The Varying Epidemiology of Candidal Infections - Essay Example

appears here] appears here] appears here] appears here] Candida Introduction Persistent fungal infections are more widespread than ever, because of an increasingly large population of patients at elevated risk secondary to immunosuppression. Underlying disease or chronic conditions for example cancer, bone marrow or solid-organ transplantation, HIV infection, as well as chronic corticosteroid administration make patients susceptible to opportunistic fungal pathogens. In the hospital, complex surgical procedures, extensive use of implanted devices, plus administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics have noticeably augmented the frequency of nosocomial fungal infections. Clinicians of all specialties will have to vie with the rising risk of fungal pathogens, if they have not by now. The Candida species is a dimorphic fungus that can live as yeast or in mycelial form. There are numerous species of Candida however the most important species affecting humans is Candida albicans. Other species hardly ever affect humans although comprise tropicalis, parapilosis, and krusei. This fungus is usually a saprophyte however can turn out to be a pathogen causing the following harms: Superficial Candidiasis, Mucocutaneous Candidiasis, Systemic Candidiasis, Candida Overgrowth. The opportunistic human pathogens Candida albicans and further non-albicans species have got substantial importance in the recent past because of the elevated vulnerability of immunocompromised patients. These pathogenic species of Candida obtain their significance not merely from the relentlessness of their infections however as well from their capability to build up resistance against antifungals. Extensive and prolonged use of azoles has showed the way to the speedy development of the occurrence of multidrug resistance (MDR), which pretenses a major obstacle in antifungal therapy. A variety of mechanisms that contribute to the growth of MDR have been concerned in Candida and in further human fungal pathogens, and some of these comprise overexpression of or mutations in the target enzyme of azoles, lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase, as well as transcriptional start of genes encoding drug efflux pump proteins related to ATP-binding cassette (ABC) and to most important facilitator superfamilies (MFS) of transporters. The ABC transporters, CDR1, CDR2, as well as an MFS pump CaMDR1, play an important role in azole resistance as deduced from their elevated level of expression found in numerous azole-resistant clinical isolates. At a current symposium held on January 29, 2000, at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, observed experts in fungal infections congregated to present the latest information regarding diagnosis as well as treatment of fungal infections in the immunocompromised patient. In general idea of fungal infections, Kenneth V.I. Rolston, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, affirmed that Candida species are now the fourth most widespread cause of nosocomial bloodstream infection, and they are linked with a tremendously high death rate of forty percent. From 1980 to 1990, the frequency of fungal infections in US hospitals almost doubled, from 2.0 to 3.8 per 1000 patients discharged. The most noticeable rise in fungal infection rates took place not in transplant units or oncology centers, however on surgical services, with medical services as well showing increases. These changing patterns reveal that fungal infections are no longer restricted to the most severely immunosuppressed patients. Nor are fungal infections restricted to large teaching hospitals; small teaching hospitals as well as nonteaching hospitals of all sizes have as well experienced rise in fungal infection rates. Additionally, fungal infections are not happening merely in intensive care units (ICUs) lodging the sickest patients: just more than half are in ICUs, however forty-three percent are among patients in medical or surgical units. The varying Epidemiology of Candidal Infections In the past two decades, a considerable shift in the epidemiology of candidemia because of different Candida species has cropped up. In the 1960s and 1970s, Candida albicans accounted for eighty to ninety percent of cases of candidemia. Though, an MD Anderson Cancer Center study of the epidemiology of candidal infections from 1988 to 1992 discovers the occurrence of non-albicans Candida had exceeded that of C albicans. Merely forty-two percent of candidemia cases were caused by C albicans, whereas non-albicans Candida accounted for the rest, together with C tropicalis (eighteen percent), C parapsilosis (seventeen percent), C glabrata (eleven percent), C krusei (four percent), and others. The authors of the study guessed that fluconazole prophylaxis was mainly accountable for the shift, in that it condensed the occurrence of C albicans infections. Comparable results have been reported by further groups in noncancer settings too. Similar developments apply in the neonatal setting. There, current data propose that C albicans causes merely about fifty percent of infections, with C parapsilosis now being seen as the leading non-albicans species in this patient group. The coming out of Candida infections because of non-albicans species is mainly significant to working clinicians, for