Abstract The epidemiology of invasive candidiasis has evolved in recent years, warranting a review of the changes and the implications for current and future diagnosis and treatment. The overall burden of invasive candidiasis remains high, particularly in the expanding populations of patients at risk of opportunistic infection, such as the elderly or immunosuppressed. Progressive shifts from Candida albicans to non-albicans Candida spp. have been observed globally. The recent emergence of novel, multiresistant species, such as Candida auris, amplifies the call for vigilance in detection and advances in treatment. Among the current treatment options, fluconazole is still widely used throughout the world. Increased resistance to fluconazole, both acquired and naturally emerging, has been observed. Resistance to echinocandins is presently low but this may change with increased use. Improvement of diagnostic techniques and strategies, development of international surveillance networks and implementation of antifungal stewardship programmes represent major challenges for a better epidemiological control of invasive candidiasis. Incidence of invasive candidiasis: a research challenge Long underappreciated as a cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections (BSIs), Candida spp. are one of the primary causes of catheter-associated BSIs in ICUs of US and European hospitals and a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality.1 Other studies have shown it to be among the top four nosocomial bloodstream pathogens, especially in the setting of ICUs.2–4 Invasive candidiasis is not limited to candidaemia, referring instead to a variety of disease states caused by Candida spp., but the majority of the research on invasive candidiasis concentrates on candidaemia. This may be due to the difficulty in diagnosing non-candidaemia candidiasis.5 The majority of invasive candidiasis is diagnosed using blood culture, but in a recent study, only 17% of cases of deep-seated candidiases were detected by blood culture.5 Another study found that blood culture only had a 45% sensitivity for deep-seated candidiasis, suggesting that many cases could be undetected.6 The worldwide incidence of candidaemia is difficult to ascertain, in part because there are no set criteria for an incidence denominator. While a few countries perform population-based surveillance and use census population data as a denominator, smaller studies use patient days, patient discharges, hospital admissions or ICU admissions as a denominator, making comparisons between studies challenging. The rate is also dependent upon a number of other factors, including the age of the patient, especially the number of patients at the extremes of age, the overall health of the population, and the number of patients who have undergone transplants or surgery or who are being treated for malignancies (Figure 1). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Evolving epidemiology of invasive candidiasis (IC): current challenges and priorities. IAC, intra-abdominal candidiasis; HSC, hepatosplenic candidiasis Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Evolving epidemiology of invasive candidiasis (IC): current challenges and priorities. IAC, intra-abdominal candidiasis; HSC, hepatosplenic candidiasis Adding to the difficulty in determining the worldwide rate of candidaemia is that the rate can increase or decrease depending upon when the study was conducted. The rates in the USA were seen to rise dramatically in two cities between 1992–2000 and 2011.7 However, in the most recent report the incidence in those same two US cities dropped from 14.1 and 30.9 cases per 100 000 persons to 9.5 and 14.4/100 000, a decline of 33% and 54%, respectively, over the 5 year period between 2008 and 2013.8 This decrease was reflected in a 13.5% decrease in the number of central line-associated bloodstream infections in the USA caused by Candida species between 2004 and 2010.9 The incidence of candidaemia in Australia rose between 2004 and 2015 from 1.8 to 2.4/100 000 but was still moderately low and notably lower than in the USA.10 When examined by Australian state, the rate per 100 000 ranged from a low of 1.6 to a high of 7.2.10 In Norway, the incidence increased between 2003 and 2012 from 2.4 to 3.9 per 100 000.11 There was a marked increase in the candidaemia rate among patients aged 60 years and older, with the rate similar to the overall rates in the USA at >15/100 000 but lower than the 43.3/100 000 seen in those aged >65 years.8 In 2006, Denmark had a rate similar to that seen in the USA at 10/100 000, but by 2009 that decreased to 8.6/100 000.12,13 The rate in Spain in 2011 was 8.1/100 000, much higher than the rate seen in a single Spanish city in 2003, which was only 4.3/100 000.14,15 England and Wales performed population-based surveillance for neonatal and paediatric candidaemia between 2000 and 2009.16 Their overall rate was low at 1.5/100 000 population, but it was notably higher at 11.0/100 000 for patients that were <1 year old. While high, these rates are still lower than the US rate in infants, which was 33.8/100 000 in 2013.8 Although good data exist for North America and Europe, there are no population-based data from Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Latin America from which to establish an overall worldwide rate. There are multicentre and single-institution studies that provide some insight into the rates, although the lack of a consistent denominator precludes comparisons between these studies. In a tertiary care hospital in Turkey the candidaemia rate was 0.3/1000 patient days.17 In South Africa in a single hospital in Soweto the rate was 0.28/1000 admissions in 2002 but jumped to 0.36/1000 admissions in 2007.18 In Taiwan the rate increased from 2003 to 2012 from 0.8 to 1.1 per 1000 discharges in one study and was recorded as 0.37/1000 patient days in another study, making it difficult to compare rates even within a single country.19,20 There are very few rate-based data from Latin America. Two intensive care hospitals in Brazil reported a rate of 1.8/1000 admissions.21 In another Brazilian hospital the rate was 1.9/1000 admissions, which translated to 0.27 cases/1000 patient days.22 Candidaemia surveillance in an additional 11 medical centres in Brazil in 2006 found a rate of 2.5 cases per 1000 admissions, which translated to 0.37 cases per 1000 patient days.23 Another study from 23 hospitals in eight Latin American countries measured the paediatric candidaemia rate as 0.8/1000 admissions.24 Taking these data together, it may be concluded that there is no universal candidaemia rate and there is not even a universal methodology for computing the rate, making the data difficult to compare across regions. Until a unifying denominator is determined a worldwide candidaemia rate will never be determined. Distribution trends towards non-albicans Candida species The distribution of Candida species has been changing over the last decade, with a decrease in the proportion of C. albicans and an increase in C. glabrata and C. parapsilosis. Like the candidaemia rate, the overall species distribution is dependent upon geographical location and patient population. In the USA, the proportion of C. albicans has dropped significantly and it now accounts for <50% of Candida infections.25–27 The largest proportional increase in the USA is in C. glabrata, which now accounts for one-third or more of all candidaemia isolates.26,27 This is followed closely by an increase in C. parapsilosis, which accounts for ∼15% of all isolates.8 The trend for increasing C. glabrata is seen in Australia and in some European countries as well. In Australia between 2004 and 2015 C. glabrata increased from 16% to 27% of all isolates.10 In Denmark C. glabrata accounted for 26% of isolates by 2009, similar to the 27% seen in a multicentre study in Belgium.13,28 In Scotland C. glabrata accounts for 21% of isolates, but in Spain C. glabrata only 13%, third behind C. albicans and C. parapsilosis.14,29 In Norway C. glabrata accounts for only 15% of the isolates but is still ranked second behind C. albicans, which made up 68% of all Candida isolates.11 The picture is somewhat different in Latin America and Africa, where the predominant species are C. albicans and C. parapsilosis. Recent surveillance from 16 hospitals in Brazil revealed C. albicans (34%), C. parapsilosis (24%) and C. tropicalis (15%) as the predominant species, numbers that are similar to earlier surveillance data in 11 centres from nine cities: C. albicans (41%), C. parapsilosis (21%) and C. tropicalis (21%).23,30 Similar numbers were seen in a seven-country, 20-centre surveillance study in Latin America, where C. albicans (38%) and C. parapsilosis (27%) were predominant, and a 10-centre study, where again C. albicans (44%) and C. parapsilosis (26%) were predominant.31,32 In South Africa C. albicans and C. parapsilosis are predominant, but data are dependent on whether the hospitals are private or public. In public hospitals it is C. albicans (46%) and C. parapsilosis (35%), while in private sector hospitals it is C. parapsilosis (53%) and then C. albicans (26%).33 The species distribution shifts once more when Asia is considered. In a seven-country, 13-hospital study in the Asian Pacific, C. albicans was most common (36%) but C. tropicalis was second (31%).34 This trend held true in another multicentre study in Asia.20 However, a study from a single centre in Taiwan showed a trend of increasing C. glabrata rates, with C. glabrata going