-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of treating asymptomatic non-pregnant women with a positive swab for candidiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alternative or complementary treatments; douching; drug treatments; garlic; intravaginal preparations (nystatin, imidazoles, tea tree oil); oral fluconazole; oral itraconazole; and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus (oral or intravaginal).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Complementary Therapies; Female; Fluconazole; Humans; Itraconazole; Yogurt
PubMed: 25775428
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women. Diagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes: • number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy); • proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and • adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Studies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source. Risk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting. Primary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. We are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. Adverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35005777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009151.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... May 2018Purpose To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA) guideline on outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in patients with...
Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update.
Purpose To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA) guideline on outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and IDSA convened an Update Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. Results Six new or updated meta-analyses and six new primary studies were added to the updated systematic review. Recommendation Clinical judgment is recommended when determining which patients are candidates for outpatient management, using clinical criteria or a validated tool such as the Multinational Association of Support Care in Cancer risk index. In addition, psychosocial and logistic considerations are outlined within the guideline. The panel continued to endorse consensus recommendations from the previous version of this guideline that patients with febrile neutropenia receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within 1 hour of triage and be monitored for ≥ 4 hours before discharge. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or clindamycin, if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empirical outpatient therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed. Patients who do not defervesce after 2 to 3 days of an initial, empirical, broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen should be re-evaluated and considered as candidates for inpatient treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Topics: Adult; Ambulatory Care; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antifungal Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Bacterial Infections; Fever; Humans; Mycoses; Neoplasms; Neutropenia
PubMed: 29461916
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6211 -
The Lancet. Haematology May 2022On the basis of improved overall survival, treatment guidelines strongly recommend antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemotherapy for patients with acute... (Review)
Review
Antifungal prophylaxis in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia treated with novel targeted therapies: a systematic review and expert consensus recommendation from the European Hematology Association.
On the basis of improved overall survival, treatment guidelines strongly recommend antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Many novel targeted agents are metabolised by cytochrome P450, but potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the resulting risk-benefit ratio have not been assessed in clinical trials, leading to uncertainty in clinical management. Consequently, the European Haematology Association commissioned experts in the field of infectious diseases, haematology, oncology, clinical pharmacology, and methodology to develop up-to-date recommendations on the role of antifungal prophylaxis and management of pharmacokinetic DDIs with triazole antifungals. A systematic literature review was performed according to Cochrane methods, and recommendations were developed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published from inception to March 10, 2020. We excluded studies that were not published in English. Evidence for any identified novel agent that is active against acute myeloid leukaemia was reviewed for the following outcomes: incidence of invasive fungal disease, prolongation of hospitalisation, days spent in intensive-care unit, mortality due to invasive fungal disease, quality of life, and potential DDIs. Recommendations and consensus statements were compiled for each targeted drug for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and each specific setting. Evidence-based recommendations were developed for hypomethylating agents, midostaurin, and the venetoclax-hypomethylating agent combination. For all other agents, consensus statements were given for specific therapeutic settings, specifically for the management of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, monotherapy, and combination with chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended with moderate strength in most settings, and strongly recommended if the novel acute myeloid leukaemia agent is administered in combination with intensive induction chemotherapy. For ivosidenib, lestaurtinib, quizartinib, and venetoclax, we moderately recommend adjusting the dose of the antileukaemic agent during administration of triazoles. This is the first guidance supporting clinical decision making on antifungal prophylaxis in recipients of novel targeted drugs for acute myeloid leukaemia. Future studies including therapeutic drug monitoring will need to determine the role of dosage adjustment of novel antileukaemic drugs during concomitant administration of CYP3A4-inhibiting antifungals with respect to adverse effects and remission status.
Topics: Adult; Antifungal Agents; Hematology; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Mycoses; Quality of Life; Triazoles
PubMed: 35483397
DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00073-4 -
Chest Feb 2022Current guidelines recommend empirical antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis with high risk of invasive Candida infection. However, many different risk factors have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend empirical antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis with high risk of invasive Candida infection. However, many different risk factors have been derived from multiple studies. These risk factors lack specificity, and broad application would render most ICU patients eligible for empirical antifungal therapy.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What risk factors for invasive Candida infection can be identified by a systematic review and meta-analysis?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Biomed Central, and Cochrane and extracted the raw and adjusted OR for each risk factor associated with invasive Candida infection. We calculated pooled ORs for risk factors present in more than one study.
RESULTS
We included 34 studies in our meta-analysis resulting in the assessment of 29 possible risk factors. Risk factors for invasive Candida infection included demographic factors, comorbid conditions, and medical interventions. Although demographic factors do not play a role for the development of invasive Candida infection, comorbid conditions (eg, HIV, Candida colonization) and medical interventions have a significant impact. The risk factors associated with the highest risk for invasive Candida infection were broad-spectrum antibiotics (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.6-8.8), blood transfusion (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5-16.3), Candida colonization (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.6-14.3), central venous catheter (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.7-8.1), and total parenteral nutrition (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 3.3-6.3). However, dependence between the various risk factors is probably high.