the reason that candidal isolates resistant to azole therapy have emerged, making species recognition and sensitivity testing vital. Microbiology labs must no longer be reporting results for instance "Candida species," "Candida nonalbicans," or "yeast." The species of the organism have to be provided, since the species vary in their vulnerability to antifungal agents and present dissimilar implications for outcome. C tropicalis has been revealed to source invasive disease and disseminated infection. C parapsilosis, though, is usually less dangerous. C krusei is problematic for the reason that it almost generally exhibits resistance to azole therapy (eg, fluconazole) and may have reduced vulnerability to other therapies. Candida species pathogenic to humans are C albicans ,C glabrata, C guilliermondii, C krusei, C lusitaniae, C parapsilosis, C pseudotropicalis, C rugosa, C stellatoidea, as well as C tropicalis There are no fast, precise diagnostic tests that can verify with confidence the occurrence of invasive fungal disease. Unless the clinician thinks about fungal disease early, disease can progress quickly at the same time as the patient is treated insistently with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Not merely are fungal infections hard to differentiate from bacterial or other infections; however the clinical signs of numerous fungal infections are shared among various fungal pathogens too. Standard microbiology is frequently sufficient to present a diagnosis. Short of tissue biopsies, fungal cultures are not for all time positive in the presence of invasive disease. Furthermore, positive cultures do not definitively indicate invasive disease; they might symbolize colonization. Nevertheless, in patients who are immunosuppressed, a positive cultures as well as invasive disease are extremely correlated. A high-risk patient with a positive culture must be measured to have invasive disease until confirmed otherwise. (Zhanel GG, Karlowsky JA, Harding GA, et al. 1997) Diagnosing dispersed candidiasis is unluckily not straightforward. The only finest tool is the blood culture; however this tool has inadequate value. Even in patients with rigorous neutropenia or immunosuppression, in whom disseminated candidiasis is powerfully suspected, blood cultures are positive merely fifty percent of the time. Non-culture-based approaches for diagnosing invasive candidiasis have been thoroughly studied, however an extremely dependable technology has yet to appear. Isolation of Candida sp less vulnerable to customary therapies and revival of more and more resistant isolates throughout antifungal therapy are raising problems. It is significant for clinicians to be conscious of trends and mechanisms accountable for the expression of resistance. (Nguyen MH, Peacock JE Jr, Morris AJ, et al, 1996) 20 years ago, Candida sp were usually looked upon as little more than culture contaminants; though, in less than two decades these organisms have turn out to be most important human pathogens. Even though a number of factors contribute to the detonation of fungal infections, the truth is that advances in medical technology outcome in sicker patients who are more vulnerable to the pathogens. Just as perplexing is the rising rate at which drug-resistant Candida sp is reported. Candida albicans remains the most frequently encountered fungal pathogen among hospitalized patients, accounting for approximately fifty to sixty percent of all bloodstream fungal isolates. As well, a number of reports documented a rising occurrence with which non-albicans Candida sp are isolated. In accordance with surveillance study between June 1990 and January 1994 the incidence of non-C. albicans candidemia augmented from forty to fifty-three percent (p=0.01) and exceeded that of C. albicans. Similar shifts in distribution of the species have been reported by further investigators. It was anticipated that these shifts may outcome from selective pressures imposed by augmented use of antifungal agents for example azoles. Though, it remains uncertain whether these incidences are isolated cases and artifacts of publication prejudice or beyond doubt reflect a developing problem. It is apparent, though, that antifungal vulnerability patterns and frequencies with which a variety of Candida sp are isolated differ significantly among institutions and even among units in the similar institution. (Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR, 1993) Complexities Defining Resistance Even though standard methods for determining least inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and interpretative breakpoint guiding principle for bacteria are set up, such testing methods as well as breakpoints were planned merely lately for antifungal agents. Due to their comparatively current introduction and difficult development, antifungal vulnerability tests and clinical elucidation remain to some extent contentious. Consequently, it can be hard to use antifungal vulnerability test results to define resistance. (National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1997). By means of approved methodology, vulnerability testing with amphotericin B gives way a narrow spread of MIC results, usually in the range of 0.25-1 g/ml. The agent's MIC distributions within this narrow range of test consequences make it very hard to identify differences in vulnerabilities among