Is routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients?

PLoS One. 2017 Oct 24;12(10):e0183485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183485. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine among patients with candidemia the real rate of ophthalmoscopy and the impact of performing ocular assessment on the outcome of the disease. We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, population-based candidemia surveillance program implemented in Spain during 2010-2011 (CANDIPOP). Ophthalmoscopy was performed in only 168 of the 365 patients with candidemia (46%). Ocular lesions related to candidemia were found in only 13/168 patients (7.7%), of whom 1 reported ocular symptoms (incidence of symptomatic disease in the whole population, 0.27% [1/365]). Ophthalmological findings led to a change in antifungal therapy in only 5.9% of cases (10/168), and performance of the test was not related to a better outcome. Ocular candidiasis was not associated with a worse outcome and progressed favorably in all but 1 evaluable patient, who did not experience vision loss. The low frequency of ophthalmoscopy and ocular involvement and the asymptomatic nature of ocular candidiasis, with a favorable outcome in almost all cases, lead us to reconsider the need for systematic ophthalmoscopy in all candidemic patients.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Antifungal Agents / therapeutic use
  • Candidemia / diagnostic imaging*
  • Candidemia / drug therapy
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Ophthalmoscopy / statistics & numerical data*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Spain

Substances

  • Antifungal Agents

Grants and funding

The CANDIPOP study was cofunded by Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA (Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica-Grupo de Estudio de SIDA), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (cofunded by the European Development Regional Fund “A way to achieve Europe”), and the Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD12/0015). The present study was funded by the PROgrama MULtidisciplinar para la Gestión de Antifúngicos y la Reducción de Candidiasis Invasora (PROMULGA) II Project, Instituto de Salud Carlos III Madrid Spain, and by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) “A way of making Europe” (grant number PI13/01148). Antonio Vena is supported by a Rio Hortega grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III Madrid Spain, which is partially funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) “A way of making Europe” (grant number CM15/00181).