Candida glabrata (Nakaseomyces glabrata): A systematic review of clinical and microbiological data from 2011 to 2021 to inform the World Health Organization Fungal Priority Pathogens List

Le résumé fourni par la source

Recognising the growing global burden of fungal infections, the World Health Organization (WHO) established an advisory group consisting of experts in fungal diseases to develop a Fungal Priority Pathogen List. Pathogens were ranked based on their research and development needs and perceived public health importance using a series of global surveys and pathogen characteristics derived from systematic reviews. This systematic review evaluates the features and global impact of invasive disease caused by Candida glabrata (Nakaseomyces glabrata). PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on mortality, morbidity (hospitalization and disability), drug resistance (including isolates from sterile and non-sterile sites, since these reflect the same organisms causing invasive infections), preventability, yearly incidence, diagnostics, treatability, and distribution/emergence in the last 10 years. Candida glabrata (N. glabrata) causes difficult-to-treat invasive infections, particularly in patients with underlying conditions such as immunodeficiency, diabetes, or those who have received broad-spectrum antibiotics or chemotherapy. Beyond standard infection prevention and control measures, no specific preventative measures have been described. We found that infection is associated with high mortality rates and that there is a lack of data on complications and sequelae. Resistance to azoles is common and well described in echinocandins—in both cases, the resistance rates are increasing. Candida glabrata remains mostly susceptible to amphotericin and flucytosine. However, the incidence of the disease is increasing, both at the population level and as a proportion of all invasive yeast infections, and the increases appear related to the use of antifungal agents.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.