Management, Outcomes, and Factors Associated With Mortality and Treatment Failure of Non- Aspergillus Mold Infections: A Multicenter Study in Australia and New Zealand

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Few large studies have evaluated treatment responses and mortality across non-Aspergillus mold infections. Methods We conducted a retrospective, 21-center, observational study of non-Aspergillus mold infections in Australia and New Zealand. Cases from 2016 to 2023 were identified from each hospital's pathology system. Treatments were recorded and outcomes compared across non-Aspergillus mold infections at day 30, 90, and 180 follow-up. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with 90-day mortality and treatment failure. Results Of 421 cases, 129 were Mucorales (30.6%), 89 Lomentospora prolificans (21.1%), 82 Scedosporium spp. (19.5%), 30 Fusarium spp. (7.1%), 44 other dematiaceous molds (10.5%), 27 other non-Aspergillus molds (6.4%), and 20 mixed non-Aspergillus mold infections (4.8%). Antifungal therapy was administered in 376 (89.3%), and 219 (52.0%) underwent adjunctive surgery. Among survivors at day 180, 42.6% (n = 115/270) remained on antifungals, with total duration exceeding 180 days. All-cause 90-day mortality was 31.4% (n = 132/421), highest in L. prolificans infection (n = 51/89, 57.3%). Neutropenia (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30–3.69), intensive care unit admission (HR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.60–3.92), disseminated infection (HR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.59–4.10), Mucorales (HR: 4.87, 95% CI: 2.71–8.77), and L. prolificans infections (HR: 3.71, 95% CI: 1.97–6.98) were associated with increased 90-day mortality (all P < .001). Adjunctive surgery was associated with a lower 90-day mortality (HR: 0.34, 95% CI: .21–.54, P < .001). Conclusions Despite antifungal therapy, L. prolificans infections had the poorest clinical outcomes followed by Mucorales, highlighting the need for improved diagnostic methods and therapeutic strategies.

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