Skip to main content
Open Forum Infectious Diseases logoLink to Open Forum Infectious Diseases
. 2025 Feb 24;12(4):ofaf107. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaf107

Fungal Infections in People Who Use Drugs

Jose Portugal Gonzales 1,✉,2, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner 2,
PMCID: PMC12001337  PMID: 40242074

Abstract

Illicit drug use in the United States continues to rise, alongside an increasing number of severe infections associated with drug use. Surveillance studies report that 28%–34% of candidemia cases are linked to intravenous drug use, with Candida albicans being the most commonly isolated species, followed by Candida parapsilosis and Candida glabrata. Marijuana use is associated with lung infections caused by Aspergillus and the Mucorales, showing a 3.5-fold increased risk of mold infections and a 2.2-fold increased risk for other fungal infections. Intravenous drug use also presents a recognized risk factor for Aspergillus and Mucorales infections. Additionally, substances like cannabis, methamphetamines, and opioids share metabolic pathways with triazoles, a class of antifungal, and terbinafine through the CYP enzyme system. These antifungal drugs strongly inhibit CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, leading to potential drug interactions, adverse effects, overdose risks, and even death.

Keywords: comprehensive review, drug interactions, invasive fungal infections, invasive mycosis, people who use drugs


People who use drugs face a higher risk of invasive fungal diseases, regardless of traditional risk factors. The incidence of invasive fungal disease in this population is rising. The most common fungal infections are invasive candidiasis and mold infections.


Worldwide, 292 million people used drugs in 2022, according to the 2024 World Drug Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, marking a 10% increase over the past decade. Of these, 228 million people used cannabis, followed by 60 million using opioids, 30 million using amphetamines, 23.5 million using cocaine, and 20 million using ecstasy. Injection drug use was reported in 13.9 million people [1].

In the United States, the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for 2023 showed that the number of people who reported using illicit drugs in the month before being surveyed increased from 40 million (14.3%) in 2021 to 46.6 million (16.5%) in 2022 and to 47.7 million (16.8%) in 2023 [2–4].

Opioids have the largest contribution to the burden of disease among controlled substance users worldwide [5]. In the United States, opioid-related death rates have increased from 1 to 10.4/100 000 people (age-adjusted), an increase of 1040% from 2013 to 2019 [6].

The COVID-19 pandemic saw an increase in the number of drug overdoses according, to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 107 622 drug overdose deaths were reported in the United States in 2021, an increase of nearly 15% compared to 2020. Overdose deaths involving opioids rose from an estimated 70 029 in 2020 to 80 816 in 2021 [7]. Following a decline during the pandemic years, the use of stimulants, such as cocaine and ecstasy, has increased in the postpandemic years [1].

The disease burden attributed to substance use was estimated to be 1.5% of the global disease burden, according to the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries and Risk Factors 2016 study [8]. Bloodborne viral pathogens, such as hepatitis C and HIV, have been linked to intravenous drug use (IDU) [9]. Bacterial and fungal infectious syndromes also present concern in people who use drugs. The proportion of invasive infections caused by Candida species has increased in recent years [10], and the number of hospital admissions related to invasive fungal infections has risen [11]. However, the exact number of these infections is unknown [12], this may be in part because the current European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycosis Study Group Education and Research Consortium criteria [13] do not include illicit drug use in their definitions.

This article will review the literature and epidemiologic data on fungal infections in people who use drugs (PWUD), focusing on the most common fungal infections associated with commonly used illicit drugs, including cannabis, opioids, cocaine, and ecstasy.

INVASIVE CANDIDIASIS

Invasive candidiasis refers to infections caused by yeast of the Candida species and is one of the most common opportunistic fungal infections worldwide [14]. The spectrum of invasive candidiasis ranges from bloodstream infections (candidemia) to osteomyelitis, arthritis, endophthalmitis, and intraabdominal infections, with candidemia being the most frequent presentation [15].

Candidemia is one of the most common causes of bloodstream infections in the United States [16], with an estimated 23 000 cases occurring each year [17]. The Candida species most commonly responsible for candidemia, accounting for 9% of cases, are C albicans, Nakaseomyces glabratus (formerly C glabrata), C parapsilosis, C tropicalis, and Pichia kudriavzevii (formerly C krusei), in order of frequency [18]. However, a 2018 study by Poowanawittayakom et al. reported a higher incidence of non-C albicans species among intravenous drug users compared to nonintravenous drug users in their cohort [10].

The gastrointestinal tract is considered the most common source of infection in candidemia, with the skin being a less frequent source [19]. Risk factors associated with invasive candidiasis include critical illness, prolonged admission to an intensive care unit, abdominal surgery, acute necrotizing pancreatitis, hematologic malignancies, solid organ transplantation, solid organ tumors, use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, presence of central vascular catheters, total parenteral nutrition, hemodialysis, glucocorticoid use, chemotherapy-induced mucositis, and multifocal Candida colonization [20]. Intravenous drug use is recognized as an important risk factor for candidemia, especially in community-acquired cases among patients aged 19 to 44 years who lack the previously mentioned risk factors [21].

