Cited by 3,191Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Infections and StudiesOcular Infections and Treatments

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management Candidiasis: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Open access
Pappas, Peter G., Kauffman, Carol A., Andes, David, Benjamin, Daniel K., Calandra, Thierry F., Edwards, John E., Filler, Scott G., Fisher, John F. +6 more·2009·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Guidelines for the management of patients with invasive candidiasis and mucosal candidiasis were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace the previous guidelines published in the 15 January 2004 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases and are intended for use by health care providers who care for patients who either have or are at risk of these infections. Since 2004, several new antifungal agents have become available, and several new studies have been published relating to the treatment of candidemia, other forms of invasive candidiasis, and mucosal disease, including oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis. There are also recent prospective data on the prevention of invasive candidiasis in high-risk neonates and adults and on the empiric treatment of suspected invasive candidiasis in adults. This new information is incorporated into this revised document.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/596757

Cites

302 of 302 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 2009 IDSA guidelines recommended echinocandins only for neutropenic patients and patients with previous exposure to antifungals.

    “In contrast with the 2009 Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, in which echinocandins were recommended only for neutropenic patients and patients with previous exposure to antifungals (64)”

    From Population-Based Active Surveillance for Culture-Confirmed Candidemia — Four Sites, United States, 2012–2016 (2019) · cites this paper as [64]

    The recommendations for candidemia in nonneutropenic patients (page not supplied) list an echinocandin as initial therapy for most adults, not only for neutropenic patients or those previously exposed to antifungals. They also favor an echinocandin for moderately severe to severe illness, independently of recent azole exposure. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Consensus guidelines suggest a combination of amphotericin B and flucytosine for some infection types such as Candida meningitis, endophthalmitis, and endocarditis.

    “Consensus guidelines do suggest a combination of amphotericin B and flucytosine for some infection types such as Candida meningitis, endophthalmitis, and endocarditis.”
  • The IDSA guideline for invasive candidiasis recommends a 2-week treatment duration following clearance of Candida from the bloodstream and resolution of symptoms attributable to candidemia.

    “The IDSA guideline for invasive candidiasis recommends a 2-week treatment duration following clearance of Candida from the bloodstream and resolution of symptoms attributable to candidemia.”
  • Longer durations are recommended for persistent candidemia and for metastatic infection involving other sites (CNS, bone, endocarditis, joint/prosthetic joint infection).

    “Longer durations are recommended for persistent candidemia and for metastatic infection involving other sites (ie, CNS, bone, endocarditis, joint/ prosthetic joint infection).”
  • Treatment guidelines recommend step down to fluconazole for patients who have improved clinically after initial therapy with an echinocandin or amphotericin B and who are infected with an organism likely susceptible to fluconazole (e.g., C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis) or if there is documented susceptibility based on laboratory MIC testing.

    “Treatment guidelines recommend step down to fluconazole for patients who have improved clinically after initial therapy with an echinocandin or amphotericin B and who are infected with an organism that is likely to be susceptible to fluconazole (eg, C albicans, C parapsilosis, and C tropicalis) or if there is documented susceptibility based on laboratory MIC testing.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 305 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pappas, P. G., Kauffman, C. A., Andes, D., Benjamin, D. K., Calandra, T. F., Edwards, J. E., Filler, S. G., Fisher, J. F., Kullberg, B.-J., Zeichner, L. O., Reboli, A. C., Rex, J. H., Walsh, T. J., & Sobe, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • University of Texas at Houston, Houston
  • Cooper University Hospital (US)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pappas, Peter G.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2009-03-01
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
503-535
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2150428940
Cited by
3,191
References
305
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 155 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 149 · 2017: 195 · 2016: 226 · 2015: 327 · 2014: 312 · 2013: 311 · 2012: 319
FWCI
230.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Infectious Diseases Society of America
  • Astellas Pharma
  • Basilea Pharmaceutica
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
  • National Cancer Institute (Z01SC006830)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Infections and Treatments
Keywords
invasive candidiasis, mucosal candidiasis, candidemia, oropharyngeal candidiasis, esophageal candidiasis, antifungal agents, empirical antifungal therapy, high-risk infants, high-risk adults
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Candidiasis, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review