These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.

Background Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. Methods To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups’ findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. Results There is no change in the classifications of “proven,” “probable,” and “possible” IFD, although the definition of “probable” has been expanded and the scope of the category “possible” has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. Conclusions These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.

The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the European Respiratory Society Joint Clinical Guidelines focus on diagnosis and management of aspergillosis. Of the numerous recommendations, a few are summarized here. Chest computed tomography as well as bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspicion of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) are strongly recommended. For diagnosis, direct microscopy, preferably using optical brighteners, histopathology and culture are strongly recommended. Serum and BAL galactomannan measures are recommended as markers for the diagnosis of IA. PCR should be considered in conjunction with other diagnostic tests. Pathogen identification to species complex level is strongly recommended for all clinically relevant Aspergillus isolates; antifungal susceptibility testing should be performed in patients with invasive disease in regions with resistance found in contemporary surveillance programmes. Isavuconazole and voriconazole are the preferred agents for first-line treatment of pulmonary IA, whereas liposomal amphotericin B is moderately supported. Combinations of antifungals as primary treatment options are not recommended. Therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly recommended for patients receiving posaconazole suspension or any form of voriconazole for IA treatment, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole is strongly recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving induction chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients. We strongly recommend treatment duration based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging.

KPC-Kp BSIs are associated with high mortality. To improve survival, combined treatment with 2 or more drugs with in vitro activity against the isolate, especially those also including a carbapenem, may be more effective than active monotherapy.