Biomedical subjects

Riina Rautemaa-Richardson

Publications and source records attributed to Riina Rautemaa-Richardson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

A full review of online education resources available on antifungal stewardship.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antifungal resistance represents an increasing global threat, driven by the rising burden of fungal disease. Antifungal stewardship (AFS) is a critical component of broader antimicrobial resistance (AMR) efforts, but education in this area remains less established than antibacterial stewardship initiatives. The scope and characteristics of the current landscape of online AFS resources have not yet been systematically described. To identify and evaluate online educational resources focused on fungal disease management and AFS, and assess their accessibility, format, educational design and implementation focus. METHODS: A structured search of internet search engines, distribution platforms and organizational websites was conducted to identify English-language web-based resources related to fungal disease management and stewardship. Resources were evaluated using predefined criteria including access model, format, length, educational design, interactivity and AFS content. An overall educational value score (1-10) was assigned. RESULTS: Twenty-three educational resources were identified. Most were delivered as online unfacilitated courses (11, 48%) and were short (<4 h) (12, 52%). Most focused on guidelines and syndromic management (18, 78%) and targeted doctors and/or nurses/midwives (22, 96%). Limited interactivity was reported in nine (39%) courses. Five courses (22%) had either a substantial or comprehensive focus on AFS. CONCLUSIONS: Online AFS educational resources are available and support awareness and knowledge development. However, they remain relatively few in number. Greater emphasis on implementation-focused learning, behaviour change components and broader global representation may enhance their impact.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Diagnostic performance of panfungal PCR on tissue specimens for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Fungal PCR Initiative (FPCRI).

UNLABELLED: Invasive fungal diseases are difficult to diagnose because of the limited sensitivity of culture. Panfungal PCR amplicon sequencing assays (targeting ribosomal RNA, such as 18S, 28S, ITS) are recommended for fungal identification in histopathology samples showing fungal elements. However, data describing its overall performance and consistency are lacking. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis assessed the performance of panfungal PCR on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and non-fixed (fresh or frozen) tissue samples. A systematic literature search was performed to include studies reporting the use of panfungal PCR for fungal identification in FFPE or non-fixed tissue samples. PCR sensitivity and specificity were assessed using the reference standard of histopathology showing fungal elements. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. Twenty-eight studies were included. In FFPE samples (18 studies, 852 samples), sensitivity and specificity were 75.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.2-86.6) and 93.5% (70.2-98.9), respectively. Sensitivity in non-fixed samples (13 studies, 207 samples) was 86.5% (74.7-93.3), while specificity could not be assessed (insufficient data). Comparative analyses showed a significantly higher sensitivity of panfungal PCR over culture (88.2%; 76-94.7 vs 52.2%; 39-65, P = 0.001). Sub-analyses could not demonstrate the superiority of one PCR target over another due to limited data. Panfungal PCR exhibited adequate sensitivity and good specificity in FFPE samples. Sensitivity was even higher in non-fixed samples and largely superior to culture. Nevertheless, large interstudy variability was observed, warranting interlaboratory studies to define the optimal PCR target and standardized protocols. IMPORTANCE: Invasive fungal diseases are difficult to diagnose because of the low sensitivity of culture. Panfungal PCRs are widely used for fungal identification in tissue specimens but suffer from heterogeneous procedures and performance. This meta-analysis shows an acceptable sensitivity (75.4% and 86.5% in fixed and non-fixed samples, respectively) and good specificity (93.5%) of panfungal PCR, supporting its use, not only on histopathology-positive fixed samples but also in non-fixed samples concomitantly with other diagnostic tools (cultures and fungal-specific PCRs if available). These results provide a strong basis for further standardization of panfungal PCR techniques via interlaboratory assays to assess reproducibility and optimize analytical protocols. CLINICAL TRIALS: This study is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42023461148.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of candidiasis: an initiative of the ECMM in cooperation with ISHAM and ASM.

Candida species are the predominant cause of fungal infections in patients treated in hospital, contributing substantially to morbidity and mortality. Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis primarily affect patients who are immunocompromised or critically ill. In contrast, mucocutaneous forms of candidiasis, such as oral thrush and vulvovaginal candidiasis, can occur in otherwise healthy individuals. Although mucocutaneous candidiasis is generally not life-threatening, it can cause considerable discomfort, recurrent infections, and complications, particularly in patients with underlying conditions such as diabetes or in those taking immunosuppressive therapies. The rise of difficult-to-treat Candida infections is driven by new host factors and antifungal resistance. Pathogens, such as Candida auris (Candidozyma auris) and fluconazole-resistant Candida parapsilosis, pose serious global health risks. Recent taxonomic revisions have reclassified several Candida spp, potentially causing confusion in clinical practice. Current management guidelines are limited in scope, with poor coverage of emerging pathogens and new treatment options. In this Review, we provide updated recommendations for managing Candida infections, with detailed evidence summaries available in the appendix.

Humans↗