Cited by 111Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Infections and StudiesOcular Infections and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 119 of the 119 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 168 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis: A Narrative Review

Open access
Ben-Ami, Ronen·2018·Journal of Fungi

Abstract

Invasive candidiasis occurs frequently in hospitalized patients, and is associated with high mortality rates due to delays in recognition and initiation of appropriate antifungals. Management of invasive candidiasis must take into account multiple host, pathogen, and drug-related factors, including the site of infection, host immune status, severity of sepsis, resistance and tolerance to antifungal agents, biofilm formation, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic considerations. Recent treatment directives have been shaped by the widespread introduction of echinocandins, highly potent and safe antifungals, into clinical use, as well as important changes in drug susceptibility patterns and the emergence of known and novel drug-resistant Candida species. Advances in molecular diagnostics have the potential to guide early targeted treatment of high-risk patients.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review summarizes the management of invasive candidiasis, emphasizing echinocandins as front-line therapy, species-specific resistance issues, source control, and emerging diagnostics/drugs. It highlights rising resistance in *C. glabrata* and *C. auris* and the need for early targeted treatment.

Key findings

  • Echinocandins are recommended as front-line agents for most invasive candidiasis; a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 trials with 1915 patients found echinocandin treatment associated with decreased mortality.
  • The Candida score (total parenteral nutrition, surgery, multifocal colonization = 1 point each; severe sepsis = 2 points) has 81% sensitivity and 74% specificity for invasive candidiasis at a score of ≥3, with a 7.7-fold greater risk.
  • Delayed antifungal treatment is associated with increased mortality; for candidemia with septic shock, initiation more than 24 h after shock onset is associated with a mortality rate of nearly 100%.
  • Central venous catheter removal is associated with higher treatment success and lower mortality, and T2Candida sensitivity was double that of conventional blood cultures when both were tested on follow-up blood samples.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of treatment for invasive candidiasis, without a described systematic search strategy or meta-analysis.
  • Data: cited randomized controlled trials, observational studies, guidelines, in vitro studies, and animal models.
  • Main analysis: narrative synthesis of antifungal classes, susceptibility testing, resistance mechanisms, treatment strategies, source control, complications, and novel drugs.

Limitations

  • Stated in text: optimal drug treatment of *C. auris* has not yet been defined; there are no clinical data to support the CDC’s empiric echinocandin recommendation for *C. auris*; the clinical relevance of the paradoxical echinocandin effect is incompletely understood; and further work is needed to calculate the cost-benefit ratio of transesophageal echocardiography.
  • Evident from text: as a narrative review, it does not report systematic search criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, or quantitative pooling of evidence.
  • Evident from text: several recommendations rely on cited guidelines, observational data, or expert opinion rather than dedicated randomized trials, and some clinical questions remain unresolved.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jof4030097

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 168 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 57 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 43
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
52 of 52
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Echinocandins may achieve subinhibitory concentrations within abdominal abscesses.

    “Echinocandins in particular may achieve subinhibitory concentrations within abdominal abscesses, underscoring the importance of surgical drainage and debridement.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The chorioretinal layer is highly vascular.

    “Because the chorioretinal layer is highly vascular, treatment of chorioretinitis with any of the systemic antifungal drugs should be effective.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Subclinical vitritis may be present in patients with ocular candidiasis.

    “However, because subclinical vitritis may be present, treatment with antifungals that achieve therapeutic concentrations within the vitreous is preferred.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Oteseconazole has improved specific affinity towards fungal versus mammalian CYP51 compared with other azoles.

    “Oteseconazole (VT-1161, Viamet Pharmaceuticals, San Francisco, CA, USA) is a next-generation azole (tetrazole) with improved specific affinity towards fungal versus mammalian CYP51.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    APX001 inactivates the fungal enzyme Gwt1.

    “APX001 (Amplyx Pharmaceuticals, San Diego, CA, USA), another first-in-class drug, is a small molecule that inactivates the fungal enzyme Gwt1.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    APX001 prevents post-translational modification of GPI and disrupts anchoring of mannoproteins to the fungal cell wall.

    “This prevents post-translational modification of glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) and disrupts the anchoring of mannoproteins to the fungal cell wall”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    APX001 causes cell wall damage and impaired growth and biofilm formation.

    “causing cell wall damage and impaired growth and biofilm formation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    MAT2203 is a novel encochleated amphotericin B formulation that allows oral administration.

    “MAT2203 (Matinas Biopharma, Bedminster, NJ, USA) is a novel encochleated amphotericin B formulation that allows oral administration.”
8 of 8

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 119 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–109 of 109

Metadata

Authors
Ben-Ami, R.
Affiliations
Infectious Diseases Unit, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel
Venue
Journal of Fungi
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-08-16
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
97
ISSN
2309-608X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2886123035
Cited by
111
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Fungi (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Fungal Infections and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Infections and Treatments
Keywords
invasive candidiasis, antifungal therapy, echinocandins, antifungal resistance, Candida species, biofilm formation, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, sepsis, molecular diagnosis, host immune status

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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