Ophthalmic Evaluation and Ocular Candidiasis in Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study from Thailand

Background: Ocular candidiasis is a serious metastatic complication of candidemia that may lead to irreversible visual impairment. Although recent meta-analyses suggest an overall prevalence of approximately 10%, real-world data from Southeast Asia remain limited. Regional differences in Candida species distribution, antifungal resistance patterns, and health-care resources may influence both the incidence of ocular candidiasis and the utilization of ophthalmic evaluation in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥15 years with candidemia at a 900-bed tertiary-care university hospital in southern Thailand between January 2014 and August 2025. Only the first episode of candidemia per patient was included. Ophthalmic evaluation was defined as a dilated funduscopic examination performed by an ophthalmologist within 4 weeks of candidemia onset. Ocular candidiasis was classified as Candida chorioretinitis or Candida endophthalmitis according to established definitions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with receipt of ophthalmic evaluation. Results: Among 337 patients with candidemia, 67 (19.9%) underwent ophthalmic evaluation. Ocular candidiasis was diagnosed in 9 of 67 evaluated patients (13.4%), corresponding to an overall incidence of 2.7% in the entire cohort. Five patients (7.5%) had Candida chorioretinitis and four (6.0%) had Candida endophthalmitis, including two concordant and two discordant cases. Visual symptoms were assessable in 35 patients, among whom only 4 (11.4%) reported visual complaints; most patients with ocular candidiasis were asymptomatic at diagnosis. Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis accounted for 55.6% and 44.4% of ocular candidiasis cases, respectively, and bilateral ocular involvement was observed in 77.8%.Ophthalmic findings led to modification of antifungal therapy in 7 of 9 patients with ocular candidiasis (77.8%), most commonly through addition or switching to an azole-based regimen and/or prolongation of treatment duration. In multivariable analysis, vasopressor use at candidemia onset was independently associated with a lower likelihood of ophthalmic evaluation, whereas early infectious diseases consultation were independently associated with increased odds of receiving ophthalmic evaluation. Conclusions: In this Southeast Asian cohort, ophthalmic evaluation was infrequently performed but yielded clinically actionable findings and frequently altered antifungal management. The observed incidence of ocular candidiasis among examined patients was higher than that reported in Western countries. Underutilization of ophthalmic evaluation appears to reflect illness severity and care pathway factors rather than low disease burden, suggesting that the true incidence of ocular candidiasis may be underestimated. Integrating ophthalmic evaluation into standardized candidemia care pathways may improve detection of ocular involvement, particularly in resource-limited settings.