Effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on Candida fluconazole susceptibility in premature infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Extremely premature infants are at high risk of developing invasive candidiasis; fluconazole prophylaxis is safe and effective for reducing invasive candidiasis in this population but further study is needed. We sought to better understand the effect of prophylactic fluconazole on a selection of fluconazole-resistant Candida species. Methods: We evaluated the susceptibility to fluconazole of Candida isolates from premature infants (<750 g birth weight) enrolled in a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole prophylaxis. Candida species were isolated through surveillance cultures at baseline (study day 0-7), period 1 (study day 8-28) and period 2 (study day 29-49). Fluconazole MICs were determined for all Candida isolates. Results: Three hundred and sixty-one infants received fluconazole (n = 188) or placebo (n = 173). After the baseline period, Candida colonization was significantly lower in the fluconazole group compared with placebo during periods 1 (5% versus 27%; P < 0.001) and 2 (3% versus 27%; P < 0.001). After the baseline period, two infants (1%) were colonized with at least one fluconazole-resistant Candida in each group. Median fluconazole MIC was similar in both treatment groups at baseline and period 1. However, in period 2, median MIC was higher in the fluconazole group compared with placebo (1.00 versus 0.50 mg/L, P = 0.01). There was no emergence of resistance observed and no patients developed invasive candidiasis with a resistant Candida isolate. Conclusions: Fluconazole prophylaxis decreased Candida albicans and 'non-albicans' Candida colonization and was associated with a slightly higher fluconazole MIC for colonizing Candida isolates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".