isolates. As the majority isolates are inhibited by 1.0 g/ml of amphotericin B or less, numerous clinicians use more than 1.0 g/ml as a default breakpoint MIC. Though, clinical trials disclosed marginal correlation between amphotericin B MICs as well as clinical result. Even though consensus does not exist concerning the understanding of amphotericin B MICs, historical disagreement about azole breakpoint values is even greater. For instance, a number of reports used values varying from 4 g/ml or more to 64 g/ml or more to describe fluconazole resistance. The inconsistency was the consequence of absence of standard testing methods and interpretative assistance. though standard testing methods as well as breakpoints now exist, substantial argue remains as to their capability and clinical relevance. (Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Barry AL, Nelson PW, Webb CD, 1995) It comes into view that lately developed classes of antifungals are not resistant to problems linked with in vitro susceptibility testing. The echinocandins are a promising innovative class of drugs that are active against various fungal pathogens. Near the beginning in their development it was observed that in vitro activity was to a great extent influenced by the growth medium used. Additionally, disagreement with respect to decisive factor to find out MICs (end point) contributed to complexity associating MICs with clinical result and vulnerable assortment of interpretative breakpoints for the drugs. (Saag MS, Powderly WG, Cloud GA, et al, 1992) One more factor that obscures our capability to describe antifungal resistance is the evolution of antifungal dosing. Over the past decade the standard quantity of amphotericin B climbed from 0.3 mg/kg/day to upward of 1.0 mg/kg/day. Likewise, azole dosing practices have sustained to develop. Until best possible treatments are defined and pharmacodynamic characteristics are completely browbeaten, it might prove hard to set criteria for defining antifungal resistance. Until we are capable to associate in vitro vulnerability data with clinical result more efficiently, definitions of antifungal resistance will stay contentious. In spite of this limitation, in vitro susceptibility tests are tremendously precious in monitoring changes in population vulnerability patterns eventually. (Bartizal K, Gill CJ, Abruzzo GK, et al, 1997) Primary vs. Secondary Resistance Close to bacteria, resistance among fungi can be categorized as primary or secondary. Primary, or intrinsic, resistance denotes an organism's natural vulnerability to an antimicrobial. This native level of vulnerability is considered to be a drug-organism trait and self-governing of drug exposure. Primary resistance is an expected trait. For instance, it is extensively accepted that Candida krusei is much less vulnerable to fluconazole than C. albicans. Consequently, if C. krusei is isolated, fluconazole is usually not selected for treatment. It is evident that on a case-by-case foundation intrinsic resistance is not a main danger if clinicians are conscious of subtle vulnerability differences among Candida sp. Primary resistance turns out to be more problematic when thinking about the larger picture. If a single agent or class of drugs is extensively administered for the reason that the fungus most usually encountered is extremely vulnerable to it, we run the danger of changing the fungal population dynamics by suppressing or eliminating vulnerable species. This generates a position in the local flora, permits an organism intrinsically less vulnerable to the workhorse antifungal to duplicate and increase, and perhaps finally turn out to be the major pathogen isolated. Instances of shifts in incidence of fungal species isolation are widespread in the literature. In all of these reports, administration of fluconazole was a risk factor contributing to separation of a less fluconazole vulnerable non-albicans Candida isolate. In spite of the strong association between patterns of antifungal administration and changes in species isolation, it is significant to indicate that the capability to extrapolate these findings to other institutions perhaps restricted. The majority studies reporting emergence of non-albicans Candida sp usually depict the experience of a single institution over a somewhat short period of time. Consequently, hospital patient population demographics as well as infection-control practices might play a large role in manipulating the etiology of fungal infections. (Viscoli C, Girmenia C, Marinus A, et al, 1999) Interinstitutional inconsistency regarding diversity of Candida sp was stressed by a multicenter surveillance study of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Fungal isolates were collected over one year from fifty medical centers all through the United States, and C. albicans responsible for fifty-two percent of them. Candida sp for example glabrata, tropicalis, parapsilosis as well as krusei responsible for twenty percent, eleven percent, eight percent and five percent of isolates, correspondingly. One of the most outstanding findings was the incredible regional inconsistency regarding species distribution. For instance, the incidence with which C. albicans was recovered ranged from a low of forty-six percent in the Northeast to a high of seventy percent in the Southwest. Frequencies of isolation for non-albicans sp diverse