Microdilution Susceptibility Testing of Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, and Voriconazole against Clinical Isolates of
            <i>Aspergillus</i>
            and
            <i>Fusarium</i>
            Species

Arıkan, Sevtap; Lozano-Chiu, Mario; Paetznick, Victor L.; Nangia, Sunaina; Rex, John H.

doi:10.1128/jcm.37.12.3946-3951.1999

Cited by 139 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mydriasis was achieved with two to three drops of tropicamide 1%, and the fundus was examined with indirect ophthalmoscopy before and after injections. Aqueous humor samples were obtained with a 30-gauge needle, and the sampling was performed on two to three rabbits at each time interval (1,2,4,8,16,24, and 48 hours) after injection and before enucleation of the eyes. Rabbits were killed with lethal cardiac injec- The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clearance of Intravitreal Voriconazole

Shen

Wang

et al. 2007

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vitreous concentrations achieved during the first 8 hours were greater than the previously reported minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of organisms most involved in fungal endophthalmitis. A rapid decline of intravitreal concentration suggests that supplementation of intraocular voriconazole to maintain therapeutic levels may therefore be required in clinical settings. Further studies are needed to determine the elimination rate of voriconazole after intravitreal injection in humans.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clearance of Intravitreal Voriconazole

Shen

Wang

et al. 2007

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…may display resistance towards numerous antifungal agents (Table 1), with F. solani complex frequently showing pan-azole resistance. Other species show a wide range of MICs when tested against voriconazole, posaconazole and amphotericin B [18,[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55].…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

ESCMID and ECMM joint guidelines on diagnosis and management of hyalohyphomycosis: Fusarium spp., Scedosporium spp. and others

Tortorano

Richardson

Roilides³

et al. 2014

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

426

401

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mycoses summarized in the hyalohyphomycosis group are heterogeneous, defined by the presence of hyaline (non-dematiaceous) hyphae. The number of organisms implicated in hyalohyphomycosis is increasing and the most clinically important species belong to the genera Fusarium, Scedosporium, Acremonium, Scopulariopsis, Purpureocillium and Paecilomyces. Severely immunocompromised patients are particularly vulnerable to infection, and clinical manifestations range from colonization to chronic localized lesions to acute invasive and/or disseminated diseases. Diagnosis usually requires isolation and identification of the infecting pathogen. A poor prognosis is associated with fusariosis and early therapy of localized disease is important to prevent progression to a more aggressive or disseminated infection. Therapy should include voriconazole and surgical debridement where possible or posaconazole as salvage treatment. Voriconazole represents the first-line treatment of infections due to members of the genus Scedosporium. For Acremonium spp., Scopulariopsis spp., Purpureocillium spp. and Paecilomyces spp. the optimal antifungal treatment has not been established. Management usually consists of surgery and antifungal treatment, depending on the clinical presentation.

show abstract

“…Agents that have been evaluated for fungal prophylaxis include amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin. Table 4 summarizes the activity spectra of these antifungals (69–77).…”

Section: Agents Used For Prophylaxis In High‐risk Patients and Their mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the role of prophylaxis in the management of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancy

Cornely

Aversa

Cook

et al. 2011

European J of Haematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive fungal infection (IFI) poses a serious risk to critically ill and immunocompromised patients, especially hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant recipients and patients who have received intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia. Invasive fungal infection remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among these high-risk patients (1-4).Pharmacologic management strategies for IFI include prophylactic, empiric, preemptive, and directed therapies. This review discusses the epidemiology of the most important fungal pathogens, identifies high-risk patient groups and risk factors associated with IFI, and critically evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of available diagnostic tests and treatment strategies and the rationale for antifungal prophylaxis. Epidemiology of IFIAlthough numerous antifungals are available, IFI remains a serious problem because of obstacles to timely diagnosis and high morbidity and mortality rates associated with such infection. Improvements in the treatment of underlying diseases, with increased use of AbstractInvasive fungal infection (IFI) is a persistent problem among critically ill and immunocompromised patients, especially hematopoietic stem cell transplant or solid organ transplant recipients, or patients on intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia. Although numerous antifungal agents are available, IFI remains a serious problem because of obstacles to timely diagnosis and high morbidity and mortality rates associated with such infection. Improvements in treatment of underlying diseases have rapidly expanded the patient populations at risk for IFI with increased use of immunosuppressants, aggressive chemotherapy, broadspectrum antibiotics, and narrow-spectrum antifungal prophylaxis. There are various treatment strategies that can be used to manage IFI: prophylaxis, empiric, preemptive, and directed. As the infection progresses, the prospect of successfully treating an infection diminishes; conversely, the earlier the intervention, the greater the possibility of unnecessary treatment. This article discusses the epidemiology of the most important fungal pathogens, identifies high-risk patient groups and risk factors associated with IFI, and critically evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of available diagnostic tests and treatment strategies and the rationale for antifungal prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for IFI, antifungal prophylaxis is an attractive strategy, and numerous randomized, controlled clinical studies have documented the benefit of such prophylaxis as well as the most efficacious of currently available agents.

show abstract

Microdilution Susceptibility Testing of Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, and Voriconazole against Clinical Isolates of Aspergillus and Fusarium Species

Cited by 139 publications

References 20 publications

Clearance of Intravitreal Voriconazole

Clearance of Intravitreal Voriconazole

ESCMID and ECMM joint guidelines on diagnosis and management of hyalohyphomycosis: Fusarium spp., Scedosporium spp. and others

Evaluating the role of prophylaxis in the management of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About