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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |