Cargando…

A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship

BACKGROUND: ICUs are settings of high antifungal consumption. There are few data on prescribing practices in ICUs to guide antifungal stewardship implementation in this setting. METHODS: An antifungal therapy (AFT) service evaluation (15 May–19 November 2019) across ICUs at three London hospitals, e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Logan, C, Hemsley, C, Fife, A, Edgeworth, J, Mazzella, A, Wade, P, Goodman, A, Hopkins, P, Wyncoll, D, Ball, J, Planche, T, Schelenz, S, Bicanic, T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac055
_version_ 1784731724786171904
author Logan, C
Hemsley, C
Fife, A
Edgeworth, J
Mazzella, A
Wade, P
Goodman, A
Hopkins, P
Wyncoll, D
Ball, J
Planche, T
Schelenz, S
Bicanic, T
author_facet Logan, C
Hemsley, C
Fife, A
Edgeworth, J
Mazzella, A
Wade, P
Goodman, A
Hopkins, P
Wyncoll, D
Ball, J
Planche, T
Schelenz, S
Bicanic, T
author_sort Logan, C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: ICUs are settings of high antifungal consumption. There are few data on prescribing practices in ICUs to guide antifungal stewardship implementation in this setting. METHODS: An antifungal therapy (AFT) service evaluation (15 May–19 November 2019) across ICUs at three London hospitals, evaluating consumption, prescribing rationale, post-prescription review, de-escalation and final invasive fungal infection (IFI) diagnostic classification. RESULTS: Overall, 6.4% of ICU admissions (305/4781) received AFT, accounting for 11.41 days of therapy/100 occupied bed days (DOT/100 OBD). The dominant prescribing mode was empirical (41% of consumption), followed by targeted (22%), prophylaxis (18%), pre-emptive (12%) and non-invasive (7%). Echinocandins were the most commonly prescribed drug class (4.59 DOT/100 OBD). In total, 217 patients received AFT for suspected or confirmed IFI; 12%, 10% and 23% were classified as possible, probable or proven IFI, respectively. Hence, in 55%, IFI was unlikely. Proven IFI (n = 50) was mostly invasive candidiasis (92%), of which 48% had been initiated on AFT empirically before yeast identification. Where on-site (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan (BDG) testing was available (1 day turnaround), in those with suspected but unproven invasive candidiasis, median (IQR) AFT duration was 10 (7–15) days with a positive BDG (≥80 pg/mL) versus 8 (5–9) days with a negative BDG (<80 pg/mL). Post-prescription review occurred in 79% of prescribing episodes (median time to review 1 [0–3] day). Where suspected IFI was not confirmed, 38% episodes were stopped and 4% de-escalated within 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving a better balance between promptly treating IFI patients and avoiding inappropriate antifungal prescribing in the ICU requires timely post-prescription review by specialist multidisciplinary teams and improved, evidence-based-risk prescribing strategies incorporating rapid diagnostics to guide AFT start and stop decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9217759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92177592022-06-23 A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship Logan, C Hemsley, C Fife, A Edgeworth, J Mazzella, A Wade, P Goodman, A Hopkins, P Wyncoll, D Ball, J Planche, T Schelenz, S Bicanic, T JAC Antimicrob Resist Original Article BACKGROUND: ICUs are settings of high antifungal consumption. There are few data on prescribing practices in ICUs to guide antifungal stewardship implementation in this setting. METHODS: An antifungal therapy (AFT) service evaluation (15 May–19 November 2019) across ICUs at three London hospitals, evaluating consumption, prescribing rationale, post-prescription review, de-escalation and final invasive fungal infection (IFI) diagnostic classification. RESULTS: Overall, 6.4% of ICU admissions (305/4781) received AFT, accounting for 11.41 days of therapy/100 occupied bed days (DOT/100 OBD). The dominant prescribing mode was empirical (41% of consumption), followed by targeted (22%), prophylaxis (18%), pre-emptive (12%) and non-invasive (7%). Echinocandins were the most commonly prescribed drug class (4.59 DOT/100 OBD). In total, 217 patients received AFT for suspected or confirmed IFI; 12%, 10% and 23% were classified as possible, probable or proven IFI, respectively. Hence, in 55%, IFI was unlikely. Proven IFI (n = 50) was mostly invasive candidiasis (92%), of which 48% had been initiated on AFT empirically before yeast identification. Where on-site (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan (BDG) testing was available (1 day turnaround), in those with suspected but unproven invasive candidiasis, median (IQR) AFT duration was 10 (7–15) days with a positive BDG (≥80 pg/mL) versus 8 (5–9) days with a negative BDG (<80 pg/mL). Post-prescription review occurred in 79% of prescribing episodes (median time to review 1 [0–3] day). Where suspected IFI was not confirmed, 38% episodes were stopped and 4% de-escalated within 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving a better balance between promptly treating IFI patients and avoiding inappropriate antifungal prescribing in the ICU requires timely post-prescription review by specialist multidisciplinary teams and improved, evidence-based-risk prescribing strategies incorporating rapid diagnostics to guide AFT start and stop decisions. Oxford University Press 2022-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9217759/ /pubmed/35756574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac055 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Logan, C
Hemsley, C
Fife, A
Edgeworth, J
Mazzella, A
Wade, P
Goodman, A
Hopkins, P
Wyncoll, D
Ball, J
Planche, T
Schelenz, S
Bicanic, T
A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title_full A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title_fullStr A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title_full_unstemmed A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title_short A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
title_sort multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac055
work_keys_str_mv AT loganc amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT hemsleyc amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT fifea amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT edgeworthj amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT mazzellaa amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT wadep amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT goodmana amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT hopkinsp amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT wyncolld amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT ballj amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT planchet amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT schelenzs amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT bicanict amultisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT loganc multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT hemsleyc multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT fifea multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT edgeworthj multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT mazzellaa multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT wadep multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT goodmana multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT hopkinsp multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT wyncolld multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT ballj multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT planchet multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT schelenzs multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship
AT bicanict multisiteevaluationofantifungaluseincriticalcareimplicationsforantifungalstewardship