Cryptococcosis is a global invasive mycosis associated with significant morbidity and mortality. These guidelines for its management have been built on the previous Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines from 2000 and include new sections. There is a discussion of the management of cryptococcal meningoencephalitis in 3 risk groups: (1) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected individuals, (2) organ transplant recipients, and (3) non–HIV-infected and nontransplant hosts. There are specific recommendations for other unique risk populations, such as children, pregnant women, persons in resource-limited environments, and those with Cryptococcus gattii infection. Recommendations for management also include other sites of infection, including strategies for pulmonary cryptococcosis. Emphasis has been placed on potential complications in management of cryptococcal infection, including increased intracranial pressure, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), drug resistance, and cryptococcomas. Three key management principles have been articulated: (1) induction therapy for meningoencephalitis using fungicidal regimens, such as a polyene and flucytosine, followed by suppressive regimens using fluconazole; (2) importance of early recognition and treatment of increased intracranial pressure and/or IRIS; and (3) the use of lipid formulations of amphotericin B regimens in patients with renal impairment. Cryptococcosis remains a challenging management issue, with little new drug development or recent definitive studies. However, if the diagnosis is made early, if clinicians adhere to the basic principles of these guidelines, and if the underlying disease is controlled, then cryptococcosis can be managed successfully in the vast majority of patients.

Superficial and systemic fungal infections are a major problem among severely immunocompromised patients who undergo bone marrow transplantation. We performed a doubleblind, randomized, multicenter trial in which patients receiving bone marrow transplants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or fluconazole (400 mg daily). Fluconazole or placebo was administered prophylactically from the start of the conditioning regimen until the neutrophil count returned to 1000 per microliter, toxicity was suspected, or a systemic fungal infection was suspected or proved.

An 8-person subcommittee of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Mycoses Study Group evaluated available data on the treatment of c

We conducted a prospective, multicenter observational study of adults (n = 1447) and children (n = 144) with candidemia at tertiary care centers in t

Treatment with low-dose amphotericin B (0.4 mg per kilogram of body weight per day) or oral azole therapy in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and cryptococcal meningitis has been associated with high mortality and low rates of cerebrospinal fluid sterilization.

The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir–ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir–ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs. In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir–ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir–ritonavir group), and lopinavir–ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log₁₀ copies per milliliter to the three groups. At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir–ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir–ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups. Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir–ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895.)