Should we continue to use prediction tools to identify patients at risk of Candida spp. infection? If yes, why?

Risultato della ricerca: Article

4 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

We read with interest the article from Shanin et al. about the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) study [1] aiming to 'describe the incidence of IFD in UK critical care units and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at risk of IFD'. The investigators should be congratulated for the way they collected a huge amount of data from 96 adult intensive care units (ICUs), managed the FIRE database, and developed and validated the risk model. However, they stated that the prediction model would help to identify patients who may benefit from antifungal prophylaxis and that a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated a beneficial effect of antifungal prophylaxis and/or empiric treatment in terms of incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) and mortality. This statement is not supported by available evidence from RCTs. A recent Cochrane Systematic Review including 22 RCTs evaluating prophylaxis, pre-emptive, and empiric antifungal treatment with any antifungal drugs in 2761 non-neutropenic critically ill patients showed no significant effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.09) and a significant reduction in the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) (RR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.39 to 0.83) [2, 3]. In the subgroup analysis for type of intervention, antifungal prophylaxis was not associated with a significant mortality reduction but with a significant reduction of IFI [4]. This systematic review was the update of the one cited in the manuscript and published in 2006 including 12 RCT and 1606 patients.
Lingua originaleEnglish
Numero di pagine2
RivistaCritical Care
Volume20
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Mycoses
Candida
Randomized Controlled Trials
Infection
Critical Illness
Mortality
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Manuscripts
Incidence
Risk Reduction Behavior
Critical Care
Intensive Care Units
Research Personnel
Databases
Therapeutics
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Invasive Fungal Infections

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cita questo

@article{34f53a5a318a476aa11949a9a64cc738,
title = "Should we continue to use prediction tools to identify patients at risk of Candida spp. infection? If yes, why?",
abstract = "We read with interest the article from Shanin et al. about the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) study [1] aiming to 'describe the incidence of IFD in UK critical care units and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at risk of IFD'. The investigators should be congratulated for the way they collected a huge amount of data from 96 adult intensive care units (ICUs), managed the FIRE database, and developed and validated the risk model. However, they stated that the prediction model would help to identify patients who may benefit from antifungal prophylaxis and that a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated a beneficial effect of antifungal prophylaxis and/or empiric treatment in terms of incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) and mortality. This statement is not supported by available evidence from RCTs. A recent Cochrane Systematic Review including 22 RCTs evaluating prophylaxis, pre-emptive, and empiric antifungal treatment with any antifungal drugs in 2761 non-neutropenic critically ill patients showed no significant effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95 {\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.09) and a significant reduction in the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) (RR 0.57, 95 {\%} CI 0.39 to 0.83) [2, 3]. In the subgroup analysis for type of intervention, antifungal prophylaxis was not associated with a significant mortality reduction but with a significant reduction of IFI [4]. This systematic review was the update of the one cited in the manuscript and published in 2006 including 12 RCT and 1606 patients.",
author = "Raineri, {Santi Maurizio} and Andrea Cortegiani and Antonino Giarratano",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1364-8535",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should we continue to use prediction tools to identify patients at risk of Candida spp. infection? If yes, why?

AU - Raineri, Santi Maurizio

AU - Cortegiani, Andrea

AU - Giarratano, Antonino

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - We read with interest the article from Shanin et al. about the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) study [1] aiming to 'describe the incidence of IFD in UK critical care units and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at risk of IFD'. The investigators should be congratulated for the way they collected a huge amount of data from 96 adult intensive care units (ICUs), managed the FIRE database, and developed and validated the risk model. However, they stated that the prediction model would help to identify patients who may benefit from antifungal prophylaxis and that a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated a beneficial effect of antifungal prophylaxis and/or empiric treatment in terms of incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) and mortality. This statement is not supported by available evidence from RCTs. A recent Cochrane Systematic Review including 22 RCTs evaluating prophylaxis, pre-emptive, and empiric antifungal treatment with any antifungal drugs in 2761 non-neutropenic critically ill patients showed no significant effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.09) and a significant reduction in the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) (RR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.39 to 0.83) [2, 3]. In the subgroup analysis for type of intervention, antifungal prophylaxis was not associated with a significant mortality reduction but with a significant reduction of IFI [4]. This systematic review was the update of the one cited in the manuscript and published in 2006 including 12 RCT and 1606 patients.

AB - We read with interest the article from Shanin et al. about the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) study [1] aiming to 'describe the incidence of IFD in UK critical care units and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at risk of IFD'. The investigators should be congratulated for the way they collected a huge amount of data from 96 adult intensive care units (ICUs), managed the FIRE database, and developed and validated the risk model. However, they stated that the prediction model would help to identify patients who may benefit from antifungal prophylaxis and that a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated a beneficial effect of antifungal prophylaxis and/or empiric treatment in terms of incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) and mortality. This statement is not supported by available evidence from RCTs. A recent Cochrane Systematic Review including 22 RCTs evaluating prophylaxis, pre-emptive, and empiric antifungal treatment with any antifungal drugs in 2761 non-neutropenic critically ill patients showed no significant effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.09) and a significant reduction in the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) (RR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.39 to 0.83) [2, 3]. In the subgroup analysis for type of intervention, antifungal prophylaxis was not associated with a significant mortality reduction but with a significant reduction of IFI [4]. This systematic review was the update of the one cited in the manuscript and published in 2006 including 12 RCT and 1606 patients.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/273046

M3 - Article

VL - 20

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1364-8535

ER -