Fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates

Brent N. Reed, Kelly E. Caudle, Phillip Rogers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (February 2001-August 2009) using the search terms fluconazole and prophylaxis, with limits for age group (ie, birth-18 y). Reference citations from identified articles were also reviewed. DATA SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All prospective and retrospective studies in English identified from MEDLINE were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Critically ill neonates possess a number of risk factors that predispose them to fungal colonization with Candida spp. In many cases, colonization may progress to invasive systemic infections despite efforts aimed at early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its success among immunocompromised patients, fluconazole prophylaxis has been suggested as a possible approach for reducing the rates of both colonization and invasive fungal infections among at-risk neonates. To date, 4 prospective randomized controlled trials and 8 retrospective cohort studies have examined fluconazole prophylaxis in neonates. Although fluconazole prophylaxis appears to reduce the rates of colonization and invasive fungal infections, no trial in this review was able to demonstrate a significant difference in long-term morbidity or mortality. Concerns also remain regarding the adverse effects associated with prolonged exposure to fluconazole therapy. Lack of standardized study designs and treatment regimens also limit widespread recommendation for the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While it may be beneficial for critically ill neonates with certain predisposing risk factors (eg, central venous access, sustained exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, or units with significantly high incidence of invasive fungal infections), existing research does not support the use of fluconazole prophylaxis based on birth weight or gestational age alone. Multifactor analysis evaluating the effect of fluconazole prophylaxis is necessary to establish which neonates would benefit from this practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)178-184
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Pharmacotherapy
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fluconazole
Newborn Infant
Critical Illness
MEDLINE
Retrospective Studies
Immunocompromised Host
Candida
Birth Weight
Causality
Gestational Age
Early Diagnosis
Cohort Studies
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Age Groups
Parturition
Prospective Studies
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Morbidity
Mortality

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. / Reed, Brent N.; Caudle, Kelly E.; Rogers, Phillip.

In: Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 44, No. 1, 01.01.2010, p. 178-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Reed, Brent N. ; Caudle, Kelly E. ; Rogers, Phillip. / Fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. In: Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2010 ; Vol. 44, No. 1. pp. 178-184.
@article{eb901eba0f244f198b443eb383989e67,
title = "Fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (February 2001-August 2009) using the search terms fluconazole and prophylaxis, with limits for age group (ie, birth-18 y). Reference citations from identified articles were also reviewed. DATA SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All prospective and retrospective studies in English identified from MEDLINE were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Critically ill neonates possess a number of risk factors that predispose them to fungal colonization with Candida spp. In many cases, colonization may progress to invasive systemic infections despite efforts aimed at early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its success among immunocompromised patients, fluconazole prophylaxis has been suggested as a possible approach for reducing the rates of both colonization and invasive fungal infections among at-risk neonates. To date, 4 prospective randomized controlled trials and 8 retrospective cohort studies have examined fluconazole prophylaxis in neonates. Although fluconazole prophylaxis appears to reduce the rates of colonization and invasive fungal infections, no trial in this review was able to demonstrate a significant difference in long-term morbidity or mortality. Concerns also remain regarding the adverse effects associated with prolonged exposure to fluconazole therapy. Lack of standardized study designs and treatment regimens also limit widespread recommendation for the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While it may be beneficial for critically ill neonates with certain predisposing risk factors (eg, central venous access, sustained exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, or units with significantly high incidence of invasive fungal infections), existing research does not support the use of fluconazole prophylaxis based on birth weight or gestational age alone. Multifactor analysis evaluating the effect of fluconazole prophylaxis is necessary to establish which neonates would benefit from this practice.",
author = "Reed, {Brent N.} and Caudle, {Kelly E.} and Phillip Rogers",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1345/aph.1M364",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "178--184",
journal = "Annals of Pharmacotherapy",
issn = "1060-0280",
publisher = "Harvey Whitney Books Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates

AU - Reed, Brent N.

AU - Caudle, Kelly E.

AU - Rogers, Phillip

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (February 2001-August 2009) using the search terms fluconazole and prophylaxis, with limits for age group (ie, birth-18 y). Reference citations from identified articles were also reviewed. DATA SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All prospective and retrospective studies in English identified from MEDLINE were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Critically ill neonates possess a number of risk factors that predispose them to fungal colonization with Candida spp. In many cases, colonization may progress to invasive systemic infections despite efforts aimed at early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its success among immunocompromised patients, fluconazole prophylaxis has been suggested as a possible approach for reducing the rates of both colonization and invasive fungal infections among at-risk neonates. To date, 4 prospective randomized controlled trials and 8 retrospective cohort studies have examined fluconazole prophylaxis in neonates. Although fluconazole prophylaxis appears to reduce the rates of colonization and invasive fungal infections, no trial in this review was able to demonstrate a significant difference in long-term morbidity or mortality. Concerns also remain regarding the adverse effects associated with prolonged exposure to fluconazole therapy. Lack of standardized study designs and treatment regimens also limit widespread recommendation for the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While it may be beneficial for critically ill neonates with certain predisposing risk factors (eg, central venous access, sustained exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, or units with significantly high incidence of invasive fungal infections), existing research does not support the use of fluconazole prophylaxis based on birth weight or gestational age alone. Multifactor analysis evaluating the effect of fluconazole prophylaxis is necessary to establish which neonates would benefit from this practice.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neonates. DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (February 2001-August 2009) using the search terms fluconazole and prophylaxis, with limits for age group (ie, birth-18 y). Reference citations from identified articles were also reviewed. DATA SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All prospective and retrospective studies in English identified from MEDLINE were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Critically ill neonates possess a number of risk factors that predispose them to fungal colonization with Candida spp. In many cases, colonization may progress to invasive systemic infections despite efforts aimed at early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its success among immunocompromised patients, fluconazole prophylaxis has been suggested as a possible approach for reducing the rates of both colonization and invasive fungal infections among at-risk neonates. To date, 4 prospective randomized controlled trials and 8 retrospective cohort studies have examined fluconazole prophylaxis in neonates. Although fluconazole prophylaxis appears to reduce the rates of colonization and invasive fungal infections, no trial in this review was able to demonstrate a significant difference in long-term morbidity or mortality. Concerns also remain regarding the adverse effects associated with prolonged exposure to fluconazole therapy. Lack of standardized study designs and treatment regimens also limit widespread recommendation for the use of fluconazole prophylaxis in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While it may be beneficial for critically ill neonates with certain predisposing risk factors (eg, central venous access, sustained exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, or units with significantly high incidence of invasive fungal infections), existing research does not support the use of fluconazole prophylaxis based on birth weight or gestational age alone. Multifactor analysis evaluating the effect of fluconazole prophylaxis is necessary to establish which neonates would benefit from this practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74549162717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=74549162717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1345/aph.1M364

DO - 10.1345/aph.1M364

M3 - Review article

VL - 44

SP - 178

EP - 184

JO - Annals of Pharmacotherapy

JF - Annals of Pharmacotherapy

SN - 1060-0280

IS - 1

ER -