from 1.1% in 2003 to 21.6% in 2012.19 In India and Pakistan C. tropicalis is the most prevalent species, followed by C. albicans.35,36 Interestingly, in Pakistani adults, C. albicans (12%) was fourth most prevalent following C. tropicalis (38%), C.parapsilosis (18%) and C. glabrata (16%).36 Mortality rates of invasive candidiasis Like incidence and species distribution, mortality due to candidaemia is also dependent upon the specific patient population. Many patients who acquire candidaemia have an underlying medical condition. This makes it difficult to distinguish between mortality due to Candida infection and all-cause mortality, which takes into account underlying medical conditions. In general, mortality from candidaemia is expressed as 30 day all-cause mortality. In recent population-based surveillance from the USA the mortality was 29%.7 In Spain the mortality was similar, at 31%.14 However, mortality can be much higher in other settings, such as a multicentre study in Brazil (54%), in a hospital in South Africa (60%) or a different multicentre study in Brazil (72%).18,23,30 Antifungal resistance in Candida spp. Both the CLSI and the EUCAST have defined testing methods and established clinical breakpoints for the interpretation of MICs of the most frequent Candida spp. isolated. Despite apparent differences, both approaches have demonstrated their efficiency in discriminating wild-type from non-wild-type isolates and both committees have been recently working for the harmonization of these interpretive criteria.37–39 With a few specific exceptions, the majority of Candida species exhibit high in vitro susceptibility to antifungal agents. For example, in the USA, C. albicans, C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis have low incidences of fluconazole resistance, at 2%, 5% and 4%, respectively.26 These proportions are similar to those observed in Norway and Switzerland.11,40 The same species exhibit resistance to the echinocandins in <1% of isolates in the USA.26,41 An exception is C. glabrata: population-based surveillance in the USA indicates that ∼10% of C. glabrata are resistant to fluconazole and this rate is also seen in Belgium and Australia.10,26,28 Furthermore, 9% of C. glabrata that are resistant to fluconazole are also resistant to the echinocandins. However, the overall resistance of C. glabrata to the echinocandins in the USA ranges between 0% and 4% but can be higher in single institutions.42,43 In other parts of the world, susceptibility patterns vary. In Taiwan, Australia and Belgium, increasing rates of fluconazole resistance in C. tropicalis are higher than that of the USA; it has been reported at 11%, 17% and 20%, respectively, per country.10,19,28,34 These regions also see far less echinocandin resistance in C. glabrata as compared with the USA. With the increased use of echinocandins it is imperative that we monitor for increasing resistance. Susceptibility testing of echinocandins is generally good for detecting echinocandin resistance, but another powerful tool is the detection of the molecular mechanism of resistance: mutations in the FKS genes.41,42,44 While detection of mechanisms of resistance is available for many bacterial species, it is not yet available outside of a few specialty laboratories for fungi. Emerging Candida spp. A discussion on the current epidemiology of candidaemia would be incomplete without mention of Candida auris. First discovered in Japan in 2009, C. auris has since emerged on five continents.45–51 In many ways, this emerging species has altered basic perceptions surrounding candidiasis. It is a colonizer of the skin, unlike most Candida spp., which are found predominantly in the gastrointestinal tract, it can heavily contaminate the hospital environment and it has been responsible for numerous ongoing outbreaks.50–52 In addition, C. auris is frequently resistant to antifungals and some isolates are multidrug resistant.49,53 Increased mortality has been reported with C. auris and may be as much a reflection of the patient population as it is of the severity of the disease or the underlying antifungal resistance. The average number of days spent in the hospital before acquiring a C. auris infection was 19 in one study, an indication of the overall morbidity of the cohort.49 Based on the rapid spread and colonization of this newly emerged species in healthcare environments, C. auris may soon change the landscape of candidaemia. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis (IC) in different settings ICU According to the Extended Prevalence in Intensive Care (EPIC) II point prevalence study, Candida spp. are the third most frequent cause of infection in ICUs worldwide, accounting for 17% of all ICU infections in culture-positive infected patients.4 Increasing incidence of candidaemia in ICUs has been reported in many parts of the world.35,54,55 Various risk factors associated with the development of IC in ICU patients have been identified, including central venous catheters, treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics, multifocal Candida colonization, surgery, pancreatitis, parenteral nutrition, haemodialysis, mechanical ventilation and prolonged ICU stay.56,57 Some authors have proposed prediction rules or scores integrating these factors to assess the risk of IC in the ICU.58–61 These prediction and scoring systems have been associated with high negative predictive value (NPV), but low positive predictive value (PPV). A recent study proposed a risk-predictive model categorizing patients into low-risk (PPV 0.24%), intermediate-risk (PPV 1.46%) and high-risk (PPV 11.7%) groups that could help in identifying populations deserving specific testing of fungal markers and/or empirical antifungal therapy.62 While C. albicans remains globally the most frequent species isolated in candidaemia in the ICU, an increased proportion of non-albicans Candida spp., in particular C. glabrata, has been reported.3,54,55,63 When compared with non-ICU cases, candidaemia infections in the ICU are characterized by more frequent pre-exposure to fluconazole with subsequent echinocandin treatment, a lower incidence of C. parapsilosis infections and higher crude mortality rates.54,55,64 Several conditions have been identified as independent risk factors for death associated with candidaemia occurring in the ICU. These include diabetes mellitus, mechanical ventilation, immunosuppression, fever at presentation, high APACHE II score, age, use of an arterial catheter, infection by C. kefyr, pre-exposure to caspofungin and lack of antifungal therapy at the time of blood culture results.54,55,65 IC in the ICU may present as candidaemia, but is often associated with negative blood cultures in patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis (IAC) after complicated abdominal surgery. IAC may occur in the setting of intra-abdominal abscesses (30%–60%), secondary peritonitis (30%–40%), infected pancreatic necrosis (5%–10%), cholecystitis/cholangitis (5%–10%) or primary peritonitis (5%).66–68 It is a mixed bacterial and fungal infection in up to two-thirds of the cases.66,68,69 Candidaemia occurs in only 5%–15% of patients. IAC is a diagnostic challenge for the clinician. Various definitions have been proposed that rely on the detection of Candida spp. by direct examination or culture of an intra-abdominal sample (i.e. peritoneal fluid, intra-abdominal abscess, bile or biopsy of intra-abdominal organ) obtained during surgery or from a drain inserted within the last 24 h in a patient with clinical signs of intra-abdominal infection.66,68–70 Non-culture-based methods may help to guide pre-emptive antifungal therapy in these patients.70 In high-risk patients with recurrent gastrointestinal tract perforations, two consecutive positive 1,3-β-d-glucan tests in serum were shown to have 75% sensitivity and 77% specificity.69 Detection of Candida germ tube antibodies (CAGTA), which may be combined with 1,3-β-d-glucan testing, may improve diagnostic accuracy.71–73 However, in the absence of reliable diagnostic markers, diagnosis remains difficult and the cost associated with empirical antifungal therapy without demonstrated survival benefit is a concern.74,75 The presence of Candida spp. in intra-abdominal specimens is an independent risk factor for mortality.76–79 Indeed, septic shock is present in 20%–40% of cases and the rate of mortality is high, ranging from 25% up to 60%.66–68,70,76–79 Several studies have shown that rapid initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy and early source control (drainage or debridement of infected collections/tissues and removal of foreign material) are key elements for a better outcome.66–68 Haematological malignancies The incidence of IC in onco-haematological patients has decreased with the systematic use of antifungal prophylaxis and is currently estimated to be <1%.80–83 In the USA and in Europe, IC is the second cause of invasive fungal infections in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and patients with haematological malignancies, accounting for 25%–30% of cases.81,82,84,85 Risk factors for IC in patients with haematological malignancies include neutropenia, corticosteroid therapy, mucositis and the presence of central venous catheters.86,87 The proportion of non-albicans Candida spp., in particular C. krusei and C. glabrata, is higher in this population as a possible consequence of prolonged azole exposure.88–92 Other studies have also reported a higher incidence of azole-susceptible non-albicans Candida spp., such