The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Braz J Infect Dis 2017;21:333-8 - Vol. 21 Num.3 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2017.01.008
Review article
Fluconazole prophylaxis in preterm infants: a systematic review
Juliana Ferreira da Silva Riosa,, , Paulo Augusto Moreira Camargosb, Luísa Petri Corrêaa, Roberta Maia de Castro Romanellib
a Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Santa Efigênia, BH, Brazil
b Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Pediatria, Santa Efigênia, BH, Brazil
Received 14 November 2016, Accepted 23 January 2017
Abstract
Objective

This article aims to review the use of antifungal prophylaxis with intravenous fluconazole in premature newborns and the occurrence of Invasive Candidiasis.

Methods

This is a systematic review with search at databases: PubMed, Capes Portal, Virtual Health Library (BVS – Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde)/Lilacs, Scopus and Cochrane. The keywords used were: “Antifungal”, “Candida” “Fluconazole prophylaxis” and “Preterm infants”.

Results

Invasive Candidiasis was evaluated in all the twelve items. In eleven of them, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups receiving prophylactic fluconazole, with lower frequency of Invasive Candidiasis, compared to placebo or no prophylaxis group. Colonization by Candida species was also evaluated in five studies; four of them presented statistically lower proportion of colonization in patients with Fluconazole prophylaxis, compared to placebo or no drugs. In one study, there was a significant difference, favoring the use of fluconazole, and reduction of death.

Conclusion

Studies indicate the effectiveness of prophylaxis with fluconazole, with reduction in the incidence of colonization and invasive fungal disease. The benefits of prophylaxis should be evaluated considering the incidence of candidiasis in the unit, the mortality associated with candidiasis, the safety and toxicity of short and long-term medication, and the potential for development of resistant pathogens.

Keywords
Antifungal, Candida, Fluconazole prophylaxis, Preterm infants
Introduction

The incidence of invasive fungal infection ranges from 2% to 4% in infants with very low birth weight (VLBW<1500g)1 and may affect 4% to 16% of extreme-low birth weight newborns (EBPN<1000g).2–4 Candida species have a higher incidence of invasive candidiasis (IC) in newborns and it is one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality in the neonatal population.5,6

The immaturity of the immune system and the use of invasive devices, such as mechanical ventilation and central venous catheter, are considered important risk factors for IC.7–9 Prior colonization by Candida sp., delivery route, and cross transmission by the hands of health professionals are also considered predisposing factors. Exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs favors the selection of microbiome and the use of post-natal steroids and H2 inhibitors is a factor that favors translocation in the colonized patient to invasive infection.5,8,9

Besides bloodstream infection (Candidemia) Candida may affect other organs, especially heart, urinary tract, retina, and central nervous system (CNS).9 CNS involvement may occur in around 50% of newborns with IC,10,11 and impaired neurological development after infection affects up to 60% of survivors.12 The mortality rate reported in some studies is around 20%,11,13 but it can reach up to 40%.14

Despite evidences and recommendations favoring the use of intravenous fluconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in neonates,15–17 universal use of antifungal prophylaxis is controversial in the literature. Currently, it is recommended in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU) with fungal infections rates higher than 5%.18,19

Thus, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review on the use of antifungal prophylaxis with intravenous fluconazole in premature newborns and the occurrence of IC (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
(0.2MB).

Flowchart.

Methods

This was a systematic review which included virtual libraries: PubMed, EmBase, Portal Capes, Virtual Health Library (BVS – Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde)/Lilacs, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, without language restriction, with publications until February 2016 without previous date limit considering the first study was in 2001. It also included forward citation tracking. The keywords were “Antifungal”, “Candida”, “Fluconazole prophylaxis” and “Preterm infants” or “very low birth weight”. The search was performed in duplicate by two researchers.

PICO strategy20 was performed considering: Population (P) – infants with birth weight lower than 1500g; Intervention (I): use of antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole; Comparison (C): no antifungal prophylaxis or use of placebo; Outcome (O): occurrence of Invasive Candidiasis; Study type (S): comparative studies of case–control, cohort, or clinical trials.

A total of 168 articles were found: 54 PubMed articles, 52 Portal Capes articles, 31 BVS articles, 20 Scopus articles, 10 Cochrane articles, and a comparative study obtained in references cited in review articles. Of them, 85 were duplicates among the databases and 83 were chosen for the first selection.