Population-based active surveillance studies across multiple US states report that 14% to 34.6% of candidemia cases were related to intravenous drug use [21–23], with the latter specifically referring to the age group between 19 and 44 years of age. In the study by Zhang et al, 10% of the cohort with candidemia reported recent intravenous drug use; more importantly, this number increased to 34% in the 19–44 year age group [22]. The median age of candidemia in intravenous drug users is 35 years of age, compared to ∼63 in the non-IDU candidemia [21, 23].

Intravenous drug use–associated candidemia presents as community onset in 60% of cases, and as disseminated disease in up to one third of patients, leading to endophthalmitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and endocarditis [23, 24]. A higher frequency of endocarditis, embolization, osteomyelitis, and central nervous system (CNS) involvement have been reported in IDU-related candidemia compared to non–IDU-related candidemia; however, only endocarditis and osteomyelitis reached statistical significance in a study by Poowanawittayakom et al [10, 23]. Morbidity and mortality associated with end-organ disease are high, with mortality from candidemia in people who inject drugs (PWID) ranging between 8% and 21%, compared to 25%–34% in non-IDU users [10, 23]. The lower mortality rate among PWID is thought to be related to the younger age, and fewer comorbidities found in this patient cohort.

The identification of Candida to the species level is important in cases of invasive candidiasis due to the high diversity of Candida species and the acquired or intrinsic resistance of certain species [15]. Early diagnosis and appropriate empiric antifungal therapy with an echinocandin are crucial and have been associated with decreased mortality [25, 26]. Deescalation to an azole following the susceptibility profile is a strategy that yields favorable results and decreases the financial burden on patients and healthcare facilities by reducing hospital costs and shortening the length of stay. Other agents, such as amphotericin B formulations or azoles, may primarily be preferred in cases of CNS infections or endophthalmitis, where echinocandins have limited penetration [15]. Except for isolated chorioretinitis, the concomitant administration of intravitreal therapy is usually advised [27, 28]. The recommended duration of treatment for uncomplicated candidemia is at least 14 days after the eradication of Candida spp. from the blood and the resolution of symptoms. This duration can extend from 6 to 12 weeks to several months in cases of deep-seated infections [28].

The shift toward a predominance of non-albicans Candida spp. has brought challenges regarding antifungal resistance. Fluconazole resistance rates have been reported at 11%–13% for N glabrata, 2%–6% of C parapsilosis, and 4%–9% of C tropicalis isolate [29, 30]. However, Jenkins et al. published resistance rates as high as 29% for N glabrata [31]. These findings underscore the importance of susceptibility testing for non-albicans isolates but also highlight the issue of prolonged parenteral therapy in PWUD. Treatment options for azole-resistant Candida isolates are limited to echinocandins, a class of antifungals available only for intravenous administration. Peripherally inserted central catheters are required for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT); however, this presents a challenge in this patient population, often resulting in prolonged hospitalizations with an increased risk of hospital-acquired infections, withdrawal symptoms, and patient-directed discharges [32, 33]. Ethical considerations, such as respecting patient autonomy, and avoiding stigmatization of drug abuse, must also be taken into account. Current Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guidelines on OPAT neither recommend nor oppose OPAT-based therapy for PWID but express concern about the potential misuse of vascular devices [34]. A comprehensive review of OPAT in PWUD is beyond the scope of the current article.

INVASIVE ASPERGILLOSIS

Invasive aspergillosis is an opportunistic infection with an attributable mortality rate as high as 80% [35], usually affecting immunocompromised hosts. It most frequently affects the respiratory tract, CNS, and eyes. Risk factors most commonly associated with invasive aspergillosis include periods of neutropenia, solid organ transplantation, hematological malignancy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and prolonged use of steroids or other immunosuppressive agents [36].

Cannabis was categorized as a Schedule 1 controlled substance in 1970 by the United States Controlled Substances Act [37]. Despite this, cannabis remains the most used illicit drug in the United States, according to the most recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration report [4]. In recent years, some states have decriminalized and/or regulated the recreational and medicinal use of cannabis.

Aspergillus spores and hyphal fragments are widespread and exposure is universal. Tobacco and marijuana are commonly contaminated with fungi. Unlike tobacco, marijuana is often smoked without a filter and down to a smaller butt. Cannabis smokers also hold their breath and maintain a Valsalva maneuver, which increases exposure to Aspergillus as well as other fungi such as Fusarium, Rhizopus, and Scedosporium species [38, 39]. Fungal spores in marijuana do not appear to be inactivated during combustion [40].

Although the exact incidence is unknown, Aspergillus and other fungal pathogens can cause serious and often fatal infections in immunocompromised hosts, such as those with cancer, transplant recipients, and people with HIV. People who use cannabis are 3.5 times more likely to have mold infections and 2.2 times more likely to have other fungal infections than people who do not use cannabis [41].

It has been postulated that smoking induces structural and immunological lung damage that confers increased susceptibility to infection [41–43]. However, a 2018 publication focusing on transplant recipients also reported an increase in the number of invasive fungal infections in patients who vaped or consumed cannabis edibles [44]; however, no causal relation could be made due to the nature of the study. Additionally, cannabis oil has also been found to yield mold growth when cultured [45].

