchetti M, Chakrabarti A, Colizza S, Garnacho-Montero J,Kett DH, et al. A research agenda on the management of intra-abdominalcandidiasis: results from a consensus of multinational experts. Intensive CareMed. 2013;39(12):2092106.

36. Pea F. Current pharmacological concepts for wise use of echinocandins inthe treatment of Candida infections in septic critically ill patients. Expert RevAnti Infect Ther. 2013;11(10):98997.

37. Deshpande A, Gaur S, Bal AM. Candidaemia in the non-neutropenic patient:a critique of the guidelines. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;42(4):294300.

38. Bouza E, Guinea J, Pelaez T, Perez-Molina J, Alcala L, Munoz P. Workload dueto Aspergillus fumigatus and significance of the organism in the microbiologylaboratory of a general hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(5):20759.

39. Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, Bennett JE, Greene RE, OestmannSubmit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit

AbstractBackgroundMethodsResultsConclusions

BackgroundMethodsStudy design and settingQuestionnaireStatistical analysis

ResultsCandidiasisInvasive aspergillosis

DiscussionConclusionsAdditional fileCompeting interestsAuthors contributionsAcknowledgementsFundingsAuthor detailsReferences