• Dimitrios P Kontoyiannis.
• Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. dkontoyi@mdanderson.org
• Am. J. Med. 2012 Jan 1; 125 (1 Suppl): S25-38.

AbstractEffective management of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) depends on early individualized therapy that optimizes efficacy and safety. Considering the negative consequences of IFI, for some high-risk patients the potential benefits of prophylactic therapy may outweigh the risks. When using a prophylactic, empiric, or preemptive therapeutic approach, clinicians must take into account the local epidemiology, spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and safety profile of different antifungal agents, together with unique host-related factors that may affect antifungal efficacy or safety. Therapeutic drug monitoring is increasingly recognized as important or necessary when employing lipophilic triazoles (itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole) or flucytosine. Because early diagnostics remain limited for uncommon, yet emerging opportunistic molds (e.g., Mucorales), and treatment delay is associated with increased mortality, early effective management often depends on a high index of suspicion, taking into account predisposing factors, host cues favoring mucormycosis, and local epidemiology. Antifungal options for mucormycosis are limited, and optimal management depends on a multimodal approach that includes early diagnosis/clinical suspicion, correction of underlying predisposing factors, radical debridement of affected tissues, and extended antifungal therapy. This article discusses strategies for the effective management of invasive mycoses, with a particular focus on antifungal hepatotoxicity.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

58 keywords...

hide…