Invasive fungal sinusitis is a severe infection, with a mortality rate between 20% and 100% [46–49] depending on underlying comorbidities, with higher rates observed in severely immunocompromised individuals or the presence of CNS involvement. Additional risk factors include diabetes [50, 51], trauma [49], alcoholism [51], living in hot and dry climates [49], farming [52], maxillary tooth extraction [53, 54], marijuana use [52], and intranasal cocaine use [55, 56]. Aspergillus fumigatus is the most common species associated with invasive sinus disease, while A flavus is less common a more severe disease presentation because of toxin production is possible based on prior observations and data from animal models [50, 57]. Symptoms such as facial pain, nasal congestion and/or drainage, and epistaxis [58] usually precede significant radiologic findings, and nasal cultures are often negative [59]. Histopathologic examination of tissue is frequently required to make the diagnosis [49]. Treatment includes thorough surgical debridement and systemic antifungal therapy with voriconazole [60].

Aspergillus endophthalmitis has been reported in the literature, with Aspergillus flavus, A fumigatus, A terreus, and A glaucus being implicated [40]. Hematogenous dissemination of Aspergillus spores, directly inoculated from contaminated drugs or paraphernalia, is thought to be the mechanism involved in the development of endophthalmitis [61]. Patients typically report acute to subacute unilateral vision loss and ocular pain. Findings on physical examination include conjunctival injection, anterior uveitis, vitritis, and chorioretinitis. Unlike Candida spp, cutaneous and costochondral involvement is rarely seen in Aspergillus endophthalmitis cases. Blood cultures have a poor yield in these cases, whereas vitreous cultures demonstrate better performance [40]. Treatment involves a combination of local and systemic antifungal therapy [60].

Although rare, Aspergillus species have also been implicated in cases of endocarditis, with only a few cases reported in the literature [36, 40]. Diagnosis becomes challenging in these cases, as Aspergillus spp. are rarely isolated from blood cultures. Patients tend to present with large vegetations and septic emboli (60%), likely related to late diagnoses [40]. Aspergillus fumigatus, A flavus, and A niger were most frequently isolated [36, 40]. Management requires systemic antifungals and valvular surgery [36, 60]. Mortality, from case reports, was 100% [36, 40].

Osteomyelitis involving the ribs, sternum, and vertebrae caused by Aspergillus spp. has also been described in PWID, with management involving systemic therapy and surgical debridement. Renal involvement, presenting as fungal bezoars, has also been reported in PWID. Treatment in these cases includes systemic and bladder irrigation with amphotericin B [40].

CNS disease resulting from Aspergillus is rare in PWID, but a few publications (5) have reported on this entity. Unlike cases in immunocompromised hosts, who mainly present with parenchymal abscesses and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis showing little to no pleocytosis and negative cultures, PWID frequently have meningeal or ventricular involvement, with CSF profiles showing pleocytosis, low glucose, and isolation of Aspergillus spp. from CSF culture in 75% of cases. Mortality is high, with only 2 of 5 subjects surviving the disease, a 60% mortality rate [40].

Unlike cases of endophthalmitis, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis, no cases of pulmonary Aspergillosis directly related to intravenous drug use have been reported [40].

MUCORMYCOSIS

Mucormycosis is caused by fungi of the order Mucorales, which are ubiquitous in the environment. Mucormycosis can present as rhinocerebral, pulmonary, cutaneous, gastrointestinal, disseminated, and isolated cerebral disease, with each form having different predisposing conditions and prognoses [62]. Known risk factors for developing cutaneous mucormycosis include uncontrolled diabetes, ketoacidosis, hematologic malignancies, organ transplantation, deferoxamine therapy, injection drug use, HIV, malnutrition, trauma, burns, steroid use, and aplastic anemia [63–65]

Primary cutaneous mucormycosis is primarily acquired through direct inoculation and has been described in case reports associated with intravenous drug use [66]. Between 40% and 50% of mucormycosis cases occur in patients without predisposing underlying conditions [67]. It may appear as a single, painful erythematous lesion that can progress to necrosis and ulceration [68] at the inoculation site. Tissue biopsy for histopathology and culture is required for diagnosis, though patients are often treated presumptively. Surgical debridement and systemic antifungals are the mainstays of therapy, with liposomal amphotericin B recommended as the first-line agent [68].

Isolated cerebral mucormycosis presents with disease localized to the CNS (cerebral hemispheres, cerebellum, and brainstem) without extension to the sinuses, cranial bones, or other organ systems. It is commonly due to hematogenous seeding following direct inoculation via the intravenous route. The vast majority of cases have been reported in immunocompetent patients with a history of intravenous drug use. The most frequently reported symptoms are headache, fever, focal weakness, and altered mental status. In a large case series, intravenous drug use was reported in 92% of cases, with most patients having basal ganglia involvement (85.5%). The imaging modality of choice is brain magnetic resonance imaging. Diagnosis requires tissue biopsy for histopathology and culture, although molecular-based methods such as polymerase chain reaction and sequencing have also been reported and used in clinical practice. The treatment of choice is liposomal amphotericin B [62, 69]. The role of combination therapy with other azoles active against Mucorales is still controversial, with no demonstrated benefit in other patient populations [70].