Seventy one studies were excluded. Of them, 33 were reviews and five were experts’ commentaries on articles published in journals indexed in the databases. Eight studies addressed the treatment of fungal infections, two included treatment of resistant Candida species and one was about diagnostic methods. Four were studies on the prevalence of fungal colonization in neonates and other four reports of infection by other fungal species. Three publications focused on epidemiological surveillance studies of invasive fungal infections. Four other studies evaluated prophylaxis of IC with a different antifungal and four addressed a pharmacokinetic evaluation of antifungal agents. In addition, one article examined the occurrence of side-effects with the use of Fluconazole. Furthermore, one article evaluated the adhesion of neonatologists to prophylactic fluconazole use protocol in NICU and one compared different doses of fluconazole.

Twelve studies were eligible for comparative and qualitative analysis, including four randomized clinical trials (RCT), five comparative studies, two case–control studies, and one cohort study.

Results

We selected 12 original articles which referred to the prophylaxis of IFI with intravenous use of fluconazole in premature infants, eight observational studies (comparative, cohort and case–control), and four clinical trials published between 2001 and 2014 that evaluated 11,405 newborns, from whom 7416 received prophylactic fluconazole and 3989 received placebo or no prophylactic drugs. The studies varied in birth weight (BW) and inclusion criteria ranged from 750g to 1550g.

Table 1 shows the summary of the articles, considering year of publication, study population, type of intervention, and occurrence of the event of interest (IC).

Table 1.

Original articles selected for systematic review of use of prophylactic Fluconazole in newborns.

Author  Year  Study  Population  Outcome  p value  Effect  Evidence 
Kaufman D et al.29  2001  Clinical trial randomized, blinded, placebo controlled  50 NB<1000g in placebo group
50 NB<1000g in Fluconazol group 
Colonization
IC
Mortality 
p<0.001
p=0.008
p=0.22 
Difference in risk
0.18 (95% CI 0.15–0.22)
0.20 (95% CI 0.04–0.36)
– 
A-I 
Uko Set al.21  2006  Observational, comparative study, pre and post exposure  206 NB<1500g no prophylaxis
178 NB<1500g – prophylaxis 
CI (after 3o day)
Mortality 
p=0.07
p=0.644 
OR – 0.166
(95% CI: 0.033–0.709)
OR: 0.795;
(95% CI: 0.301–2.102) 
A-II 
Manzoni P et al.22  2006  Retrospective comparative study pre and post exposure  240 NB<1500g – no prophylaxis
225 NB<1500g prophylaxis 
IC
Colonization
Mortality 
p<0.0001
p=<0.001
p=0.44 
RR – 0.233
(95% CI 0.113–0.477)
RR – 0.406
(95% CI 0.273–0.605)
– 
A-II 
Manzoni P et al.32  2007  Clinical trial randomized, blinded, placebo controlled  106 NB<1500g in placebo group
112 NB<1500g in Fluconazol 6mg/kg group
104 NB<1500g in Fluconazol 3mg/kg group 
Colonization
Placebo×Fluconazol (3 and 6mg/kg)
IC
Placebo×Fluconazol (3 and 6mg/kg)
Overall mortality 
p<0.001
p=0.001
p=
RR – 0.30
(95% CI 0.18–0.51)
RR=0.25
(95% CI 0.10–0.59)
RR=0.88
(95% CI 0.10–0.59) 
A-I 
Parikh TB et al.30  2007  Clinical trial randomized, blinded, placebo controlled  60 NB<1500g in placebo group
60 NB<1500g in prophylaxis group 
Colonization
IC
Mortality 
p=0.003
p=0.835
p=
30 (50%) in placebo group and 11 (19%) in fluconazole group
15 (25%) in placebo group and 16(26.7%) in fluconazole group
17 in placebo group
17 in fluconazole group 
B-I 
Weitkamp J-H et al.23  2008  Comparative study, pre and post exposure  44 NB<750g or<26 GA – no prophylaxis
42 NB<750g or<26 weeks of GA in Prophylaxis 
IC  p=0.004  9 cases in 44 infants (20%)
No cases in 42 infants 
B-II 
Healy CM et al.24  2008  Comparative study, pre and post exposure  3012 NB – no prophylaxis
6393 NB:
47 NB1.000g+262 NB<1000g in prophylaxis
(2002–2006) 
CI
IC associated Mortality
Overall mortality 
p=0.05
p=0.004
p=0.13 
19 IC in pre prophylaxis group (0.6%) and 22 IC in pos-prophylaxis group (0.3%)
4 (21%) in pre prophylaxis group and none in pos prophylaxis group
19% (40 of 206 NB) to 15% (65 of 448 NB) 
B-II 
Rueda K et al.25  2010  Comparative study, pre and post exposure  271 NB<1250g – no prophylaxis
252 RN<1250g in prophylaxis 
IC
Overall Mortality
IC associated Mortality 
p=0.001
p<0.05
p>0.05 
OR=0.13 (95% CI 0.03–0.47)
6%×1%
76%×67% 
A-II 
Rolnitsky A et al.27  2012  Retrospective cohort with historical controls  130 RN<1000g, or risk factors – Fluconazol prophylaxis
319 historical controls with no prophylaxis 
IC  p=0.016  OR=0.05
(95% CI 0.005–0.52) 
A-II 
Benjamin Jr DK et al.31  2014  Multicentric clinical trial randomized, blinded, placebo controlled  188 RN<750g in Fluconazol prophylaxis
173 RN<750g in placebo 
IC<49 days
IC before discharge
Mortality<49 days
Mortality before discharge
Neurodevelopmental impairment 
p=0.02
p=0.02
p=0.98
p=0.84
p=0.60 
Difference −6 (CI 95% −11 to −1)
Difference −7 (CI 95% −12 to −1)
Difference 0 (CI 95% −7 to −7)
Difference −1 (CI 95% −9 to 7)
Difference 4 (CI 95% −10 to 17) 
A-I 
Cetinkaya M et al.28  2014  Cohort – pre-post intervention  Prophylaxis: 90 NB<1.000g
No prophylaxis: 107 NB<1.000
IC  p=0.03  Prophylaxis: none IC
Control: 5 (4.7%) IC 
A-II 
Kaufman D et al.26  2014  Multicenter case–control  Casos 127 RN<1250g receberam fluconazol
Controls; 399 RN<1250g sem profilaxia 
IC
Candida Bloodstream Infection 
p=0.006
p=0.02 
1 (0.8%) of 127 NB
29 (7.3%) of 399 NB
1 (0.8%) of 127 NB
22 (5.5%) of 399 NB 
A-II 