in a similar manner. Consequently, conclusions concerning the occurrence of infections sourced by a given species possibly biased by the number as well as geographic locations of institutions surveyed. (Maenza JR, Keruly JC, Moore RD, Chaisson RE, Merz WG, Gallant JE, 1996) One more factor that might bias the rate of isolation of non-albicans Candida sp is patient demographics. It comes into view that populations at maximum risk for getting an infection secondary to one of these species are those getting immunosuppressive regimens for cancer and following organ transplantation. Consequently, institutions with big oncology or transplant services, and investigators who bound surveillance to such units, could overrate the occurrence of infections because of these pathogens. Even though selective pressures may outcome in shifts in species isolation within a known institution, published studies to date do not hold the principle that such change has took place or will happen all over the country. Secondary or acquired resistance is a lot less expected and potentially more challenging than primary resistance. Under circumstances of environmental stress for example disclosure to antifungal agents, a population of at first vulnerable fungi may start to express resistance. This may outcome from expression of recently acquired genetic alterations, translation as well as expression of previously repressed metabolic trails, or unmasking of presented, less vulnerable fungal subpopulation. A given population of fungi usually comprises a collection of similar so far heterogeneous strains from the similar species. When an MIC is determined for the population, it symbolizes the concentration that slows down the growth of most of the population. Consequently, fractions of the population will be approximately vulnerable to the test drug. If the population is frequently exposed to a concentration of an agent equal to the observed MIC, the most vulnerable members will be rapidly eradicated, leaving merely the less vulnerable subpopulation. Ultimately, this more resistant fraction will turn out to be the major phenotype remaining. This notion was established by numerous investigators studying the appearance of drug-resistant C. albicans among individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus treated with fluconazole, the primary group in whom isolation of drug-resistant C. albicans has took place. Even though the source of drug-resistant fungi has not been resolute, it is possible that resistance takes place as the consequence of numerous processes, including emergence of a resistant variant from a general genotype, assortment of resistant strains from a mixed population, as well as reinfection with a new resistant strain. (Martins MD, Rex JH, 1996) Azole Antifungals The main target for azole antifungal agents is a lanosterol demethylase enzyme, 14 demethylase, which is occupied in the conversion of lanosterol to ergosterol. This enzyme is programmed for by the ERG11 gene, before denoted as CYP51 and ERG16. Azole-induced accretion of toxic 14-methy sterols is as well supposed to contribute to the action of these agents. The 3 most usually planned mechanisms of azole resistance among Candida sp are modification of 14--demethylase, reduced intracellular drug accumulation, as well as loss of function of the enzyme 5,6-desaturase, which is programmed for by the ERG3 gene. (Loffler J, Kelly SL, Hebart H, Schumacher U, Lass-Florl C, Einsele H, 1997) Several point mutations in the ERG11 gene are considered to outcome in structural or functional changes at the azole binding site. Along with these, replacement of arginine with lysine at amino acid 467 of the ERG11 gene was explained in laboratory and clinical isolates. This point mutation is supposed to consequence in changes of the heme cofactor. The majority strains of C. albicans are diploid, having two alleles of each gene. Clinical isolates usually hold a number of sequence differences between gene copies. This redundancy permits for production of a functional enzyme though a potentially deadly mutation has taken place in one gene copy. Though, allelic differences present in vulnerable strains are not present in resistant isolates possessing the R467K mutation. This gene conversion or mitotic recombination consequences in a cell in which both copies of the ERG11 gene holds the R467K mutation. Data propose that a cell with two copies of the mutated ERG11 gene is considerably less vulnerable to the action of azoles than a cell possessing merely one such mutation. This kind of gene conversion would be pertinent merely among diploid cells for example C. albicans and not in haploid organisms for instance C. glabrata. Even though the R467K mutation alone perhaps adequate to cause azole resistance, it is difficult to find out the exact contribution among clinical isolates due to the incidence of numerous concurrent genetic alterations. Over expression of the ERG11 gene as a causative factor in azole resistance has been explained by numerous investigators. However, expression is normally less than a factor of five greater than in nonoverexpressed isolates. Additionally, since overexpression for all time accompanied other alters linked with resistance for instance expression of drug efflux pumps or the R467K point mutation, it has so far to be outlined precisely what role this plays in the growth of