4.6 Article

A 6-year antifungal stewardship programme in a teaching hospital

期刊

INFECTION
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 621-628

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-013-0431-1

关键词

Aspergillosis; Candidaemia; DDD; Haematology; Quality of care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To describe the antifungal stewardship programme in our hospital and to assess its impact on total antifungal prescriptions and their cost, and on the process of care measures regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management of invasive aspergillosis and candidaemia. We conducted a prospective observational study describing the multifaceted antifungal stewardship programme in place at our French teaching tertiary-care hospital since 2005. Several actions were implemented successively, including the systematic evaluation of all costly antifungal prescriptions (echinocandins, lipid formulations of amphotericin B, posaconazole and voriconazole). A total of 636 antifungal prescriptions were discussed by the antifungal management team from 2005 to 2010 inclusive, mainly from the haematology department (72 %). In 344/636 cases (54 %), a piece of advice was fed back to the physician in charge of the patient, with an 88 % compliance rate. Optimal standard of care was achieved for galactomannan antigen testing, performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan and voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring for invasive aspergillosis, with no combination therapies used since 2008. Regarding candidaemia, optimal standard of care was achieved for the timing of antifungal therapy, recommended first-line therapy, duration of therapy and the removal of central venous catheters. Total antifungal prescriptions (in defined daily doses, DDD) and their cost were contained between 2003 and 2010. The implementation of an antifungal stewardship programme was feasible, sustainable and well accepted. We observed an improved quality of care for some process of care measures, and antifungal use and cost were contained in our hospital.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据