NB, newborn; GA, gestational age; IC, invasive candidiasis; RR, relative risk; OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.

Five studies were only described as comparative, considering pre- and post-exposure periods.21–25 Studies defined as case–control and cohort26–28 were based on historical controls, comparing neonates who were admitted to the NICU in periods before and after implementation of prophylaxis with fluconazole for IC.

Of four clinical trials, three used a fixed dose of fluconazole with a placebo group29–31 and one evaluated two distinct doses of Fluconazole (6mg/kg and 3mg/kg) compared to placebo.32

The event IC was examined in all the 12 studies. In 11 of them, there was a statistically significant difference, with lower rates in groups receiving prophylactic fluconazole for IC, compared to placebo or no drug groups. The randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study conducted by Parikh et al., 2007,30 found no difference between the incidence of IC between intervention and placebo groups.

The outcome colonization by Candida species in several body sites (skin, nasopharynx, periumbilical region, perineum, gastric aspirate, endotracheal secretion) was evaluated in five studies. Three randomized clinical trials29,30,32 and a comparative study22 found a statistically significant difference between colonization in at least one site searched among the groups, with lower incidence of Candida colonization in the Fluconazole group.

Overall mortality and mortality associated to IC were assessed as an endpoint in six studies: four comparative studies with pre-prophylaxis period and fluconazole prophylaxis period,21,22,24,25 and two trials comparing Fluconazole to placebo.29,31 In only one these studies,24 there was a significant reduction in deaths associated to IC, with 21% mortality in the pre-prophylaxis group versus no deaths in the post-prophylaxis group. Only one clinical trial31 conducted by Benjamin et al. evaluated neurodevelopment at 18–22 months of age in the infants who were randomized to use prophylactic fluconazole or placebo. The authors concluded that the use of Fluconazole did not impair the neurodevelopment of these neonates.

