English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Candidemia is a major infectious complication of seriously immunocompromised patients. In the absence of specific signs and symptoms, there is a need to evolve an appropriate diagnostic approach. A number of methods based on the detection of  Candida  mannan, nucleic acid and (1,3)-beta- D- glucan (BDG) have been used with varying specificities and sensitivities. In this retrospective study, attention has been focused to evaluate the usefulness of two or more disease markers in the diagnosis of candidemia.    Methods  Diagnostic usefulness of Platelia  Candida  Ag for the detection of mannan, Platelia  Candida  Ab for the detection of anti-mannan antibodies, Fungitell for the detection of BDG, and of a semi-nested PCR (snPCR) for the detection  Candida  species-specific DNA have been retrospectively evaluated using 32 sera from 27 patients with culture-proven candidemia, 51 sera from 39 patients with clinically suspected candidemia, sera of 10 women with  C. albicans  vaginitis, and sera of 16 healthy controls.    Results  Using cut-off values recommended by the manufacturers, the sensitivity of the assays for candidemia patients were as follows:  Candida  snPCR 88%, BDG 47%, mannan 41%, anti-mannan antibodies 47%, respectively. snPCR detected 5 patients who had candidemia due to more than one  Candida  species. The sensitivities of the combined tests were as follows:  Candida  mannan and anti-mannan antibodies 75%, and  Candida  mannan and BDG 56%. Addition of snPCR data improved the sensitivity further to 88%, thus adding 10 sera that were negative by BDG and/or mannan. In clinically suspected, blood culture negative patients; the positivities of the tests were as follows:  Candida  DNA was positive in 53%, BDG in 29%, mannan in 16%, and anti-mannan antibodies in 29%. The combined detection of mannan and BDG, and mannan, BDG and  Candida  DNA enhanced the positivity to 36% and 54%, respectively. None of the sera from  Candida  vaginitis patients and healthy subjects were positive for  Candida  DNA and mannan.    Conclusion  The observations made in this study reinforce the diagnostic value of snPCR in the sensitive and specific diagnosis of candidemia and detection of more than one  Candida  species in a given patient. Additionally, in the absence of a positive blood culture, snPCR detected  Candida  DNA in sera of more than half of the clinically suspected patients. While detection of BDG, mannan and anti-mannan antibodies singly or in combination could help enhancing sensitivity and eliminating false positive tests, a more extensive evaluation of these assays in sequentially collected serum samples is required to assess their value in the early diagnosis of candidemia.

Comparative evaluation of (1, 3)-β-D-glucan, mannan and anti-mannan antibodies, and Candidaspecies-specific snPCR in patients with candidemia