Pulmonary mucormycosis has been described in cannabis smokers with underlying immunosuppressing conditions, such as hematologic malignancy or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus. Marijuana is known to harbor multiple fungal spores, including Mucor, which may survive the drying and curing process [71]. According to a 2017 analysis, medical marijuana samples from 20 dispensaries in California were tested for fungal and bacterial pathogens using 16S, internal spacer gene sequence analysis, and metagenomics; Aspergillus, Cryptococcus, and Mucor were identified, along with several bacterial pathogens [72]. Definitive diagnosis requires tissue biopsy for histopathologic evaluation and culture. Liposomal amphotericin B is the treatment of choice, with aggressive and early surgical intervention if feasible, as this approach has been shown to reduce mortality [73].

Renal involvement in disseminated disease has been described in up to 20% of case [74], but isolated renal disease is limited to case reports. Intravenous inoculation of spores is thought to be responsible for isolated renal disease. HIV, intravenous drug use, and diabetes mellitus are recognized risk factors. Patients present with a pyelonephritis-like syndrome, including flank pain, fever, pyuria, and hematuria. Unilateral involvement is more common, with bilateral involvement associated with a worse prognosis [75, 76]. Evaluation includes urinalysis, urine culture, renal ultrasound, and computed tomography imaging. Imaging findings include an enlarged kidney with loss of normal structure, hypodense regions representing areas of infarction and abscess formation, and perinephric collections [77, 78]. Although imaging can suggest the diagnosis, tissue is required for a definitive diagnosis, with samples sent for histopathologic evaluation and culture. Treatment involves surgical debridement, which may include nephrectomy in some cases, and systemic therapy with amphotericin B.

CRYPTOCOCCOSIS

Risk factors for cryptococcal disease include HIV, organ transplantation, corticosteroid use, hematological malignancies, sarcoidosis, chronic liver disease, and immune modulators such as anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies and other drugs targeting T cells [79, 80].

Cryptococcal meningitis caused by Cryptococcus neoformans in a nonimmunocompromised patient with heavy daily cannabis smoking has been reported, with cannabis suspected by the authors as the source of her exposure to Cryptococcus. The authors analyzed samples from the type of cannabis the patient preferred to buy from her usual dispensary in California and found a small amount of 6 different Cryptococcus species, with 3 of the 9 samples containing C neoformans [81].

Intravenous injection of heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines have been associated with immunosuppression and increased pathogenicity of C neoformans [82–85]. Multiple reports of cryptococcal meningitis associated with intravenous administration of illicit drugs have been published [80, 86, 87].

Management of cryptococcal meningitis includes an induction phase with liposomal amphotericin B at 3–4 mg/kg daily plus flucytosine at 25 mg/kg 4 times per day for a minimum of 2 weeks, followed by consolidation with fluconazole at 400–800 mg daily for 8 weeks, and maintenance with fluconazole at 200 mg daily for 12 months [79].

HISTOPLASMOSIS

Histoplasmosis cases in patients with a history of illicit drug use are mainly limited to case reports from Spain, in patients with concomitant diagnoses of HIV and AIDS. Exposure to endemic areas is the most common risk factor in these reports; however, inhalation of cocaine coming from endemic areas, or the practice of sharing needles (between people exposed to endemic regions and people without exposure) for the administration of intravenous illicit drugs have been postulated as other potential routes of exposure for patients living in nonendemic areas [88–91]. In the United States, an outbreak of histoplasmosis related to the uprooting of cannabis plants in a cannabis field by police officers has been reported [92].

OTHER INVASIVE MYCOSES

To the knowledge of the authors, no cases of blastomycosis, or coccidioidomycosis have been reported in association with the use of illicit drugs. In vitro studies have shown that methamphetamines can affect the phagocytic function of macrophages and cytokine production in mouse lungs, impairing their ability to control histoplasmosis. Mice exposed to methamphetamines showed an increased fungal burden, heightened pulmonary inflammation, and decreased survival [93].

DRUG–DRUG INTERACTIONS INVOLVING ILLICIT DRUGS

Data are limited regarding interactions between illicit drugs and commonly prescribed medications, including antifungals.

The term “cannabinoid” refers to a diverse group of chemical compounds that, regardless of their origin (natural, synthetic, or endogenous), exert effects by binding to cannabinoid receptors in the human body [94]. Potential sites of action for cannabinoids include CB1, CB2, opioid, muscarinic, nicotinic, serotonin, calcium, potassium, sodium, and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, among others, explaining their broad clinical effects [95, 96]. Tetrahydrocannabinol is primarily metabolized by CYP 2C9 and 3A4 enzymes, whereas cannabidiol is primarily metabolized by CYP 2C19 and 3A4. Coadministration of ketoconazole has been shown to increase the maximum concentration and area under the curve of tetrahydrocannabinol by 1.2- and 1.8-fold, respectively, while increasing maximum concentration and area under the curve 2-fold for cannabidiol, supporting a drug interaction involving the CYP 3A4 pathway [97].