Discussion

The incidence of IC in different studies and literature reports varies widely ranging between 2 and 4% in neonates with birth weight lower than 1500g (VLBW) to 10–16% in those below 1000g (ELBW).1,2,33 However, some studies showed higher incidences of IC: two studies included VLBW newborns and found an incidence rate of 13.2%32 and 16.7%22 before the prophylactic intervention with fluconazole. Two other studies with ELBW (<1000g) newborns showed an incidence around 20% of IC in groups without prophylaxis.23,29

Two trials were performed at a single center and the number of neonates randomized in each group was small, with 50 or 60 neonates allocated in each group.29,30 But there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics of the groups, and this did not cause selection bias in the statistical analysis.

Some studies did not show effect measures in their results, not describing relative risks, odds ratio or confidence interval between intervention and placebo or control groups.23,24,26,28,30 However, four of them presented statistical significance in reducing IC.

The studies have limitations that should be taken into account when evaluating and generalizing their results. However, the high incidence of complications associated with IC in premature infants, including neurodevelopmental impairment, supports the importance of preventive measures, including the use of prophylactic fluconazole.16

Another study not included in this review evaluated different intervals of fluconazole doses. Kaufman et al.34 evaluated 3mg/kg of fluconazole administered daily or twice a week. The author found no difference in the incidence of IFD between daily and twice a week dose groups.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)35 states that prophylaxis for IC with fluconazole can be considered to VLBW newborns in NICU with rates of candidiasis higher than 10% (AI), based on placebo controlled randomized trials.29,32 It is also recommended that resistance to antifungal agents, toxicity associated to fluconazole, and assessments of neurological development of newborns should be observed (A-III), since there are no studies that have adequately assessed the effects of long-term use of prophylactic fluconazole. Authors do not specify how long such monitoring should be.19,35

In Europe, the Spanish Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases recommends the use of prophylactic fluconazole at a dose of 3mg/kg, twice a week, throughout the period of risk in preterm infants of VLBW in NICU with incidence of IC greater than 10%,17 based on randomized clinical trials32 and recommendations of Concise Reviews of Pediatric Infectious Diseases.36

Subsequently, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases15 recommended antifungal prophylaxis in neonates as AI evidence, considering risk stratification strategy: (a) in NICU with high frequency IC (>5%), fluconazole 3–6mg/kg twice a week, intravenous or orally, is indicated to all infants with birth weight lower than 1000g, based on six systematic reviews and meta-analyses;37–43 (b) in NICU with incidence rate lower than 2%, the decision to use prophylaxis with fluconazole should be made individually (e.g. infants<1000g, with risk factors for IC as central venous catheter, use of third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems) as evidence B-II.

Although none of the studies examined in this review has been carried out in Latin America, the recommendations of Latin America Invasive Mycosis Network,16 published in 2013, indicate prophylaxis with fluconazole 3mg/kg, twice a week, for six weeks, in neonates of ELBW (<1000g) who are in NICU with high incidence of IC (greater than or equal to 5%). When the incidence is lower than 5%, the use of prophylactic fluconazole may be considered, according to the risk factors of each newborn.

Conclusion

The studies included in this review present the effectiveness of prophylaxis of IC with fluconazole, with significant reduction in the incidence of colonization by Candida species and IC. The potential benefits of antifungal prophylaxis should be evaluated considering cost-effectiveness, efficacy of prophylaxis, and incidence of candidiasis and mortality associated with candidiasis at the NICU. Safety and toxicity of the drug at short and long-term and the potential for development of resistant pathogens should also be taken into account.

Funding

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)/Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Hospital Sofia Feldman – Belo Horizonte/MG – Brasil.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1
B.A. McCrossan,E. McHenry,F. O’Neill,G. Ong,D.G. Sweet
Selective fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk babies to reduce invasive fungal infection
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 92 (2007), pp. F454-F458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006.094359
2
P. Manzoni,D. Farina,M. Leonessa
Risk factors for progression to invasive fungal infection in preterm neonates with fungal colonization
Pediatrics, 118 (2006), pp. 2359-2364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1311
3
R.G. Greenberg,D.K. Benjamin Jr.
Neonatal candidiasis: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment
4
M.S. Kelly,D.K. Benjamin Jr.,P.B. Smith
The epidemiology and diagnosis of invasive candidiasis among premature infants
Clin Perinatol, 42 (2015), pp. 105-117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2014.10.008
viii–ix
5
E.C. Pinhat,M.G. Borba,M.L. Ferreira
Fungal colonization in newborn babies of very low birth weight: a cohort study
J Pediatr (Rio J), 88 (2012), pp. 211-216
6
D.K. Benjamin Jr.,B.J. Stoll,M.G. Gantz
Neonatal candidiasis: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical judgment
Pediatrics, 126 (2010), pp. e865-e873 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3412
7
P. Ghazal,P. Dickinson,C.L. Smith
Early life response to infection
Curr Opin Infect Dis, 26 (2013), pp. 213-218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0b013e32835fb8bf
8
M.T. Brady
Health care-associated infections in the neonatal intensive care unit
Am J Infect Control, 33 (2005), pp. 268-275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.006
9
G. Izquierdo,M.E. Santolaya
Invasive candidiasis in newborns: diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis
Rev Chilena Infectol, 31 (2014), pp. 73-83 http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0716-10182014000100011
10
J.L. Wynn,D.K. Benjamin Jr.,D.K. Benjamin,M. Cohen-Wolkowiez,R.H. Clark,P.B. Smith
Very late onset infections in the neonatal intensive care unit
11
D.K. Benjamin Jr.,B.J. Stoll,A.A. Fanaroff
Neonatal candidiasis among extremely low birth weight infants: risk factors, mortality rates, and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months
Pediatrics, 117 (2006), pp. 84-92 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2292
12
I. Adams-Chapman,C.M. Bann,A. Das
Neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely low birth weight infants with Candida infection
961–967.e3
13
C.C. Blyth,S.C. Chen,M.A. Slavin
Not just little adults: candidemia epidemiology, molecular characterization, and antifungal susceptibility in neonatal and pediatric patients
Pediatrics, 123 (2009), pp. 1360-1368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-2055
14
M.E. Santolaya,T. Alvarado,F. Queiroz-Telles
Active surveillance of candidemia in children from Latin America: a key requirement for improving disease outcome
Pediatr Infect Dis J, 33 (2014), pp. e40-e44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000000039
15
W.W. Hope,E. Castagnola,A.H. Groll
ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: prevention and management of invasive infections in neonates and children caused by Candida spp.
Clin Microbiol Infect, 18 (2012), pp. 38-52 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12040
16
M.E. Santolaya,T. Alvarado Matute,F. de Queiroz Telles
Recommendations for the management of candidemia in neonates in Latin America. Grupo Proyecto Epico
Rev Iberoam Micol, 30 (2013), pp. 158-170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riam.2013.06.002
17
C. Figueras,C. Diaz de Heredia,J.J. Garcia
The Spanish Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases (SEIP) recommendations on the diagnosis and management of invasive candidiasis
An Pediatr (Barc), 74 (2011),
337.e1–e17
18
P.G. Pappas,C.A. Kauffman,D.R. Andes
Clinical practice guideline for the management of Candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Clin Infect Dis, 62 (2016), pp. e1-e50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ933
19
Red Book – Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,
20
M.H. Murad,V.M. Montori,J.P.A. Ioannidis
How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care. Users’ guides to the medical literature
21
S. Uko,L.M. Soghier,M. Vega
Targeted short-term fluconazole prophylaxis among very low birth weight and extremely low birth weight infants
Pediatrics, 117 (2006), pp. 1243-1252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1969
22
P. Manzoni,R. Arisio,M. Mostert
Prophylactic fluconazole is effective in preventing fungal colonization and fungal systemic infections in preterm neonates: a single-center, 6-year, retrospective cohort study
Pediatrics, 117 (2006), pp. e22-e32 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2227
23
J.H. Weitkamp,A. Ozdas,B. LaFleur,A.L. Potts
Fluconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive fungal infections in targeted highest risk preterm infants limits drug exposure
J Perinatol, 28 (2008), pp. 405-411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211914
24
C.M. Healy,J.R. Campbell,E. Zaccaria,C.J. Baker
Fluconazole prophylaxis in extremely low birth weight neonates reduces invasive candidiasis mortality rates without emergence of fluconazole resistant Candida species
Pediatrics, 121 (2008), pp. 703-710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1130
25
K. Rueda,M.T. Moreno,M. Espinosa,X. Saez-Llorens
Impact of routine fluconazole prophylaxis for premature infants with birth weights of less than 1250 grams in a developing country
Pediatr Infect Dis J, 29 (2010), pp. 1050-1052 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e3181e9dea2
26
D.A. Kaufman,A. Morris,M.J. Gurka,B. Kapik,S. Hetherington
Fluconazole prophylaxis in preterm infants: a multicenter case–controlled analysis of efficacy and safety
Early Hum Dev, 90 (2014), pp. S87-S90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3782(14)70026-X
27
A. Rolnitsky,I. Levy,L. Sirota,I. Shalit,G. Klinger
Targeted fluconazole prophylaxis for high-risk very low birth weight infants
Eur J Pediatr, 171 (2012), pp. 1481-1487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-012-1760-2
28
M. Cetinkaya,T.E. Ercan,O.K. Saglam,G. Buyukkale,S. Kavuncuoglu,F. Mete
Efficacy of prophylactic fluconazole therapy in decreasing the incidence of Candida infections in extremely low birth weight preterm infants
Am J Perinatol, 31 (2014), pp. 1043-1048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371358
29
D. Kaufman,R. Boyle,K.C. Hazen,J.T. Patrie,M. Robinson,L.G. Donowitz
Fluconazole prophylaxis against fungal colonization and infection in preterm infants
N Engl J Med, 345 (2001), pp. 1660-1666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010494
30
T.B. Parikh,R.N. Nanavati,C.V. Patankar
Fluconazole prophylaxis against fungal colonization and invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants
Indian Pediatr, 44 (2007), pp. 830-837
31
D.K. Benjamin Jr.,M.L. Hudak,S. Duara
Effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on candidiasis and mortality in premature infants: a randomized clinical trial
32
P. Manzoni,I. Stolfi,L. Pugni
A multicenter, randomized trial of prophylactic fluconazole in preterm neonates
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 2483-2495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa065733
33
R.G. Greenberg,D.K. Benjamin Jr.
Neonatal candidiasis: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment
34
D. Kaufman,R. Boyle,K.C. Hazen,J.T. Patrie,M. Robinson,L.B. Grossman
Twice weekly fluconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive Candida infection in high-risk infants of <1000 grams birth weight
J Pediatr, 147 (2005), pp. 172-179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.03.036
35
P.G. Pappas,C.A. Kauffman,D. Andes
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Clin Infect Dis, 62 (2015), pp. e1-e50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ933
36
C.M. Healy,C.J. Baker
Fluconazole prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care unit
Pediatr Infect Dis J, 28 (2009), pp. 49-52 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e31819693ac
37
N. Austin,B.A. Darlow,W. McGuire
Prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents to prevent invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2009), pp. CD003478
38
L. Clerihew,N. Austin,W. McGuire
Prophylactic systemic antifungal agents to prevent mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2007), pp. CD003850
39
L. Clerihew,N. Austin,W. McGuire
Systemic antifungal prophylaxis for very low birthweight infants: a systematic review
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 93 (2008), pp. F198-F200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.121962
40
W. McGuire,L. Clerihew,N. Austin
Prophylactic intravenous antifungal agents to prevent mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2004), pp. CD003850
41
P. Mohan,O. Eddama,L.E. Weisman
Patient isolation measures for infants with candida colonization or infection for preventing or reducing transmission of candida in neonatal units
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2007), pp. CD006068
42
J.P. Zhang,C. Chen
Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of fluconazole in prophylaxis of fungal infection in very low birth weight infants
Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi, 47 (2009), pp. 743-891
43
N. Tripathi,K. Watt,D.K. Benjanin Jr.
Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis
Semin Perinatol, 36 (2012), pp. 416-423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2012.06.003
Corresponding author. (Juliana Ferreira da Silva Rios juriosalvim@yahoo.com.br)
Copyright © 2017. Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia
Braz J Infect Dis 2017;21:333-8 - Vol. 21 Num.3 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2017.01.008