as C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis or C. kefyr.80,83,87,93,94 Hepatosplenic candidiasis (HSC), also referred to as chronic disseminated candidiasis, is typically associated with prolonged neutropenia. Clinical manifestations include persistent fever under broad-spectrum antibiotics, anorexia, nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort. HSC is characterized by the presence of nodular lesions in the liver, spleen and other organs (lungs, kidneys and skin) on radiological imaging.95–98 Candidaemia is detected in only 20% of the patients. Exacerbated immune response during the neutrophil recovery phase leading to a type of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome may play an important role in the pathogenesis of this clinical entity.97 The estimated incidence of HSC among patients with prolonged neutropenia was around 3%–6% and has possibly decreased below 3% with the widespread use of azole prophylaxis.97,98 Diagnosis remains difficult and relies primarily on the detection of fungal biomarkers (1,3-β-d-glucan, mannan and anti-mannan antibodies) and on typical radiological patterns on CT scan, MRI or ultrasound, such as nodules, microabscesses (typically ‘bull-eye’ lesions), hypoechogenic foci or fibrosis and calcifications, which occur late in the course of the disease.97,99–101 Solid organ transplantation (SOT) Epidemiological data on IC among SOT recipients are derived from two large prospective North American cohorts, the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET) and the Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH) Alliance.102–104 IC is the most common invasive fungal infection in SOT patients, accounting for more than half of the cases, with the exception of lung transplant recipients, in whom invasive aspergillosis predominates. Overall, the 1 year post-transplant cumulative incidence of IC was 2%, with the majority of cases occurring during the first 100 days after transplantation. C. albicans was the most frequent species (46%), followed by C. glabrata (24%–37%), while other species accounted each for <10% of cases. Candidaemia was present in 44%–53% of cases and intra-abdominal candidiasis in 14%–37%. IC due to C. parapsilosis or C. tropicalis was associated with the worst prognosis. Neonates IC affects mainly low birth weight premature infants, with an incidence of 3%–10% among neonates with a weight <1000 g and <0.3% among those weighing >2500 g.105–109 However, recent reports indicate that the incidence of IC has declined over the last decade.7,110 Candidaemia represents the third cause of bloodstream infections in the general paediatric population. 111,112 In addition to prematurity and low birth weight, maternal vaginal candidiasis and vaginal delivery are risk factors for Candida colonization in neonates and the number of sites of colonization is independently associated with IC.113 Other risk factors include low Apgar score, prolonged use of antibiotics (especially cephalosporins), male gender, parenteral nutrition and lack of enteral nutrition, central venous catheters, H2 blockers, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy and shock.105,106,108,114 IC in neonates may present as congenital candidiasis, which is acquired by materno-fetal transmission before or during birth, with a predominance of skin lesions. Postnatal IC may be acquired through the use of central venous catheters and is associated with candidaemia in 70%–95% of cases.105,106,108,109,115 Prolonged candidaemia is frequently observed in neonates, in whom there is higher risk of organ involvement, such as eyes, CNS, kidneys, liver and heart. Ocular lesions may be observed in 5%–10% of cases and endocarditis was documented in up to 15% in one series.116,117 Although extremely rare in adults, Candida meningitis is observed in 1%–10% of neonatal IC and blood cultures may be negative in up to 50% of the cases.105,106,108,109,115 While C. albicans remains the most frequent pathogen in neonatal IC, the proportion of non-albicans Candida spp. usually exceeds 50%, with C. parapsilosis being the most frequent species (20%–40%).105–107,115 Morbidity and mortality of neonatal IC is substantial. Mortality rates of 10%–30% have been reported, which were significantly higher than in patients without IC.105–109,114,115 In extremely low birth weight patients with IC, mortality may be as high as 73%.105 Among survivors, neurodevelopmental impairment and the occurrence of neurological sequelae (cerebral palsy, visual or hearing impairments) were significantly higher than in premature neonates without IC. IC due to C. parapsilosis is usually associated with better prognosis.105,109 Prompt removal of a central venous catheter was also associated with better outcome.105 Conclusions and perspectives Epidemiological challenges and priorities in IC are summarized in Table 1. In recent years the epidemiology of IC has evolved and the incidence has increased in some US and European centres.7,11,13,118,119 This increasing burden of IC, which is especially observed in the elderly, may be related to changes in the hospital case mix, with an expanding population of immunosuppressed or debilitated patients surviving in the face of severe and formerly fatal diseases. However, the incidence of IC in neonates has decreased.7,110 A progressive shift from C. albicans to non-albicans Candida spp. is also observed in most parts of the world, which is probably related to the increased exposure to azoles.10,13,26,118,120,121 Although fluconazole remains active against the majority of Candida spp., a trend towards increased acquired resistance or the emergence of naturally resistant species has been observed.10,13,26,118,122,123 Despite increasing echinocandin use, the level of echinocandin resistance remains very low.10,13,26 However, the link between echinocandin exposure and development of resistance has been well established.124,125 Emergence of novel pathogenic species with multiresistance patterns, such as C. auris, is a major threat and argues in favour of the development of a worldwide sentinel system to rapidly detect and report the emergence of new species.49 Table 1. Candidaemia epidemiology from population-based or multicentre studies Country Years covered Number of candidaemia episodes Annual incidence rate Proportion C. albicans/ non-albicans Rate of azole resistance 30 day mortality rate Reference USA 2008–11 2675 13.3–26.2/100 000 population 37/63 7% 28%–29% 7 USA 2013 515 9.5–14.4/100 000 population 35/65 5%–7% NA 8 Canada 2003–05 453 3.0/100 000 population 62/38 4% NA 143 Norway 2004–12 1677 3.9/100 000 population 68/32 7% NA 11 Finland 2004–07 603 2.9/100 000 population 67/33 NA 35% 144 Iceland 2000–11 208 5.7/100 000 population 56/44 3% 30% 145 Denmark 2004–09 2649 8.6/100 000 population 58/42 NA NA 13 France 2001–10 15 570 3.6/100 000 population NA NA NA 146 Spain 2010–11 773 8.1/100 000 population 45/55 21% 31% 14 Belgium 2013–14 338 0.4/1000 admissions 50/50 8% NA 28 Scotland 2007 242 4.8/100 000 population 50/50 2% NA 29 Australia 2001–04 1095 1.8/100 000 population 47/53 NA 28% 147 Australia 2014–15 527 2.4/100 000 population 44/56 6% NA 10 Brazil 2007–10 137 NA 34/66 9% 72% 30 Peru 2013–15 157 2.0/1000 admissions 28/72 3% 40% 148 Latin America 2008–10 672 0.3–2.0/1000 admissions 38/62 3% 41% 31 South Africa 2009–10 2172 NA 46/54 18% NA 33 Asia-Pacific 2010–11 1601 0.3–2.9/1000 discharges 41/59 NA NA 20 India 2011–12 1400 6.5/1000 admissionsa 21/79 12% 45% 35 Country Years covered Number of candidaemia episodes Annual incidence rate Proportion C. albicans/ non-albicans Rate of azole resistance 30 day mortality rate Reference USA 2008–11 2675 13.3–26.2/100 000 population 37/63 7% 28%–29% 7 USA 2013 515 9.5–14.4/100 000 population 35/65 5%–7% NA 8 Canada 2003–05 453 3.0/100 000 population 62/38 4% NA 143 Norway 2004–12 1677 3.9/100 000 population 68/32 7% NA 11 Finland 2004–07 603 2.9/100 000 population 67/33 NA 35% 144 Iceland 2000–11 208 5.7/100 000 population 56/44 3% 30% 145 Denmark 2004–09 2649 8.6/100 000 population 58/42 NA NA 13 France 2001–10 15 570 3.6/100 000 population NA NA NA 146 Spain 2010–11 773 8.1/100 000 population 45/55 21% 31% 14 Belgium 2013–14 338 0.4/1000 admissions 50/50 8% NA 28 Scotland 2007 242 4.8/100 000 population 50/50 2% NA 29 Australia 2001–04 1095 1.8/100 000 population 47/53 NA 28% 147 Australia 2014–15 527 2.4/100 000 population 44/56 6% NA 10 Brazil 2007–10 137 NA 34/66 9% 72% 30 Peru 2013–15 157 2.0/1000 admissions 28/72 3% 40% 148 Latin America 2008–10 672 0.3–2.0/1000 admissions 38/62 3% 41% 31 South Africa 2009–10 2172 NA 46/54 18% NA 33 Asia-Pacific 2010–11 1601 0.3–2.9/1000 discharges 41/59 NA NA 20 India 2011–12 1400 6.5/1000 admissionsa 21/79 12% 45% 35 Criteria for resistance, 30 day mortality and incidence may vary between the studies and may not directly correlate. NA, not available. a ICU admissions only. Novel diagnostic procedures and therapeutic approaches are expected to shape the future of IC epidemiology. The advent of mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) as standard diagnostic procedure for yeast identification may lead to a better recognition of rare Candida spp., such as C. auris, that were previously misdiagnosed or unrecognized.126 The recent FDA approval of T2 magnetic resonance (T2MR, T2 Biosystems, Lexington, MA, USA) for the direct detection of Candida spp. in blood samples may improve the early detection of IC.127 While automated blood cultures systems usually require 1–3 days for the detection of yeasts, T2MR