Studies have shown that CYP isoenzymes 1A2, 2D1/6, 3A2/4, and 2D6 are involved in various steps of the metabolism of amphetamines and their derivatives [98]. Similarly, the metabolism of opioids primarily involves CYP isoenzymes 3A4 and 2D6 [99]. Antifungals are also metabolized through the CYP system, with isoenzyme 3A4 playing a major role in the metabolism of triazoles and terbinafine [100]. Triazole antifungals are strong inhibitors of CYP 3A4 [99], whereas terbinafine inhibits CYP 2D6 [101].

Studies on pharmacokinetics and drug–drug interactions involving illicit drugs and prescription medications are limited by ethical considerations. Given the common metabolic pathways employed by illicit drugs and some antifungals, inhibition of these pathways by triazoles could lead to increased levels of drugs like methamphetamines and opioids, potentially resulting in undesired effects and overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of people who use drugs increases in the United States and worldwide, so does the number of infectious complications related to drug use, including fungal infections. Injection drug use now accounts for about one third of candidemia cases, with non–C albicans species making up more than half of cases. Fungal spores from various fungal species have been identified in cannabis, putting consumers of these products at increased risk for invasive fungal disease due to Aspergillus spp, Cryptococcus, and Mucorales. Intravenous drug use has also been linked to fungal infections such as candidemia, mucormycosis, aspergillosis, and histoplasmosis. Many illicit drugs and antifungals are metabolized through the CYP 3A4 pathway, creating the potential for drug interactions, adverse effects, overdose risks, and even death.

Contributor Information

Jose Portugal Gonzales, Division of Infectious Diseases, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.

Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, Division of Infectious Diseases, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.

Notes

Author Contributions. J.P.G. conducted the literature search, synthesized the findings, and drafted the manuscript. L.O. provided the article outline, insights into the various disease processes, and feedback during manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial support. J.P.G. and L.O. received no financial support for the authorship of this article.