azole resistance. (Albertson GD, Niimi M, Cannon RD, Jenkinson HF, 1996) Interspecies inconsistency regarding 14--demethylase binding affinity for azole antifungal agents has been noticed. Findings such as this possibly will present insight into as a minimum one of the causes why some Candida sp are essentially less vulnerable to specific compounds. Lessening in the intracellular accumulation of a drug can take place by hindering drug entrance into the cell, by making simple its elimination, or a combination of both. Expression or over expression of drug efflux pumps comes into view to by the primary mechanism by which Candida sp change intra-cellular drug accumulation. Two types of efflux pumps that contribute to azole resistance among Candida have been recognized: adenosine triphosphate binding cassette transporters (ABCT) as well as major facilitators (MF). Even though both function to remove molecules toxic to cells, efflux pumps from these classes vary in their structure, energy source, plus target substrates. Among azole-resistant Candida sp, reduced azole vulnerability associated with up regulation of the Candida drug resistance (CDR) genes CDR1 and CDR2 in the ABCT transport family and MDR1 as well denoted as BENr gene in the MF family. One distinguish characteristic between CDR and MDR genes is that expression of CDR is associated with the efflux of a variety of azoles comprising fluconazole, itraconazole, and ketoconazole, while expression of MDR1 appears to have an effect on merely the fluconazole vulnerability profile. Alterations in the biosynthetic pathway of ergosterol as well contribute to azole resistance. The ERG3 gene encodes for the enzyme 5,6 desaturase, which makes easy conversion of 14-methyl-fecosterol to toxic sterols for example 14-methyl-3,6-diol and episterol. Accretion of these toxic sterols is supposed to be a vital process in the expression of azole activity. Consequently, a mutation in ERG3 would be anticipated to outcome in production of an enzyme with changed activity and impaired capability to form toxic diols and outcome in reduced azole efficiency. (Polak A, Grenson M, 1973) A number of mechanisms may ease the expression of azole resistance in Candida sp. as several resistance determinants are frequently expressed in the similar strain, and given general lack of accessibility of serial isolates with altering levels of vulnerability, it is hard to assess the contribution of each mechanism on the general level of resistance. In an inadequate number of reports, though, resistance builds up secondary to accumulation of several resistance factors over time. These findings possibly will assist to clarify why azole resistance has been comparatively slow to appear among Candida sp and why most examples in which resistance did happen were in patients receiving prolonged therapy. (Franz R, Kelly SL, Lamb DC, Kelly DE, Ruhnke M, Morschhauser J. 1998). Clinical Implications The most important factor driving the appearance of antifungal resistance appears to be selective pressure ensuing from augmented administration of systemic antifungal agents. Given the significance of fungal infections as well as difficulties linked with their diagnosis, limiting empiric antifungal therapy possibly will not be the best answer for fighting resistance. In addition, when resistance does happen it is usually after extended exposure to comparatively low concentrations of drug. Such is the instance when antifungal prophylaxis is given to immunocompromised patients. Consequently, tactics for fighting the appearance and increase of resistance must focus on 3 primary areas: dropping administration of prophylactic regimens; founding best possible regimens to prevent suboptimal drug exposure; as well as making sure destructive surveillance to detect changes in patterns of antifungal vulnerability patterns. Conceivably one of the most important developments that might slow the appearance of resistance is extensive administration of extremely active antiretroviral therapy. With these regimens, patients' CD4+ counts frequently improve noticeably. Consequently, patients are at reduced risk for getting opportunistic infections, comprising oropharyngeal candidiasis and further fungal infections. This observation showed the way to recommendations that prophylactic regimens targeted against various opportunistic pathogens possibly discontinued. Certainly, progress in immune status secondary to efficient antiretroviral therapy outcome in reduced rates of carriage of C. albicans as well as oropharyngeal candidiasis. A drift toward a lessening in the incidence of isolation of fluconazole-resistant C. albicans was as well noted. (Klepser ME, Wolfe EJ, Jones RN, Nightingale CH, Pfaller MA, 1997) A primary belief among infectious disease practitioners are that exposure of a microbe to subtherapeutic concentrations of antimicrobial is one of the surest ways to bring out resistance. This principle was confirmed for fungi in vitro by many investigators with various agents. Unluckily, due to historical incapability to diagnose fungal infections with a high degree of dependability and because of fear of drug-related toxicities, clinicians have not been violent with dosing of antifungal drugs. In defense of clinicians, it was not until the current past that antifungal vulnerability testing and pharmaco-dynamic properties achieved acceptance and