OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of antifungal prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care setting. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature was accessed using MEDLINE (January 1988- December 2010). The following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms were used: "amphotericin B," "fluconazole," "nystatin," "itraconazole," "caspofungin," "voriconazole," "Candida," "prevention and control," and "critically ill." Literature was further limited to studies focusing on patient birth to 6 months of age. Abstracts and original research articles were included. Preference was given to published controlled trials. Articles providing descriptions of the safety and effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in neonatal intensive care patients were also used in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies have evaluated the impact of antifungal prophylaxis on Candida colonization or invasive infections in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The two antifungal agents most commonly studied were nystatin and fluconazole. All of the nystatin studies demonstrated that nystatin is effective at reducing fungal colonization and invasive fungal infections. All of the studies designed to evaluate the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on fungal colonization demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of fungal colonization with fluconazole prophylaxis. A total of 12 of 16 studies that evaluated the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of invasive fungal infections demonstrated a reduction in invasive fungal infections with fluconazole prophylaxis. Two studies found no difference between fluconazole and nystatin when used for prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Antifungal prophylaxis appears to be effective in reducing the incidence of Candida colonization and invasive Candida infections in the NICU. Antifungal prophylaxis also appears to be safe in the NICU population. The impact of antifungal prophylaxis on resistance patterns could be significant and needs to be evaluated long term before widespread prophylaxis can be recommended.
OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of antifungal prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care setting. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature was accessed using MEDLINE (January 1988- December 2010). The following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms were used: "amphotericin B," "fluconazole," "nystatin," "itraconazole," "caspofungin," "voriconazole," "Candida," "prevention and control," and "critically ill." Literature was further limited to studies focusing on patient birth to 6 months of age. Abstracts and original research articles were included. Preference was given to published controlled trials. Articles providing descriptions of the safety and effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in neonatal intensive care patients were also used in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies have evaluated the impact of antifungal prophylaxis on Candida colonization or invasive infections in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The two antifungal agents most commonly studied were nystatin and fluconazole. All of the nystatin studies demonstrated that nystatin is effective at reducing fungal colonization and invasive fungal infections. All of the studies designed to evaluate the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on fungal colonization demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of fungal colonization with fluconazole prophylaxis. A total of 12 of 16 studies that evaluated the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of invasive fungal infections demonstrated a reduction in invasive fungal infections with fluconazole prophylaxis. Two studies found no difference between fluconazole and nystatin when used for prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Antifungal prophylaxis appears to be effective in reducing the incidence of Candida colonization and invasive Candida infections in the NICU. Antifungal prophylaxis also appears to be safe in the NICU population. The impact of antifungal prophylaxis on resistance patterns could be significant and needs to be evaluated long term before widespread prophylaxis can be recommended.
Authors: Kelly C Wade; Daniel K Benjamin; David A Kaufman; Robert M Ward; Phillip B Smith; Bhuvana Jayaraman; Peter C Adamson; Marc R Gastonguay; Jeffrey S Barrett Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Mariam Aziz; Aloka L Patel; Jennifer Losavio; Anjali Iyengar; Michael Berven; Nathan Schloemer; Andrew Jakubowicz; Tina Mathai; James B McAuley Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Arnaldo L Colombo; Thaís Guimarães; Ligia R B F Silva; Leila Paula de Almeida Monfardini; Anna Karenine B Cunha; Patrícia Rady; Thelma Alves; Robert C Rosas Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 3.254