References

  • 1.UNODC. World drug report 2024. (United Nations Publication; 2024. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2024.html. Accessed 23 October 2024.
  • 2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP22-07-01-005, NSDUH Series H-57). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2022. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annual-national-report. Accessed 5 July 2024.
  • 3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP23-07-01-006, NSDUH Series H-58). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2023. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2022-nsduh-annual-national-report. Accessed 5 July 2024.
  • 4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP24-07-021, NSDUH Series H-59). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2024. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2023-nsduh-annual-national-report. Accessed 23 October 2024.
  • 5. Lee  YK, Gold  MS, Blum  K, Thanos  PK, Hanna  C, Fuehrlein  BS. Opioid use disorder: current trends and potential treatments. Front Public Health  2024; 11:1274719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Mattson  CL. Trends and geographic patterns in drug and synthetic opioid overdose deaths—United States, 2013–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep  2021; 70:202–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. National Center for Health Statistics. U.S. overdose deaths in 2021 increased half as much as in 2020—but are still up 15%. May 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm. Accessed 23 October 2024.
  • 8. Degenhardt  L, Charlson  F, Ferrari  A, et al.  The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Psychiatry  2018; 5:987–1012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious diseases and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD)—policy issues and recommendations. Published online March  2018. Available at: https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/topics-of-interest/opioid/id-and-the-opioid-epidemic-policy-brief_3-19-2018-updated.pdf?_ga=2.193293550.21244946.1521734567-1708005240.1512422793. Accessed 23 October 2024.
  • 10. Poowanawittayakom  N, Dutta  A, Stock  S, Touray  S, Ellison  RT  III, Levitz  SM. Reemergence of intravenous drug use as risk factor for candidemia, Massachusetts, USA. Emerg Infect Dis  2018; 24:631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Ronan  MV, Herzig  SJ. Hospitalizations related to opioid abuse/dependence and associated serious infections from 2002 to 2012. Health Aff (Millwood)  2016; 35:832–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. See  I, Gokhale  RH, Geller  A, et al.  National public health burden estimates of endocarditis and skin and soft-tissue infections related to injection drug use: a review. J Infect Dis  2020; 222(Supplement_5):S429–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Donnelly  JP, Chen  SC, Kauffman  CA, et al.  Revision and update of the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Clin Infect Dis  2020; 71:1367–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Vallabhaneni  S, Mody  RK, Walker  T, Chiller  T. The global burden of fungal diseases. Infect Dis Clin North Am  2016; 30:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Barantsevich  N, Barantsevich  E. Diagnosis and treatment of invasive candidiasis. Antibiotics  2022; 11:718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Magill  SS, O’Leary  E, Janelle  SJ, et al.  Changes in prevalence of health care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med  2018; 379:1732–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Tsay  SV, Mu  Y, Williams  S, et al.  Burden of Candidemia in the United States, 2017. Clin Infect Dis  2020; 71:e449–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Lockhart  SR, Iqbal  N, Cleveland  AA, et al.  Species identification and antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida bloodstream isolates from population-based surveillance studies in two U.S. cities from 2008 to 2011. J Clin Microbiol  2012; 50:3435–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Nucci  M, Anaissie  E. Revisiting the source of candidemia: skin or gut?  Clin Infect Dis  2001; 33:1959–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Kullberg  BJ, Arendrup  MC. Invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med  2015; 373:1445–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Zhang  AY, Shrum  S, Williams  S, et al.  The changing epidemiology of candidemia in the United States: injection drug use as an increasingly common risk factor—active surveillance in selected sites, United States, 2014–2017. Clin Infect Dis  2020; 71:1732–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Toda  M. Population-based active surveillance for culture-confirmed candidemia—four sites, United States, 2012–2016. MMWR Surveill Summ  2019; 68:1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Rossow  JA, Gharpure  R, Brennan  J, et al.  Injection drug use-associated candidemia: incidence, clinical features, and outcomes, east Tennessee, 2014–2018. J Infect Dis  2020; 222(Supplement_5):S442–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Barter  DM. Candida bloodstream infections among persons who inject drugs—Denver Metropolitan area, Colorado, 2017–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep  2019; 68:285–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Garnacho-Montero  J, Díaz-Martín  A, Cantón-Bulnes  L, et al.  Initial antifungal strategy reduces mortality in critically ill patients with candidemia: a propensity score–adjusted analysis of a multicenter study. Crit Care Med  2018; 46:384–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Andes  DR, Safdar  N, Baddley  JW, et al.  Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis  2012; 54:1110–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Patel  TP, Zacks  DN, Dedania  VS. Antimicrobial guide to posterior segment infections. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol  2021; 259:2473–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Pappas  PG, Kauffman  CA, Andes  DR, et al.  Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis  2016; 62:e1–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Cleveland  AA, Farley  MM, Harrison  LH, et al.  Changes in incidence and antifungal drug resistance in candidemia: results from population-based laboratory surveillance in Atlanta and Baltimore, 2008–2011. Clin Infect Dis  2012; 55:1352–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Pfaller  MA, Rhomberg  PR, Messer  SA, Jones  RN, Castanheira  M. Isavuconazole, micafungin, and 8 comparator antifungal agents’ susceptibility profiles for common and uncommon opportunistic fungi collected in 2013: temporal analysis of antifungal drug resistance using CLSI species-specific clinical breakpoints and proposed epidemiological cutoff values. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis  2015; 82:303–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Jenkins  E, Lyman  M, Jackson  B, et al.  Fluconazole resistance in non-albicans Candida species in the United States, 2012–2021. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol  2023; 3(Suppl 2):S29–s30. [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Ceniceros AG, Shridhar N, Fazzari M, et al. Low use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for drug use-associated infective endocarditis in an urban hospital system. Open Forum Infect Dis. Available at:  https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab083/6144608?login=true. Accessed 6 November 2024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 33. Kimmel  SD, Kim  JH, Kalesan  B, Samet  JH, Walley  AY, Larochelle  MR. Against medical advice discharges in injection and non-injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Infect Dis  2020; 73:e2484–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Norris AH, Shrestha NK, Allison GM, et al. 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the management of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/68/1/e1/5175018. Accessed 6 November 2024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 35. Denning  DW. Global incidence and mortality of severe fungal disease. Lancet Infect Dis  2024; 24:e428–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Petrosillo  N, Pellicelli  AM, Cicalini  S, Conte  A, Goletti  D, Palmieri  F. Endocarditis caused by Aspergillus species in injection drug users. Clin Infect Dis  2001; 33:e97–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice. The controlled substances act. Available at: https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/csa. Accessed 28 October 2024.
