Search

Background: Limited data exist regarding outcomes of cryptococcosis in patients without HIV with few studies having compared outcomes of Cryptococcus gattii, versus C. neoformans, infection., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in 46 Australian and New Zealand hospitals to determine the outcomes of cryptococcosis in patients without HIV diagnosed between 2015 and 2019, and compared outcomes of C. gattii versus C. neoformans infections. Multivariable analysis identified predictors of mortality within one year., Results: Of 426 patients, one-year all-cause mortality was 21%. C. gattii infection was associated with a lower mortality than C. neoformans (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.95), whilst severe neurological symptoms at presentation was the strongest predictor of death (adjusted OR: 8.46, 95% CI: 2.99-23.98). Almost all (99.5%) patients with central nervous system (CNS) infection received induction antifungal therapy versus 27.7% of isolated pulmonary cryptococcosis. The commonest regimen in CNS disease was liposomal amphotericin B with flucytosine (93.8%, mean duration 31 ± 13 days). Among patients with CNS cryptococcosis, C. gattii infection was associated with higher risk of immune reconstitution inflammatory response (C-IRIS) than C. neoformans (21% versus 3%, p<0.001). Nineteen patients received amphotericin B-based re-induction therapy for suspected relapse but none had microbiological relapse. Serum cryptococcal antigen positivity and lung imaging abnormalities resolved slowly (resolution at one year in 25% and 34% of patients, respectively)., Conclusion: Compared with C. neoformans, C. gattii infection demonstrated lower mortality but higher C-IRIS risk in CNS infection. Severe neurological symptoms were the strongest predictor of mortality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Patients without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are increasingly recognized as being at risk for cryptococcosis. Knowledge of characteristics of cryptococcosis in these patients remains incomplete., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of cryptococcosis in 46 Australian and New Zealand hospitals to compare its frequency in patients with and without HIV and describe its characteristics in patients without HIV. Patients with cryptococcosis between January 2015 and December 2019 were included., Results: Of 475 patients with cryptococcosis, 90% were without HIV (426 of 475) with marked predominance in both Cryptococcus neoformans (88.7%) and Cryptococcus gattii cases (94.3%). Most patients without HIV (60.8%) had a known immunocompromising condition: cancer (n = 91), organ transplantation (n = 81), or other immunocompromising condition (n = 97). Cryptococcosis presented as incidental imaging findings in 16.4% of patients (70 of 426). The serum cryptococcal antigen test was positive in 85.1% of tested patients (319 of 375); high titers independently predicted risk of central nervous system involvement. Lumbar puncture was performed in 167 patients to screen for asymptomatic meningitis, with a positivity rate of 13.2% where meningitis could have been predicted by a high serum cryptococcal antigen titer and/or fungemia in 95% of evaluable cases. One-year all-cause mortality was 20.9% in patients without HIV and 21.7% in patients with HIV (P = .89)., Conclusions: Ninety percent of cryptococcosis cases occurred in patients without HIV (89% and 94% for C. neoformans and C. gattii, respectively). Emerging patient risk groups were evident. A high level of awareness is warranted to diagnose cryptococcosis in patients without HIV., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . T. S. has received consulting fees for serving on advisory boards and steering committees from Biogen. O. M. has received grants from Gilead Sciences and Merck, Sharp and Dohme Australia and honoraria from Gilead Sciences; support for attending meetings from F2G; and participated on data and safety monitoring boards (DSMB) or advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Merck, Sharp and Dohme Australia. K. J. K. has received payment for expert testimony at the 46th Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia National Conference. A. R. T. has received honoraria from the Medical Journal of Australia, paid to institution, and reports grants or contracts from CTRA with the University of Melbourne (reimbursement of costs paid to institution). B. W. T. is supported by a Medical Research Future Fund Investigator Fellowship; has received grants from MSD and Seqirus; has received honoraria from Pfizer, Alexion, and Janssen; and participated on DSMBs or advisory boards for CSL­Behring, Takeda, and Moderna. S. C. A. C. has received educational grants from F2G and MSD Australia; reports untied educational grants from MSD Australia and F2G Pty Ltd; and reports a role as editor-in-chief for Medical Mycology (journal of ISHAM). M. A. S. has received grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and F2G; has received honoraria from F2G; and participated on DSMBs or advisory boards for Pfizer, Cidara, and Roche. R. J. L. reports paid participation on a GSK advisory board. S. A. L. reports grants or contracts as principal investigator on 3 projects funded through a Hot North fund grant and a UK Government Fleming Fund Grant (as part of broader funding for the Menzies School of Health Research; no salary, project costs remunerated only); unpaid participation on a DSMB or advisory board for the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences roundtable of experts for the House of Representatives Committee on Health and Ageing; and an unpaid role as a National Tuberculosis Advisory Committee member. M. T. B. reports an unpaid role as an Advanced Training Committee member for General Medicine for the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and an unpaid member of the Vocational Training Committee for Medical Registrars in the Auckland region for the Northern Region Alliance. C. L. K. reports an unpaid role on the Australian Society of Infectious Diseases Board of Directors. E. W. reports a role as a committee member of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases Equity and Diversity Committee (unpaid). K. C. G. reports a role as a member of the New Zealand Committee of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Successful solid organ transplantation reflects meticulous attention to the details of immunosuppression, balancing risks for graft rejection against risks for infection. The "net state of immune suppression" is a conceptual framework of all factors contributing to infectious risk. Assays that measure immune function in the immunosuppressed transplant recipient relative to infectious risk and allograft function are lacking. The best measures of integrated immune function may be quantitative viral loads to assess the individual's ability to control latent viral infections. Few studies address adjustment of immunosuppression during active infections; thus, confronted with infection in solid organ recipients, the management of immunosuppression is based largely on clinical experience. This review examines known measures of immune function and the immunologic effects of common immunosuppressive drugs and available studies reporting modification of drug regimens for specific infections. These data provide a conceptual framework for the management of immunosuppression during infection in organ recipients., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)