| Autor: |
Büchner, T., Fegeler, W., Bernhardt, H., Brockmeyer, N., Duswald, K.-H., Herrmann, M., Heuser, D., Jehn, U., Just-Nübling, G., Karthaus, M., Maschmeyer, G., Müller, F.-M., Müller, J., Ritter, J., Roos, N., Ruhnke, M., Schmalreck, A., Schwarze, R., Schwesinger, G., Silling, G. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases; May2002, Vol. 21 Issue 5, p337-352, 16p |
| Abstrakt: |
Now that modern medicine can provide increasing chances of cure to patients with formerly incurable disorders, therapy-related complications play the key role in outcome. Thus, among opportunistic infections, severe candidiasis remains a challenge. A multidisciplinary panel of 20 investigators was formed to find a consensus on antifungal strategies for various underlying conditions in neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients. To record their preferences, the investigators used an anonymous voting system. Among antifungal agents, fluconazole emerged as the major alternative to the classic amphotericin B, being therapeutically at least equivalent but clearly less toxic. Factors that restrict the use of fluconazole include pretreatment with azoles, involvement of resistant species like Candida krusei, and an inability to exclude aspergillosis. Flucytosine can be reasonably combined with both amphotericin B and fluconazole. Within the limited antifungal armamentarium, amphotericin B lipid formulations and itraconazole also appear useful and require further investigation. The general consensus of the group is that antifungal agents should be administered at sufficient dosages, rather early, and often empirically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink