Improving quality of antifungal use through antifungal stewardship interventions.

PURPOSE: In recent years antifungal stewardship (AFS) programmes have been increasingly recommended to provide optimal antifungal treatment. In a previous study (study I) in the department of haematology and oncology of a German tertiary care hospital we found areas for improvement concerning antifungal prescription. Subsequently, AFS measures were implemented and their impact on quality of antifungal use was assessed in this study. METHODS: AFS measures included medical training (two sessions), a pocket card summarising main recommendations for antifungal use, and daily pharmaceutical counselling on the ward. In a 6-month observational study, antifungal prescriptions were analysed and compared to the previously collected data (study I) concerning indication, choice of drug, dosing, duration and drug-drug interactions. The study was approved by the university hospital ethical review board. RESULTS: Antifungal agents were prescribed for 103/1169 inpatients. Compared to study I, a significant increase in dosage accuracy (+ 19.3%; p < 0.05) and correct choice of drug (+ 15.9%; p < 0.05) was noted, as well as a decrease in potential clinically relevant drug-drug interactions with concomitant medication (- 13.9%; p < 0.05). However, no significant improvement in indication and duration of antifungal treatment was identified. 56 recommendations were given to the prescribing physicians (acceptance rate: 66.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of AFS interventions based on pharmaceutical presence on the ward was associated with an improvement in antifungal use; however, indication and duration of therapy need to be communicated by infectious disease specialists. Considering the proportionally short observation period, the long-term effects of our AFS interventions need to be further investigated.

Antifungal treatment in haematological and oncological patients: Need for quality assessment in routine care.

Invasive fungal infections in haematological and oncological patients have a major impact on morbidity, mortality and treatment costs. Therefore, rational use of antifungal agents is important for optimal patient care and resource use. The study's objective was to analyse antifungal usage in a German tertiary teaching hospital, department of haematology and oncology, to evaluate quality of antifungal treatment and to assess the need for an antifungal stewardship programme. This retrospective observational study included patients ≥18 years receiving systemic antifungals for prophylaxis or therapy of invasive fungal infection between January and June 2016. Appropriateness of antifungal prescriptions was evaluated in accordance with guidelines of the German Society of Haematology and Oncology (DGHO) and drug labelling. In total, 104/1278 (8.1%) patients received antifungals. One hundred seventy-one antifungals were prescribed: 48 for prophylaxis, 104 for empirical and 19 for targeted therapy. In 127 (74.3%) prescriptions, indication was appropriate, and in 132 (77.2%), choice of drug. Antifungals were correctly dosed in 131 prescriptions (76.6%). Thirty-four antifungals (20.0%) were co-administrated with interacting drugs (5 mild to moderate, 29 severe interactions). Results of this analysis demonstrate that use of systemic antifungals in routine care differs in a substantial number of patients from guideline and labelling recommendations. To optimise antifungal use, the implementation of antifungal stewardship programmes seems to be justified.

Antifungal prophylaxis in newly diagnosed AML patients-Adherence to guidelines and feasibility in a real life setting.

Antifungal posaconazole prophylaxis for AML patients receiving induction chemotherapy has been routine at our centre since 2009. This retrospective study examined the feasibility and practicability of our prophylaxis guidelines in clinical practice. Data sets of 90 patients undergoing induction-chemotherapy for AML between 2011 and 2014 were evaluated regarding adherence to local guidelines for the administration of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole. 75.5% of the 90 patients received posaconazole prophylaxis. All but eight patients received the recommended dosage. A total of 77.95% on prophylaxis had serum galactomannan measured twice weekly. Contradicting our guidelines, 89.70% of patients received concomitant therapy with PPI. Overall, 16.17% of patients had prophylaxis discontinued and started empirical antifungal treatment in the absence of diagnostic criteria for IFI. The breakthrough IFI rate was 36.76% (proven, probable and possible) with 7.35% of infections being classified as proven or probable. Although limited by a small sample size, our study demonstrates the feasibility of local guidelines in a real life setting and outlines areas for improvement in both guidelines and clinical practice. We also highlight the importance of ensuring awareness of guidelines and raise questions about a uniform approach to antifungal prophylaxis in AML patients.