can identify Candida spp. within several hours from the time of sampling. Previous analyses in clinical blood samples and spiked samples have shown a sensitivity and specificity >90% when compared with blood cultures and an increased sensitivity for the detection of C. glabrata.128,129 Advances in molecular techniques with availability of PCR kits for direct detection of microorganisms (including Candida spp.) in blood, such as LightCycler SeptiFast or the Iridica BAC BSI Assay, may also improve the early recognition and microbiological documentation of IC.130–133 While most studies have addressed the performance of these novel methods for the diagnosis of candidaemia, data are lacking for deep-seated and typically blood culture-negative IC, such as intra-abdominal candidiasis or chronic disseminated candidiasis with unmet medical needs. Increasing consumption of antifungal drugs has been universally reported during the last decade and was associated with shifts in Candida spp. distribution and decreased antifungal susceptibility.118,134 Echinocandins have become the first-line therapy of candidaemia according to North American and European updated guidelines.135–138 Clinical recommendations must be balanced by epidemiological concerns. Increased echinocandin use has been associated with a higher rate of C. parapsilosis infections and higher caspofungin MICs for C. albicans, C. glabrata and C. parapsilosis.134 In the continuously evolving epidemiological landscape of invasive candidiasis, antifungal stewardship programmes are warranted to improve appropriate therapy and limit the emergence of resistance.139–142 Funding This article is part of a Supplement sponsored by Cidara Therapeutics, Inc. Editorial support was provided by T. Chung (Scribant Medical) with funding from Cidara. Transparency declarations F. L. is a member of advisory boards for Basilea and MSD. T. C. is a member of advisory boards for Astellas and Cubist (subsequently acquired by MSD), a consultant to Basilea and Debiopharm, an advisor for Cidara, and a member of a speakers’ bureau and advisory board for MSD. All other authors have none to declare. The authors received no compensation for their contribution to the supplement. This article was co-developed and published based on all authors’ approval. Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. References 1 Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1198– 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306801 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2 Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 309– 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/421946 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3 Trick WE, Fridkin SK, Edwards JR et al. Secular trend of hospital-acquired candidemia among intensive care unit patients in the United States during 1989-1999. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: 627– 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/342300 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 4 Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA 2009; 302: 2323– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1754 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5 Nguyen MH, Wissel MC, Shields RK et al. Performance of Candida real-time polymerase chain reaction, β-d-glucan assay, and blood cultures in the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 1240– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6 Fortun J, Meije Y, Buitrago MJ et al. Clinical validation of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of invasive candidiasis in intensive care unit patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 3134– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku225 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7 Cleveland AA, Farley MM, Harrison LH et al. Changes in incidence and antifungal drug resistance in candidemia: results from population-based laboratory surveillance in Atlanta and Baltimore, 2008-2011. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55: 1352– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis697 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8 Cleveland AA, Harrison LH, Farley MM et al. Declining incidence of candidemia and the shifting epidemiology of Candida resistance in two US metropolitan areas, 2008-2013: results from population-based surveillance. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0120452. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 9 Fagan RP, Edwards JR, Park BJ et al. Incidence trends in pathogen-specific central line-associated bloodstream infections in US intensive care units, 1990-2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34: 893– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671724 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 10 Chapman B, Slavin M, Marriott D et al. Changing epidemiology of candidaemia in Australia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72: 1103– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 11 Hesstvedt L, Gaustad P, Andersen CT et al. Twenty-two years of candidaemia surveillance: results from a Norwegian national study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 938– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.06.008 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 12 Arendrup MC, Fuursted K, Gahrn-Hansen B et al. Semi-national surveillance of fungaemia in Denmark 2004-2006: increasing incidence of fungaemia and numbers of isolates with reduced azole susceptibility. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14: 487– 94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.01954.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 13 Arendrup MC, Bruun B, Christensen JJ et al. National surveillance of fungemia in Denmark (2004 to 2009). J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49: 325– 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01811-10 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 14 Puig-Asensio M, Padilla B, Garnacho-Montero J et al. Epidemiology and predictive factors for early and late mortality in Candida bloodstream infections: a population-based surveillance in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: O245– 54. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15 Almirante B, Rodriguez D, Cuenca-Estrella M et al. Epidemiology, risk factors, and prognosis of Candida parapsilosis bloodstream infections: case-control population-based surveillance study of patients in Barcelona, Spain, from 2002 to 2003. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44: 1681. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16 Oeser C, Lamagni T, Heath PT et al. The epidemiology of neonatal and pediatric candidemia in England and Wales, 2000-2009. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2013; 32: 23– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e318275612e Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 17 Ulu Kilic A, Alp E, Cevahir F et al. Epidemiology and cost implications of candidemia, a 6-year analysis from a developing country. Mycoses 2017; 60: 198– 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/myc.12582 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 18 Kreusch A, Karstaedt AS. Candidemia among adults in Soweto, South Africa, 1990-2007. Int J Infect Dis 2013; 17: e621– 3. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 19 Hii IM, Chang HL, Lin LC et al. Changing epidemiology of candidemia in a medical center in middle Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2015; 48: 306– 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2013.08.017 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 20 Tan BH, Chakrabarti A, Li RY et al. Incidence and species distribution of candidaemia in Asia: a laboratory-based surveillance study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 946– 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.06.010 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 21 Hoffmann-Santos HD, Paula CR, Yamamoto AC et al. Six-year trend analysis of nosocomial candidemia and risk factors in two intensive care hospitals in Mato Grosso, midwest region of Brazil. Mycopathologia 2013; 176: 409– 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11046-013-9705-5 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 22 Motta AL, Almeida GM, Almeida Junior JN et al. Candidemia epidemiology and susceptibility profile in the largest Brazilian teaching hospital complex. Braz J Infect Dis 2010; 14: 441– 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1413-8670(10)70091-X Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 23 Colombo AL, Nucci M, Park BJ et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Brazil: a nationwide sentinel surveillance of candidemia in eleven medical centers. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44: 2816– 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00773-06 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 24 Santolaya ME, Alvarado T, Queiroz-Telles F et al. Active surveillance of candidemia in children from Latin America: a key requirement for improving disease outcome. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014; 33: e40– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25 Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Castanheira M. Regional data analysis of Candida non-albicans strains collected in United States medical sites over a 6-year period, 2006-2011. Mycoses 2014; 57: 602– 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/myc.12206 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 26 Lockhart SR, Iqbal N, Cleveland AA et al. Species identification and antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida bloodstream isolates from population-based surveillance studies in two U.S. cities from 2008 to 2011. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 3435– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 27 Matsumoto E, Boyken L, Tendolkar S et al. Candidemia surveillance in Iowa: emergence of echinocandin resistance. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 79: 205– 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.02.016 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 28 Trouve C, Blot S, Hayette MP et al. Epidemiology and reporting of candidaemia in Belgium: a multi-centre study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 36: 649– 55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-016-2841-3 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 29 Odds FC, Hanson MF, Davidson AD et al. One year prospective survey of Candida bloodstream infections in Scotland. J Med Microbiol 2007; 56: 1066– 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.47239-0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 30 Doi AM, Pignatari AC, Edmond MB et al. Epidemiology and microbiologic characterization of nosocomial candidemia from a Brazilian National Surveillance Program. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0146909. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 31 Nucci M, Queiroz-Telles F, Alvarado-Matute T et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Latin America: a laboratory-based survey. PLoS One 2013; 8: e59373. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 32 Pfaller MA, Moet GJ, Messer SA et al. Geographic variations in species distribution and echinocandin and azole antifungal resistance rates among Candida bloodstream infection isolates: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2008 to 2009). J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49: 396– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01398-10 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 33 Govender NP, Patel J, Magobo RE et al. Emergence of azole-resistant Candida parapsilosis causing bloodstream infection: results from laboratory-based sentinel surveillance in South Africa. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 1994– 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw091 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34 Tan TY, Hsu LY, Alejandria MM et al. Antifungal susceptibility of invasive Candida bloodstream isolates from the Asia-Pacific region. Med Mycol 2016; 54: 471– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mmy/myv114 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 35 Chakrabarti A, Sood P, Rudramurthy SM et al. Incidence, characteristics and outcome of ICU-acquired candidemia in India. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 285– 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3603-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 36 Farooqi JQ, Jabeen K, Saeed N et al. Invasive candidiasis in Pakistan: clinical characteristics, species distribution and antifungal susceptibility. J Med Microbiol 2013; 62: 259– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.048785-0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 37 van Hal SJ, Chen SC, Sorrell TC et al. Support for the EUCAST and revised CLSI fluconazole clinical breakpoints by Sensititre(R) YeastOne(R) for Candida albicans: a prospective observational cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 2210– 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku124 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 38 Pfaller MA, Andes D, Diekema DJ et al. Wild-type MIC distributions, epidemiological cutoff values and species-specific clinical breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida: time for harmonization of CLSI and EUCAST broth microdilution methods. Drug Resist Updates 2010; 13: 180– 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drup.2010.09.002 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 39 Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Progress in antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. by use of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods, 2010 to 2012. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 2846– 56. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 40 Orasch C, Marchetti O, Garbino J et al. Candida species distribution and antifungal susceptibility testing according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and new vs. old Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute clinical breakpoints: a 6-year prospective candidaemia survey from the fungal infection network of Switzerland. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: 698– 705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12440 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 41 Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Press EG et al. Rate of FKS mutations among consecutive Candida isolates causing bloodstream infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59: 7465– 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01973-15 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 42 Pfaller MA, Castanheira M, Lockhart SR et al. Frequency of decreased susceptibility and resistance to echinocandins among fluconazole-resistant bloodstream isolates of Candida glabrata. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50: 1199– 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.06112-11 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 43 Alexander BD, Johnson MD, Pfeiffer CD et al. Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 1724– 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit136 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 44 Pham CD, Iqbal N, Bolden CB et al. Role of FKS mutations in Candida glabrata: MIC values, echinocandin resistance, and multidrug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 4690– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03255-14 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 45 Satoh K, Makimura K, Hasumi Y et al. Candida auris sp. nov., a novel ascomycetous yeast isolated from the external ear canal of an inpatient in a Japanese hospital. Microbiol Immunol 2009; 53: 41– 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2008.00083.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 46 Chowdhary A, Sharma C, Duggal S et al. New clonal strain of Candida auris, Delhi, India. Emerg Infect Dis 2013; 19: 1670– 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1910.130393 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 47 Magobo RE, Corcoran C, Seetharam S et al. Candida auris-associated candidemia, South Africa. Emerg Infect Dis 2014; 20: 1250– 1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 48 Calvo B, Melo AS, Perozo-Mena A et al. First report of Candida auris in America: clinical and microbiological aspects of 18 episodes of candidemia. J Infect 2016; 73: 369– 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2016.07.008 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 49 Lockhart SR, Etienne KA, Vallabhaneni S et al. Simultaneous emergence of multidrug-resistant Candida auris on 3 continents confirmed by whole-genome sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64: 134– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw691 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 50 Vallabhaneni S, Kallen A, Tsay S et al. Investigation of the first seven reported cases of Candida auris, a globally emerging invasive, multidrug-resistant fungus—United States, May 2013-August 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016; 65: 1234– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 51 Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL et al. First hospital outbreak of the globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2016; 5: 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-016-0132-5 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 52 Chowdhary A, Voss A, Meis JF. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris: ‘new kid on the block’ in hospital-associated infections? J Hosp Infect 2016; 94: 209– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 53 Chowdhary A, Anil Kumar V, Sharma C et al. Multidrug-resistant endemic clonal strain of Candida auris in India. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 33: 919– 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-013-2027-1 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 54 Colombo AL, Guimaraes T, Sukienik T et al. Prognostic factors and historical trends in the epidemiology of candidemia in critically ill patients: an analysis of five multicenter studies sequentially conducted over a 9-year period. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 1489– 98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3400-y Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 55 Lortholary O, Renaudat C, Sitbon K et al. Worrisome trends in incidence and mortality of candidemia in intensive care units (Paris area, 2002-2010). Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 1303– 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3408-3 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 56 Blumberg HM, Jarvis WR, Soucie JM et al. Risk factors for candidal bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit patients: the NEMIS prospective multicenter study. The National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 177– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 57 Ostrosky-Zeichner L. New approaches to the risk of Candida in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2003; 16: 533– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001432-200312000-00004 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 58 Leon C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P et al. A bedside scoring system (“Candida score”) for early antifungal treatment in nonneutropenic critically ill patients with Candida colonization. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 730– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 59 Leon C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P et al. Usefulness of the “Candida score” for discriminating between Candida colonization and invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 1624– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 60 Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Pappas PG, Shoham S et al. Improvement of a clinical prediction rule for clinical trials on prophylaxis for invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit. Mycoses 2011; 54: 46– 51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0507.2009.01756.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 61 Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Sable C, Sobel J et al. Multicenter retrospective development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for nosocomial invasive candidiasis in the intensive care setting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 26: 271– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-007-0270-z Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 62 Playford EG, Lipman J, Jones M et al. Problematic dichotomization of risk for intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired invasive candidiasis: results using a risk-predictive model to categorize 3 levels of risk from a multicenter prospective cohort of Australian ICU patients. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63: 1463– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw610 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 63 Wisplinghoff H, Ebbers J, Geurtz L et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections due to Candida spp. in the USA: species distribution, clinical features and antifungal susceptibilities. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014; 43: 78– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 64 Li C, Wang H, Yin M et al. The differences in the epidemiology and predictors of death between candidemia acquired in intensive care units and other hospital settings. Intern Med 2015; 54: 3009– 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.54.3744 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 65 Leroy O, Gangneux JP, Montravers P et al. Epidemiology, management, and risk factors for death of invasive Candida infections in critical care: a multicenter, prospective, observational study in France (2005-2006). Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 1612– 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819efac0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 66 Bassetti M, Righi E, Ansaldi F et al. A multicenter multinational study of abdominal candidiasis: epidemiology, outcomes and predictors of mortality. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 1601– 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3866-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 67 Lagunes L, Rey-Perez A, Martin-Gomez MT et al. Association between source control and mortality in 258 patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis: a retrospective multi-centric analysis comparing intensive care versus surgical wards in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 36: 95– 104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-016-2775-9 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 68 Vergidis P, Clancy CJ, Shields RK et al. Intra-abdominal candidiasis: the importance of early source control and antifungal treatment. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0153247. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 69 Tissot F, Lamoth F, Hauser PM et al. β-glucan antigenemia anticipates diagnosis of blood culture-negative intraabdominal candidiasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 1100– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 70 Bassetti M, Marchetti M, Chakrabarti A et al. A research agenda on the management of intra-abdominal candidiasis: results from a consensus of multinational experts. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 2092– 106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3109-3 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 71 Leon C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P et al. Value of β-d-glucan and Candida albicans germ tube antibody for discriminating between Candida colonization and invasive candidiasis in patients with severe abdominal conditions. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38: 1315– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 72 Martin-Mazuelos E, Loza A, Castro C et al. β-d-Glucan and Candida albicans germ tube antibody in ICU patients with invasive candidiasis. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 1424– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 73 Parra-Sanchez M, Zakariya-Yousef Breval I, Castro Mendez C et al. Candida albicans germ-tube antibody: evaluation of a new automatic assay for diagnosing invasive candidiasis in ICU patients. Mycopathologia 2017; 182: 645– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 74 Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Shoham S, Vazquez J et al. MSG-01: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin prophylaxis followed by preemptive therapy for invasive candidiasis in high-risk adults in the critical care setting. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58: 1219– 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu074 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 75 Timsit JF, Azoulay E, Schwebel C et al. Empirical micafungin treatment and survival without invasive fungal infection in adults with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization, and multiple organ failure: the EMPIRICUS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 316: 1555– 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.14655 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 76 Calandra T, Bille J, Schneider R et al. Clinical significance of Candida isolated from peritoneum in surgical patients. Lancet 1989; 2: 1437– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 77 Dupont H, Paugam-Burtz C, Muller-Serieys C et al. Predictive factors of mortality due to polymicrobial peritonitis with Candida isolation in peritoneal fluid in critically ill patients. Arch Surg 2002; 137: 1341– 6; discussion 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 78 Montravers P, Dupont H, Gauzit R et al. Candida as a risk factor for mortality in peritonitis. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 646– 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000201889.39443.D2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 79 Sandven P, Qvist H, Skovlund E et al. Significance of Candida recovered from intraoperative specimens in patients with intra-abdominal perforations. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 541– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200203000-00008 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 80 Gamaletsou MN, Walsh TJ, Zaoutis T et al. A prospective, cohort, multicentre study of candidaemia in hospitalized adult patients with haematological malignancies. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: O50– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 81 Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA, Park BJ et al. Prospective surveillance for invasive fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, 2001-2006: overview of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET) Database. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50: 1091– 100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651263 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 82 Pagano L, Caira M, Candoni A et al. The epidemiology of fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancies: the SEIFEM-2004 study. Haematologica 2006; 91: 1068– 75. Google Scholar PubMed 83 Sipsas NV, Lewis RE, Tarrand J et al. Candidemia in patients with hematologic malignancies in the era of new antifungal agents (2001-2007): stable incidence but changing epidemiology of a still frequently lethal infection. Cancer 2009; 115: 4745– 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24507 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 84 Neofytos D, Horn D, Anaissie E et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infection in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: analysis of Multicenter Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH) Alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48: 265– 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/595846 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 85 Pagano L, Caira M, Nosari A et al. Fungal infections in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplants: results of the SEIFEM B-2004 study–Sorveglianza Epidemiologica Infezioni Fungine Nelle Emopatie Maligne. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 1161– 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/522189 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 86 Bergamasco MD, Garnica M, Colombo AL et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in patients with hematologic malignancies and solid tumours in Brazil. Mycoses 2013; 56: 256– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/myc.12013 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 87 Puig-Asensio M, Ruiz-Camps I, Fernandez-Ruiz M et al. Epidemiology and outcome of candidaemia in patients with oncological and haematological malignancies: results from a population-based surveillance in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 491 e1– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 88 Bodey GP, Mardani M, Hanna HA et al. The epidemiology of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans fungemia in immunocompromised patients with cancer. Am J Med 2002; 112: 380– 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(01)01130-5 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 89 Hachem R, Hanna H, Kontoyiannis D et al. The changing epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: Candida glabrata and Candida krusei as the leading causes of candidemia in hematologic malignancy. Cancer 2008; 112: 2493– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23466 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 90 Horn DL, Neofytos D, Anaissie EJ et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 2019 patients: data from the prospective antifungal therapy alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48: 1695– 703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599039 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 91 Schuster MG, Meibohm A, Lloyd L et al. Risk factors and outcomes of Candida krusei bloodstream infection: a matched, case-control study. J Infect 2013; 66: 278– 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2012.11.002 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 92 Lockhart SR, Wagner D, Iqbal N et al. Comparison of in vitro susceptibility characteristics of Candida species from cases of invasive candidiasis in solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients: Transplant-Associated Infections Surveillance Network (TRANSNET), 2001 to 2006. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49: 2404– 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02474-10 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 93 Dufresne SF, Marr KA, Sydnor E et al. Epidemiology of Candida kefyr in patients with hematologic malignancies. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52: 1830– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00131-14 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 94 Slavin MA, Sorrell TC, Marriott D et al. Candidaemia in adult cancer patients: risks for fluconazole-resistant isolates and death. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: 1042– 51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq053 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 95 De Castro N, Mazoyer E, Porcher R et al. Hepatosplenic candidiasis in the era of new antifungal drugs: a study in Paris 2000-2007. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: E185– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 96 Kontoyiannis DP, Reddy BT, Torres HA et al. Pulmonary candidiasis in patients with cancer: an autopsy study. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 400– 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/338404 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 97 Rammaert B, Desjardins A, Lortholary O. New insights into hepatosplenic candidosis, a manifestation of chronic disseminated candidosis. Mycoses 2012; 55: e74– 84. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 98 Sallah S, Semelka RC, Wehbie R et al. Hepatosplenic candidiasis in patients with acute leukaemia. Br J Haematol 1999; 106: 697– 701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01592.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 99 Marchetti O, Lamoth F, Mikulska M et al. ECIL recommendations for the use of biological markers for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases in leukemic patients and hematopoietic SCT recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012; 47: 846– 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2011.178 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 100 Prella M, Bille J, Pugnale M et al. Early diagnosis of invasive candidiasis with mannan antigenemia and antimannan antibodies. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 51: 95– 101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2004.08.015 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 101 Senn L, Robinson JO, Schmidt S et al. 1,3-β-d-Glucan antigenemia for early diagnosis of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46: 878– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 102 Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW et al. The epidemiology and outcomes of invasive Candida infections among organ transplant recipients in the United States: results of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET). Transpl Infect Dis 2016; 18: 921– 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tid.12613 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 103 Neofytos D, Fishman JA, Horn D et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis 2010; 12: 220– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3062.2010.00492.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 104 Pappas PG, Alexander BD, Andes DR et al. Invasive fungal infections among organ transplant recipients: results of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET). Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50: 1101– 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651262 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 105 Benjamin DKJr, Stoll BJ, Fanaroff AA et al. Neonatal candidiasis among extremely low birth weight infants: risk factors, mortality rates, and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 84– 92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2292 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 106 Benjamin DKJr, Stoll BJ, Gantz MG et al. Neonatal candidiasis: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Pediatrics 2010; 126: e865– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 107 Fridkin SK, Kaufman D, Edwards JR et al. Changing incidence of Candida bloodstream infections among NICU patients in the United States: 1995-2004. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 1680– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1996 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 108 Lee JH, Hornik CP, Benjamin DKJr et al. Risk factors for invasive candidiasis in infants >1500 g birth weight. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2013; 32: 222– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 109 Xia H, Wu H, Xia S et al. Invasive candidiasis in preterm neonates in China: a retrospective study from 11 NICUs during 2009-2011. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014; 33: 106– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000000009 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 110 Aliaga S, Clark RH, Laughon M et al. Changes in the incidence of candidiasis in neonatal intensive care units. Pediatrics 2014; 133: 236– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0671 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 111 Raymond J, Aujard Y; European Study Group. Nosocomial infections in pediatric patients: a European, multicenter prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 260– 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/501755 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 112 Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H, Tallent SM et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in pediatric patients in United States hospitals: epidemiology, clinical features and susceptibilities. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22: 686– 91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.inf.0000078159.53132.40 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 113 Mahieu LM, Van Gasse N, Wildemeersch D et al. Number of sites of perinatal Candida colonization and neutropenia are associated with nosocomial candidemia in the neonatal intensive care unit patient. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2010; 11: 240– 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181b808fb Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 114 Saiman L, Ludington E, Pfaller M et al. Risk factors for candidemia in neonatal intensive care unit patients. The National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey study group. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 319– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 115 Steinbach WJ, Roilides E, Berman D et al. Results from a prospective, international, epidemiologic study of invasive candidiasis in children and neonates. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2012; 31: 1252– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e3182737427 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 116 Noyola DE, Fernandez M, Moylett EH et al. Ophthalmologic, visceral, and cardiac involvement in neonates with candidemia. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 1018– 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319601 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 117 Rodriguez D, Almirante B, Park BJ et al. Candidemia in neonatal intensive care units: Barcelona, Spain. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006; 25: 224– 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.inf.0000202127.43695.06 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 118 Arendrup MC, Dzajic E, Jensen RH et al. Epidemiological changes with potential implication for antifungal prescription recommendations for fungaemia: data from a nationwide fungaemia surveillance programme. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19: E343– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 119 Zilberberg MD, Shorr AF, Kollef MH. Secular trends in candidemia-related hospitalization in the United States, 2000-2005. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29: 978– 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/591033 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 120 Falagas ME, Roussos N, Vardakas KZ. Relative frequency of albicans and the various non-albicans Candida spp. among candidemia isolates from inpatients in various parts of the world: a systematic review. Int J Infect Dis 2010; 14: e954– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 121 Pfaller M, Neofytos D, Diekema D et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 3648 patients: data from the Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH Alliance(R)) registry, 2004-2008. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2012; 74: 323– 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.10.003 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 122 Oxman DA, Chow JK, Frendl G et al. Candidaemia associated with decreased in vitro fluconazole susceptibility: is Candida speciation predictive of the susceptibility pattern? J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: 1460– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 123 Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Gibbs DL et al. Results from the ARTEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance Study, 1997 to 2007: a 10.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species to fluconazole and voriconazole as determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48: 1366– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 124 Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Clancy CJ. Clinical perspectives on echinocandin resistance among Candida species. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2015; 28: 514– 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000215 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 125 Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Press EG et al. Caspofungin MICs correlate with treatment outcomes among patients with Candida glabrata invasive candidiasis and prior echinocandin exposure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57: 3528– 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00136-13 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 126 Kathuria S, Singh PK, Sharma C et al. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris misidentified as Candida haemulonii: characterization by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry and DNA sequencing and its antifungal susceptibility profile variability by Vitek 2, CLSI Broth Microdilution, and Etest method. J Clin Microbiol 2015; 53: 1823– 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00367-15 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 127 Zervou FN, Zacharioudakis IM, Kurpewski J et al. T2 magnetic resonance for fungal diagnosis. Methods Mol Biol 2017; 1508: 305– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 128 Beyda ND, Alam MJ, Garey KW. Comparison of the T2Dx instrument with T2Candida assay and automated blood culture in the detection of Candida species using seeded blood samples. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 77: 324– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.07.007 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 129 Mylonakis E, Clancy CJ, Ostrosky-Zeichner L et al. T2 magnetic resonance assay for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia in whole blood: a clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60: 892– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 130 Bacconi A, Richmond GS, Baroldi MA et al. Improved sensitivity for molecular detection of bacterial and Candida infections in blood. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52: 3164– 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00801-14 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 131 Fernandez-Cruz A, Marin M, Kestler M et al. The value of combining blood culture and SeptiFast data for predicting complicated bloodstream infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria or Candida species. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 1130– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02882-12 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 132 Lamoth F, Jaton K, Prod'hom G et al. Multiplex blood PCR in combination with blood cultures for improvement of microbiological documentation of infection in febrile neutropenia. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48: 3510– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00147-10 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 133 Metzgar D, Frinder MW, Rothman RE et al. The IRIDICA BAC BSI Assay: rapid, sensitive and culture-independent identification of bacteria and Candida in blood. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0158186. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 134 Bailly S, Maubon D, Fournier P et al. Impact of antifungal prescription on relative distribution and susceptibility of Candida spp.—trends over 10 years. J Infect 2016; 72: 103– 11. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 135 Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 Suppl 7: 19– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 136 Hope WW, Castagnola E, Groll AH et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: prevention and management of invasive infections in neonates and children caused by Candida spp. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 Suppl 7: 38– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 137 Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62: e1– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 138 Ullmann AJ, Akova M, Herbrecht R et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 Suppl 7: 53– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 139 Lopez-Medrano F, San Juan R, Lizasoain M et al. A non-compulsory stewardship programme for the management of antifungals in a university-affiliated hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19: 56– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03891.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 140 Micallef C, Aliyu SH, Santos R et al. Introduction of an antifungal stewardship programme targeting high-cost antifungals at a tertiary hospital in Cambridge, England. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70: 1908– 11. Google Scholar PubMed 141 Munoz P, Bouza E. The current treatment landscape: the need for antifungal stewardship programmes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: ii5– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 142 Valerio M, Munoz P, Rodriguez CG et al. Antifungal stewardship in a tertiary-care institution: a bedside intervention. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 492.e1– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 143 St-Germain G, Laverdiere M, Pelletier R et al. Epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility of bloodstream Candida isolates in Quebec: report on 453 cases between 2003 and 2005. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2008; 19: 55– 62. Google Scholar PubMed 144 Poikonen E, Lyytikainen O, Anttila VJ et al. Secular trend in candidemia and the use of fluconazole in Finland, 2004-2007. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10: 312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-312 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 145 Asmundsdottir LR, Erlendsdottir H, Gottfredsson M. Nationwide study of candidemia, antifungal use, and antifungal drug resistance in Iceland, 2000 to 2011. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 841– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 146 Bitar D, Lortholary O, Le Strat Y et al. Population-based analysis of invasive fungal infections, France, 2001-2010. Emerg Infect Dis 2014; 20: 1149– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 147 Chen S, Slavin M, Nguyen Q et al. Active surveillance for candidemia, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12: 1508– 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1210.060389 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 148 Rodriguez L, Bustamante B, Huaroto L et al. A multi-centric study of Candida bloodstream infection in Lima-Callao, Peru: species distribution, antifungal resistance and clinical outcomes. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0175172. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2018. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.
Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera