Scedosporium/Lomentospora fungi are increasingly recognized pathogens. As these fungi are resistant to many antifungal agents, early diagnosis is essential for initiating targeted drug therapy. Here, we review the microbiological tools for the detection and diagnosis of invasive scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis. Of over 10 species, Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium apiospermum, S. boydii and S. aurantiacum cause the majority of infections. Definitive diagnosis relies on one or more of visualization, isolation or detection of the fungus from clinical specimens by microscopy techniques, culture and molecular methods such as panfungal PCR or genus-/species-specific multiplex PCR. For isolation from respiratory tract specimens, selective media have shown improved isolation rates. Species identification is achieved by macroscopic and microscopic examination of colonies, but species should be confirmed by ITS with or without β-tubulin gene sequencing or other molecular methods. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry databases are improving but may need supplementation by in-house spectra for species identification. Reference broth microdilution methods is preferred for antifungal susceptibility testing. Next-generation sequencing technologies have good potential for characterization of these pathogens. Diagnosis of Scedosporium/Lomentospora infections relies on multiple approaches encompassing both phenotypic- and molecular-based methods.

Background

Invasive scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis are life-threatening fungal infections in immunocompromised patients with complex diagnostic and treatment patterns.

Objectives

To develop a scoring tool to facilitate and quantify adherence to current guideline recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of invasive scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis.

Methods

Experts from European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) excellence centres reviewed current guidelines for scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis. Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were summarized, assembled and weighted according to their strength of recommendation and level of evidence (strongly recommended = 3 points; moderately recommended = 2 points; marginally recommended = 1 point; recommended against = 0 points). Additional items considered of high importance for clinical management were also weighted.

Results

A total of 170 recommendations were identified. A 21-item tool was developed and embedded into the EQUAL score card. Nine items for diagnosis with 18 achievable points were assembled. For treatment, three general recommendation items with a maximal score of 9 were identified, while for specific antifungal treatment the two fungal pathogens were separated. Three and four items were established for scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis, respectively, with a maximum achievable score of 3 due to the separation of different treatment options with the maximum point value of 3 for voriconazole-based treatment. Follow-up comprised two items (4 points maximum). Key recommendations for clinical outcome were weighted accordingly.

Conclusions

We propose the EQUAL Score Scedosporiosis/Lomentosporiosis to quantify adherence to current guideline recommendations for management of these rare infections. The score remains to be validated in real-life patient cohorts and correlated with patient outcome.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19-associated fungal infections.

Breakthrough invasive fungal infections (IFIs) have emerged as a significant problem in patients receiving systemic antifungals; however, consensus criteria for defining breakthrough IFI are missing. This position paper establishes broadly applicable definitions of breakthrough IFI for clinical research. Representatives of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium (MSG-ERC) and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) reviewed the relevant English literature for definitions applied and published through 2018. A draft proposal for definitions was developed and circulated to all members of the two organisations for comment and suggestions. The authors addressed comments received and circulated the updated document for approval. Breakthrough IFI was defined as any IFI occurring during exposure to an antifungal drug, including fungi outside the spectrum of activity of an antifungal. The time of breakthrough IFI was defined as the first attributable clinical sign or symptom, mycological finding or radiological feature. The period defining breakthrough IFI depends on pharmacokinetic properties and extends at least until one dosing interval after drug discontinuation. Persistent IFI describes IFI that is unchanged/stable since treatment initiation with ongoing need for antifungal therapy. It is distinct from refractory IFI, defined as progression of disease and therefore similar to non-response to treatment. Relapsed IFI occurs after treatment and is caused by the same pathogen at the same site, although dissemination can occur. These proposed definitions are intended to support the design of future clinical trials and epidemiological research in clinical mycology, with the ultimate goal of increasing the comparability of clinical trial results.

Background

Phaeohyphomycosis is infection caused by dematiaceous, or darkly pigmented, fungi. The spectrum of disease is broad, and optimal therapy remains poorly defined. The Mycoses Study Group established an international case registry of patients with proven/probable phaeohyphomycosis with the goal of improving the recognition and management of these infections.

Methods

Patients from 18 sites in 3 countries were enrolled from 2009-2015. Cases were categorized as local superficial, local deep (pulmonary, sinus, osteoarticular infections), and disseminated infections. End points were clinical response (partial and complete) and all-cause mortality at 30 days and end of follow-up.

Results

Of 99 patients, 32 had local superficial infection, 41 had local deep infection, and 26 had disseminated infection. The most common risk factors were corticosteroids, solid organ transplantation, malignancy, and diabetes. Cultures were positive in 98% of cases. All-cause mortality was 16% at 30 days and 33% at end of follow-up, and 18 of 26 (69%) with dissemination died. Itraconazole was most commonly used for local infections, and voriconazole was used for more severe infections, often in combination with terbinafine or amphotericin B.

Conclusions

Phaeohyphomycosis is an increasingly recognized infection. Culture remains the most frequently used diagnostic method. Triazoles are currently the drugs of choice, often combined with other agents. Further studies are needed to develop optimal therapies for disseminated infections.

Background

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential.

Methods

To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved.

Results

There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses.

Conclusions

These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.