INTERPRETATION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis identified patient- and treatment-related factors that were associated with the risk for the development of invasive Candida infection in the ICU. Most of the factors identified were either related to medical interventions during intensive care or to comorbid conditions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blood Component Transfusion; Candidiasis, Invasive; Catheterization, Central Venous; Comorbidity; Critical Illness; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34673022
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.08.081 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jul 2022Pulmonary aspergillosis may complicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and contribute to excess mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The disease is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary aspergillosis may complicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and contribute to excess mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The disease is poorly understood, in part due to discordant definitions across studies.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to review the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and compare research definitions.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MedRxiv were searched from inception to October 12, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
ICU cohort studies and CAPA case series including ≥3 patients were included.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients in ICUs with COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were reclassified according to four research definitions. We assessed risk of bias with an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs Institute cohort checklist tool for systematic reviews.
METHODS
We calculated CAPA prevalence using the Freeman-Tukey random effects method. Correlations between definitions were assessed with Spearman's rank test. Associations between antifungals and outcome were assessed with random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifty-one studies were included. Among 3297 COVID-19 patients in ICU cohort studies, 313 were diagnosed with CAPA (prevalence 10%; 95% CI 8%-13%). Two hundred seventy-seven patients had patient-level data allowing reclassification. Definitions had limited correlation with one another (ρ = 0.268-0.447; p < 0.001), with the exception of Koehler and Verweij (ρ = 0.893; p < 0.001); 33.9% of patients reported to have CAPA did not fulfill any research definitions. Patients were diagnosed after a median of 8 days (interquartile range 5-14) in ICUs. Tracheobronchitis occurred in 3% of patients examined with bronchoscopy. The mortality rate was high (59.2%). Applying CAPA research definitions did not strengthen the association between mould-active antifungals and survival.
CONCLUSIONS
The reported prevalence of CAPA is significant but may be exaggerated by nonstandard definitions.
Topics: Adult; Antifungal Agents; COVID-19; Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pulmonary Aspergillosis
PubMed: 35150878
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.01.027 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2019The epidemiology of mucormycosis in the era of modern diagnostics is relatively under-explored. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The epidemiology of mucormycosis in the era of modern diagnostics is relatively under-explored.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the contemporary epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and causative pathogens of mucormycosis.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE from January 2000 to January 2017.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Published case reports/series of proven/probable mucormycosis.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients ≥18 years old.
METHODS
Patient characteristics, disease manifestations and causative pathogens were summarized descriptively. Categorical variables were assessed by chi-square test or Fischer's exact test, and continuous variables by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test. Risk factors for the different clinical manifestations of mucormycosis were identified using multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS
Initial database searches identified 3619 articles of which 600 (851 individual patient cases) were included in the final analysis. Diabetes mellitus was the commonest underlying condition (340/851, 40%) and was an independent risk for rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis (odds ratio (OR) 2.49; 95% CI 1.77-3.54; p < 0.001). Underlying haematological malignancy was associated with disseminated infection (OR 3.86; 95% CI 1.78-8.37; p 0.001), whereas previous solid organ transplantation was associated with pulmonary (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.50-6.82; p 0.003), gastrointestinal (OR 4.47; 95% CI 1.69-11.80; p 0.003), or disseminated (OR 4.20; 95% CI 1.68-10.46; p 0.002) mucormycosis. Eight genera (24 species) of Mucorales organisms were identified in 447/851 (53%) cases, of which Rhizopus spp. (213/447, 48%) was the most common. Compared with other genera, Rhizopus spp. was predominantly observed in patients with rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis (75/213, 35% versus 34/234, 15%; p < 0.001). Death was reported in 389/851 (46%) patients. Mortality associated with Cunninghamella infections was significantly higher than those caused by other Mucorales (23/30, 71% versus 185/417, 44%; p < 0.001). However, Cunninghamella spp. were isolated primarily in patients with pulmonary (17/30, 57%) or disseminated disease (10/30, 33%).
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from the current review have helped ascertain the association between various manifestations of mucormycosis, their respective predisposing factors and causative organisms.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Mucorales; Mucormycosis; Rhizopus; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30036666
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.011 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jun 2023Mucormycosis, a rare fungal infection, has shown an increase in the number of reported cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mucormycosis, a rare fungal infection, has shown an increase in the number of reported cases during the COVID-19 pandemic.
OBJECTIVES
To provide a comprehensive insight into the characteristics of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Demographic information and clinical features were documented for each patient. Logistic regression analysis was used to predict the risk of mortality.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, and FungiSCOPE.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies reporting individual-level information in patients with adult COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) between 1 January 2020 and 28 December 2022.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults who developed mucormycosis during or after COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients with and without individual clinical variables were compared.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Quality assessment was performed based on the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for case series studies.
RESULTS
Nine hundred fifty-eight individual cases reported from 45 countries were eligible. 88.1% (844/958) were reported from low- or middle-income countries. Corticosteroid use for COVID-19 (78.5%, 619/789) and diabetes (77.9%, 738/948) were common. Diabetic ketoacidosis (p < 0.001), history of malignancy (p < 0.001), underlying pulmonary (p 0.017), or renal disease (p < 0.001), obesity (p < 0.001), hypertension (p 0.040), age (>65 years) (p 0.001), Aspergillus coinfection (p 0.037), and tocilizumab use during COVID-19 (p 0.018) increased the mortality. CAM occurred on an average of 22 days after COVID-19 and 8 days after hospitalization. Diagnosis of mucormycosis in patients with Aspergillus coinfection and pulmonary mucormycosis was made on average 15.4 days (range, 0-35 days) and 14.0 days (range, 0-53 days) after hospitalization, respectively. Cutaneous mucormycosis accounted for <1% of the cases. The overall mortality rate was 38.9% (303/780).
CONCLUSION
Mortality of CAM was high, and most reports were from low- or middle-income countries. We detected novel risk factors for CAM, such as older age, specific comorbidities, Aspergillus coinfection, and tocilizumab use, in addition to the previously identified factors.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Mucormycosis; Coinfection; Pandemics; COVID-19; Hospitalization
PubMed: 36921716
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.03.008 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jun 2017Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell... (Review)
Review
Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients. Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases that includes a patient advocate. For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systematic reviews of observational studies. For questions of therapy, we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of any intervention applied for the empirical management of pediatric FN. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify levels of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results Recommendations related to initial presentation, ongoing management, and empirical antifungal therapy of pediatric FN were reviewed; the most substantial changes were related to empirical antifungal therapy. Key differences from our 2012 FN CPG included the listing of a fourth-generation cephalosporin for empirical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define patients with high-risk invasive fungal disease (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in prolonged FN, and a weak recommendation to withhold empirical antifungal therapy in IFD low-risk patients with prolonged FN. Conclusion Changes to the updated FN CPG recommendations will likely influence the care of pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Future work should focus on closing research gaps and on identifying ways to facilitate implementation and adaptation.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antifungal Agents; Child; Febrile Neutropenia; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Invasive Fungal Infections; Neoplasms; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 28459614
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7017 -
Lupus Dec 2016The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of case reports documenting the development of antiphospholipid syndrome or antiphospholipid... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of case reports documenting the development of antiphospholipid syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome-related features after an infection.
METHODS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed ePubs, and The Cochrane Library - CENTRAL through March 2015 without restrictions. Studies reporting cases of antiphospholipid syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome-related features following an infection were included.
RESULTS
Two hundred and fifty-nine publications met inclusion criteria, reporting on 293 cases. Three different groups of patients were identified; group 1 included patients who fulfilled the criteria for definitive antiphospholipid syndrome (24.6%), group 2 included patients who developed transient antiphospholipid antibodies with thromboembolic phenomena (43.7%), and group 3 included patients who developed transient antiphospholipid antibodies without thromboembolic events (31.7%). The most common preceding infection was viral (55.6%). In cases that developed thromboembolic events Human immunodeficiency and Hepatitis C viruses were the most frequently reported. Parvovirus B19 was the most common in cases that developed antibodies without thromboembolic events. Hematological manifestations and peripheral thrombosis were the most common clinical manifestations. Positive anticardiolipin antibodies were the most frequent antibodies reported, primarily coexisting IgG and IgM isotypes. Few patients in groups 1 and 2 had persistent antiphospholipid antibodies for more than 6 months. Outcome was variable with some cases reporting persistent antiphospholipid syndrome features and others achieving complete resolution of clinical events.
CONCLUSIONS
Development of antiphospholipid antibodies with all traditional manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome were observed after variety of infections, most frequently after chronic viral infections with Human immunodeficiency and Hepatitis C. The causal relationship between infection and antiphospholipid syndrome cannot be established, but the possible contribution of various infections in the pathogenesis of antiphospholipid syndrome need further longitudinal and controlled studies to establish the incidence, and better quantify the risk and the outcomes of antiphospholipid-related events after infection.
Topics: Antibodies, Anticardiolipin; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Bacterial Infections; HIV Infections; Hepatitis C; Humans; Immunoglobulin Isotypes; Mycoses; Parasitic Diseases; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 27060064
DOI: 10.1177/0961203316640912