presented some insight into the suitability of dosing strategies. Concentration-dependent fungicidal activity was explained for polyene antifungals. Data for instance these support a drift that has been happening in clinical practice, which is to recommend escalating dosages of amphotericin B. Likewise, regarding azole antifungals, pharmacodynamic data as well as clinical data generated separately hold up the view that the probability of treatment success is maximum if drug concentrations are sustained above the MIC of the pathogen. Such consequences must prompt clinicians to become recognizable with antifungal surveillance data in their institutions and recommend empiric azole regimens therefore. In the majority institutions this means discarding the practice of administering low-dosage fluconazole 100-200 mg/day and starting therapy with as a minimum 400 mg/day. Lastly, even though routine antifungal vulnerability testing is not thus far suggested at the patient level, it can be tremendously significant tool at the institution level. Periodic assessment of vulnerability patterns not merely helps clinicians in selecting suitable empiric dosing regimens however can present early warning concerning shifts in these patterns. The implication of both of these points may be to a great extent increased as new antifungal drugs are brought into clinical practice. Conclusion Since the practice of medicine develops, the significance of fungi as human pathogens will carry on to grow. As a result, clinicians have to become educated regarding antifungal pharmaco-therapy as well as resistance. It is vital to be familiar with differences between fungi and bacteria and how these differences are probable to have an effect on drug therapy and appearance of resistance. Although we are not expected to observe explosive, extensive antifungal resistance, it is significant to be watchful concerning shifting vulnerability patterns and species distributions. Early and destructive surveillance and proper reactive measures will recover patient outcomes as well as slow the growth of this problem. Bibliography Albertson GD, Niimi M, Cannon RD, Jenkinson HF. Multiple efflux mechanisms are involved in Candida albicans fluconazole resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40:2835-41. Bartizal K, Gill CJ, Abruzzo GK, et al. In vitro preclinical evaluation studies with the echinocandin antifungal MK-0991 (L-743,872). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41:2326-32. Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR. Secular trends in the epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections in the United States, 1980-1990. National nosocomial infections surveillance system. J Infect Dis 1993; 167:1247-51. Franz R, Kelly SL, Lamb DC, Kelly DE, Ruhnke M, Morschhauser J. Multiple molecular mechanisms contribute to a stepwise development of fluconazole resistance in clinical Candida albicans strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:3065-72. Klepser ME, Wolfe EJ, Jones RN, Nightingale CH, Pfaller MA. Antifungal pharmacodynamic characteristics of fluconazole and amphotericin B tested against Candida albicans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41:1392-5. Loffler J, Kelly SL, Hebart H, Schumacher U, Lass-Florl C, Einsele H. Molecular analysis of CYP51 from fluconazole-resistant Candida albicans strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1997; 151:263-8. Maenza JR, Keruly JC, Moore RD, Chaisson RE, Merz WG, Gallant JE. Risk factors for fluconazole-resistant candidiasis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. J Infect Dis 1996; 173:219-25. Martins MD, Rex JH. Resistance to antifungal agents in the critical care setting: problems and perspectives. New Horiz 1996; 4:338-44. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts; approved standard. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 1997. Nguyen MH, Peacock JE Jr, Morris AJ, et al. The changing face of candidemia: emergence of non-Candida albicans species and antifungal resistance. Am J Med 1996; 100:617-23. Polak A, Grenson M. Evidence for a common transport system for cytosine, adenine and hypoxanthine in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans. Eur J Biochem 1973;32:276-82. Rex JH, Pfaller MA, Barry AL, Nelson PW, Webb CD. Antifungal susceptibility testing of isolates from a randomized, multicenter trial of fluconazole versus amphotericin B as treatment of nonneutropenic patients with candidemia. NIAID mycoses study group and the candidemia study group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:40-4. Saag MS, Powderly WG, Cloud GA, et al. Comparison of amphotericin B with fluconazole in the treatment of acute AIDS-associated cryptococcal meningitis. The NIAID mycoses study group and the AIDS clinical trials group. N Engl J Med 1992;326:83-9. Viscoli C, Girmenia C, Marinus A, et al. Candidemia in cancer patients: a prospective, multicenter surveillance study by the invasive fungal infection group (IFIG) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Clin Infect Dis 1999;28:1071-9. Zhanel GG, Karlowsky JA, Harding GA, et al. In vitro activity of a new semisynthetic echinocandin, LY-303366, against systemic isolates of Candida species, Cryptococcus neoformans, Blastomyces dermatitidis, and Aspergillus species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997;41:863-5. Read More