  • 38. Gargani  Y, Bishop  P, Denning  DW. Too many mouldy joints—marijuana and chronic pulmonary aspergillosis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis  2011; 3:e2011005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Verweij  PE, Kerremans  JJ, Voss  A, Meis  JF. Fungal contamination of tobacco and marijuana. JAMA  2000; 284:2875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Trullas  JC, Bisbe  J, Miro  JM. Aspergillosis in drug addicts. In: Pasqualotto  AC, ed. Aspergillosis: from diagnosis to prevention. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010:545–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Benedict  K, Thompson  GR, Jackson  BR. Cannabis use and fungal infections in a commercially insured population, United States, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis  2020; 26:1308–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Fligiel  SE, Roth  MD, Kleerup  EC, Barsky  SH, Simmons  MS, Tashkin  DP. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana, and/or tobacco. Chest  1997; 112:319–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Tashkin  DP, Coulson  AH, Clark  VA, et al.  Respiratory symptoms and lung function in habitual heavy smokers of marijuana alone, smokers of marijuana and tobacco, smokers of tobacco alone, and nonsmokers. Am Rev Respir Dis  1987; 135:209–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Levi  ME, Montague  BT, Thurstone  C, et al.  Marijuana use in transplantation: a call for clarity. Clin Transplant  2019; 33:e13456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Ruchlemer  R, Amit-Kohn  M, Raveh  D, Hanuš  L. Inhaled medicinal cannabis and the immunocompromised patient. Support Care Cancer  2015; 23:819–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Valera  FCP, do Lago  T, Tamashiro  E, Yassuda  CC, Silveira  F, Anselmo-Lima  WT. Prognosis of acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis related to underlying disease. Int J Infect Dis  2011; 15:e841–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Yağmur  AR, Çufalı  ÖF, Çolak  M, et al.  Invasive fungal rhinosinusitis, clinical manifestations, and prognostic values: as case series audit. Egypt J Otolaryngol  2023; 39:189. [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Kan  VL, Judson  MA, Morrison  VA, et al.  Practice guidelines for diseases caused by Aspergillus. Clin Infect Dis  2000; 30:696–709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Bougioukas  L, Campbell  B, Crooker  K, et al.  Invasive Aspergillus flavus sinusitis in an immunocompetent patient using intranasal cocaine. IDCases  2021; 26:e01327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Stammberger  H, Jakse  R, Beaufort  F. Aspergillosis of the paranasal sinuses: X-ray diagnosis, histopathology, and clinical aspects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol  1984; 93:251–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Tamgadge  AP, Mengi  R, Tamgadge  S, Bhalerao  SS. Chronic invasive aspergillosis of paranasal sinuses: a case report with review of literature. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol  2012; 16:460–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Singhal  SK, Dass  A, Singh  GB, Punia  RPS, Nagarkar  NM. Destructive aspergillosis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg  2005; 57:244–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. De Foer  C, Fossion  E, Vaillant  JM. Sinus aspergillosis. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg  1990; 18:33–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Beck-Mannagetta  J, Necek  D, Grasserbauer  M. Solitary aspergillosis of maxillary sinus, a complication of dental treatment. Lancet  1983; 322:1260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Azulay-Abulafia  L, Sousa  MAJ, Pussanti  A, Coimbra  DD, Vega  H, Bernardes Filho  F. Invasive aspergillosis in a user of inhaled cocaine: rhinosinusitis with bone and cartilage destruction. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop  2014; 47:533–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Pekala  KR, Clavenna  MJ, Shockley  R, Weiss  VL, Turner  JH. Chronic invasive fungal sinusitis associated with intranasal drug use. Laryngoscope  2015; 125:2656–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Pasqualotto  AC. Differences in pathogenicity and clinical syndromes due to Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus flavus. Med Mycol  2009; 47(Supplement_1):S261–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Schwartz  S, Thiel  E. Clinical presentation of invasive aspergillosis. Mycoses  1997; 40(s2):21–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Hartwick  RW, Batsakis  JG. Sinus aspergillosis and allergic fungal sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol  1991; 100:427–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Patterson  TF, Thompson  GR, Denning  DW, et al.  Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis  2016; 63:e1–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Wilmarth  SS, May  DR, Roth  AM, Cole  RJ, Nolan  S, Goldstein  E. Aspergillus endophthalmitis in an intravenous drug user. Ann Ophthalmol  1983; 15:470–2. 74–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Meyerowitz  EA, Sanchez  S, Mansour  MK, Triant  VA, Goldberg  MB. Isolated cerebral mucormycosis in immunocompetent adults who inject drugs: case reports and systematic review of the literature. Open Forum Infect Dis  2020; 7:ofaa552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Roden  MM, Zaoutis  TE, Buchanan  WL, et al.  Epidemiology and outcome of zygomycosis: a review of 929 reported cases. Clin Infect Dis  2005; 41:634–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Skiada  A, Pagano  L, Groll  A, et al.  