How can we optimize antifungal use and stewardship in the treatment of acute leukemia?

INTRODUCTION: The global need for antifungal stewardship is driven by spreading antimicrobial and antifungal resistance. Triazoles are the only oral and relatively well-tolerated class of antifungal medications, and usage is associated with acquired resistance and species replacement with intrinsically resistant organisms. On a per-patient basis, hematology patients are the largest inpatient consumers of antifungal drugs, but are also the most vulnerable to invasive fungal disease. AREAS COVERED: In this review we discuss available and forthcoming antifungal drugs, antifungal prophylaxis and empiric antifungal therapy, and how a screening based and diagnostic-driven approach may be used to reduce antifungal consumption. Finally, we discuss components of an antifungal stewardship program, interventions that can be employed, and how impact can be measured. The search methodology consisted of searching PubMed for journal articles using the term antifungal stewardship plus program, intervention, performance measure or outcome before 1 January 2024. EXPERT OPINION: Initial focus should be on implementing effective antifungal stewardship programs by developing and implementing local guidelines and using interventions, such as post-prescription review and feedback, which are known to be effective. Technologies such as microbiome analysis and machine learning may allow the development of truly individualized risk-factor-based approaches to antifungal stewardship in the future.

Biomarker Driven Antifungal Stewardship (BioDriveAFS) in acute leukaemia-a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to assess clinical and cost effectiveness: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute leukaemias (AL) are life-threatening blood cancers that can be potentially cured with treatment involving myelosuppressive, multiagent, intensive chemotherapy (IC). However, such treatment is associated with a risk of serious infection, in particular invasive fungal infection (IFI) associated with prolonged neutropenia. Current practice guidelines recommend primary antifungal (AF) prophylaxis to be administered to high-risk patients to reduce IFI incidence. AFs are also used empirically to manage prolonged neutropenic fever. Current strategies lead to substantial overuse of AFs. Galactomannan (GM) and ß-D-glucan (BG) biomarkers are also used to diagnose IFI. Combining both biomarkers may enhance the predictability of IFI compared to administering each test alone. Currently, no large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared a biomarker-based diagnostic screening strategy without AF prophylaxis to AF prophylaxis (without systematic biomarker testing). METHODS: BioDriveAFS is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm RCT of 404 participants from UK NHS Haematology departments. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either a biomarker-based antifungal stewardship (AFS) strategy, or a prophylactic AF strategy, which includes existing standard of care (SoC). The co-primary outcomes will be AF exposure in the 12-month post randomisation and the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L measured at 12-month post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include total AF exposure, probable/proven IFI, survival (all-cause mortality and IFI mortality), IFI treatment outcome, AF-associated adverse effects/events/complications, resource use, episodes of neutropenic fever requiring hospital admission or outpatient management, AF resistance in fungi (non-invasive and invasive) and a Desirability of Outcome Ranking. The trial will have an internal pilot phase during the first 9 months. A mixed methods process evaluation will be integrated in parallel to the internal pilot phase and full trial, aiming to robustly assess how the intervention is delivered. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: The BioDriveAFS trial aims to further the knowledge of strategies that will safely optimise AF use through comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-led diagnostic strategy versus prophylactic AF to prevent and manage IFI within acute leukaemia. The evidence generated from the study will help inform global clinical practice and approaches within antifungal stewardship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11633399. Registered 24/06/2022.

PRO: Biomarker surveillance for invasive fungal infections without antifungal prophylaxis could safely reduce antifungal use in acute leukaemia.

Mould-active antifungal prophylaxis is frequently used to prevent invasive fungal infection in patients with acute leukaemia being treated with intensive chemotherapy. Invasive fungal infections are difficult to diagnose, and despite the use of prophylaxis a high proportion of patients still receive therapeutic antifungals. Antifungal medications have important interactions, can cause serious adverse events, and may drive the proliferation of antifungal resistance. The use of two biomarkers, such as galactomannan in combination with the less-specific ß-d-glucan, can mitigate the risk of not detecting non-Aspergillus species, as well as improving pooled sensitivity and specificity. We argue that regular biomarkers could be used safely as part of an antifungal stewardship strategy to reduce antifungal use, by both screening for infection in patients not on prophylaxis and ruling out infection in patients treated empirically.

Sixty-eight consecutive patients assessed for COVID-19 infection: Experience from a UK Regional infectious diseases Unit.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of possible infection with SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 illness, has been a major activity of infection services since the first reports of cases in December 2019. OBJECTIVES: We report a series of 68 patients assessed at a Regional Infection Unit in the UK. METHODS: Between 29 January 2020 and 24 February 2020, demographic, clinical, epidemiological and laboratory data were collected. We compared clinical features between patients not requiring admission for clinical reasons or antimicrobials with those assessed as needing either admission or antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS: Patients assessed were aged from 0 to 76 years; 36/68 were female. Peaks of clinical assessments coincided with updates to the case definition for suspected COVID-19. Microbiological diagnoses included SARS-CoV-2, mycoplasma pneumonia, influenza A, non-SARS/MERS coronaviruses and rhinovirus/enterovirus. Nine of sixty-eight received antimicrobials, 15/68 were admitted, 5 due to inability to self-isolate. Patients requiring admission on clinical grounds or antimicrobials (14/68) were more likely to have fever or raised respiratory rate compared to those not requiring admission or antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had mild illness, which did not require clinical intervention. This finding supports a community testing approach, supported by clinicians able to review more unwell patients. Extensions of the epidemiological criteria for the case definition of suspected COVID-19 lead to increased screening intensity; strategies must be in place to accommodate this in time for forthcoming changes as the epidemic develops.