Zygomycosis in Europe: analysis of 230 cases accrued by the registry of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) Working Group on Zygomycosis between 2005 and 2007. Clin Microbiol Infect  2011; 17:1859–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Skiada  A, Petrikkos  G. Cutaneous zygomycosis. Clin Microbiol Infect  2009; 15(Suppl 5):41–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Adalja  A, Kaka  AS. Necrotic arm lesions in an intravenous drug user. Intern Emerg Med  2010; 5:439–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Castrejón-Pérez  AD, Welsh  EC, Miranda  I, Ocampo-Candiani  J, Welsh  O. Cutaneous mucormycosis. An Bras Dermatol  2017; 92:304–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Beliavsky  A, Krajden  S, Aziz  Z, Scott  JA, Summerbell  R. Cutaneous mucormycosis in the immunocompromised host: an important cause of persistent post traumatic skin lesions. Med Mycol Case Rep  2023; 42:100607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Stave  GM, Heimberger  T, Kerkering  TM. Zygomycosis of the basal ganglia in intravenous drug users. Am J Med  1989; 86:115–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Kyvernitakis  A, Torres  HA, Jiang  Y, Chamilos  G, Lewis  RE, Kontoyiannis  DP. Initial use of combination treatment does not impact survival of 106 patients with haematologic malignancies and mucormycosis: a propensity score analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect  2016; 22:811.e1–e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Stone  T, Henkle  J, Prakash  V. Pulmonary mucormycosis associated with medical marijuana use. Respir Med Case Rep  2019; 26:176–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Thompson  GR, Tuscano  JM, Dennis  M, et al.  A microbiome assessment of medical marijuana. Clin Microbiol Infect  2017; 23:269–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Lee  FYW, Mossad  SB, Adal  KA. Pulmonary mucormycosis: the last 30 years. Arch Intern Med  1999; 159:1301–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Parfrey  NA. Improved diagnosis and prognosis of mucormycosis. A clinicopathologic study of 33 cases. Medicine (Baltimore)  1986; 65:113–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Lussier  N, Laverdière  M, Weiss  K, Poirier  L, Schick  E. Primary renal mucormycosis. Urology  1998; 52:900–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Healey  KD, Phrathep  DD, Anthony  S, Jenkins  MA, Gentchev  L, Rifai  AO. A fatal case of isolated renal mucormycosis in an immunocompetent male. Cureus  2022; 14:e29593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Keogh  CF, Brown  JA, Phillips  P, Cooperberg  PL. Renal mucormycosis in an AIDS patient: imaging features and pathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol  2003; 180:1278–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Chugh  KS, Sakhuja  V, Gupta  KL, et al.  Renal mucormycosis: computerized tomographic findings and their diagnostic significance. Am J Kidney Dis  1993; 22:393–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Chang  CC, Harrison  TS, Bicanic  TA, et al.  Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of cryptococcosis: an initiative of the ECMM and ISHAM in cooperation with the ASM. Lancet Infect Dis  2024; 24:e495–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Shorman  M, Evans  D, Gibson  C, Perfect  J. Cases of disseminated cryptococcosis in intravenous drug abusers without HIV infection: a new risk factor?  Med Mycol Case Rep  2016; 14:17–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Bryan B Shapiro  MD, Hedrick  R, Vanle  BC, et al.  Cryptococcal meningitis in a daily cannabis smoker without evidence of immunodeficiency. BMJ Case Rep  2018; 2018:bcr2017221435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Franchi  S, Moschetti  G, Amodeo  G, Sacerdote  P. Do all opioid drugs share the same immunomodulatory properties? A review from animal and human studies. Front Immunol  2019; 10:2914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Plein  LM, Rittner  HL. Opioids and the immune system—friend or foe. Br J Pharmacol  2018; 175:2717–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Erives  VH, Munzen  ME, Zamith-Miranda  D, et al.  Methamphetamine enhances Cryptococcus neoformans melanization, antifungal resistance, and pathogenesis in a murine model of drug administration and systemic infection. Infect Immun  2022; 90:e00091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Eugenin  EA, Greco  JM, Frases  S, Nosanchuk  JD, Martinez  LR. Methamphetamine alters blood brain barrier protein expression in mice, facilitating central nervous system infection by neurotropic Cryptococcus neoformans. J Infect Dis  2013; 208:699–704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. McCrary  LM, Paulus  R, Melvin  JK, Perfect  J, White  BL. Another case of cryptococcal meningitis in a person without HIV who injects drugs: a possible risk factor in need of further investigation. Med Mycol Case Rep  2022; 36:35–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Polk  C, Meredith  J, Kuprenas  A, Leonard  M. Cryptococcus meningitis mimicking cerebral septic emboli, a case report series demonstrating injection drug use as a risk factor for development of disseminated disease. BMC Infect Dis  2020; 20:381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Benito  N, García Vázquez  E, Blanco  A, et al.  [Disseminated histoplasmosis in AIDS patients. A study of 2 cases and review of the Spanish literature.]  Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin  1998; 16:316–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Terrancle de Juan  I, Mateos Rodríguez  F, Solera Santos  J, Sánchez Hellín  V. Histoplasmosis diseminada en dos hermanos con sida. Rev Clínica Esp  2004; 204:381–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Buitrago  MJ, Cuenca-Estrella  M. Epidemiología actual y diagnóstico de laboratorio de las micosis endémicas en España. Enfermedades Infecc Microbiol Clínica  2012; 30:407–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Freeman  WE, O’Quinn  JL, Lesher  JLJR. Fever and hyperpigmented papules in an intravenous drug abuser. Arch Dermatol  1989; 125:689–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Ramírez  J. Acute pulmonary histoplasmosis: newly recognized hazard of marijuana plant hunters. Am J Med  1990; 88(5N):60N–2N. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Martinez  LR, Mihu  MR, Gácser  A, Santambrogio  L, Nosanchuk  JD. Methamphetamine enhances histoplasmosis by immunosuppression of the host. J Infect Dis  2009; 200:131–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Sheikh  NK, Dua  A. Cannabinoids. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556062/. Accessed 31 October 2024.
  • 95. Pertwee  RG, Howlett  AC, Abood  ME, et al.  International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXIX. Cannabinoid receptors and their ligands: beyond CB1 and CB2. Pharmacol Rev  2010; 62:588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Pertwee  RG. Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Pharmacol Ther  1997; 74:129–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Stout  SM, Cimino  NM. Exogenous cannabinoids as substrates, inhibitors, and inducers of human drug metabolizing enzymes: a systematic review. Drug Metab Rev  2014; 46:86–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Kraemer  T, Maurer  HH. Toxicokinetics of amphetamines: metabolism and toxicokinetic data of designer drugs, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and their N-alkyl derivatives. Ther Drug Monit  2002; 24:277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Smith  HS. Opioid metabolism. Mayo Clin Proc  2009; 84:613–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Brüggemann  RJM, Alffenaar  JWC, Blijlevens  NMA, et al.  Clinical relevance of the pharmacokinetic interactions of azole antifungal drugs with other coadministered agents. Clin Infect Dis  2009; 48:1441–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Vickers  AEM, Sinclair  JR, Zollinger  M, et al.  Multiple cytochrome P-450s involved in the metabolism of terbinafine suggest a limited potential for drug-drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos  1999; 27:1029–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Open Forum Infectious Diseases are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES