4.7 Article

Trends in antifungal use in US hospitals, 2006-12

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 73, 期 10, 页码 2867-2875

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky270

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although trends in antibiotic use have been characterized, less is known about antifungal use. Data on antifungal use are important for understanding practice patterns, assessing emergence of antifungal resistance and developing antifungal stewardship programmes. We estimated national trends in inpatient anti fungal use in the USA. Methods: Using billing data for antifungals from the Truven Health MarketScan (R) Hospital Drug Database during 2006-12, we estimated the proportion of discharges at which antifungals were given and days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient days (PDs) by antifungal drug type, year, patient and facility characteristics. We created national estimates using weights generated from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and assessed trends over time. Results: Overall, 2.7% of all inpatients and 7.7% of those in ICUs received antifungals. The estimated DOT/1000 PDs for any antifungal was 35.0 for all inpatients and 73.7 for ICU patients. Azoles accounted for 80% of all anti fungal use (28.5/1000 PDs), followed by echinocandins (5.0/1000 PDs). By multivariable trend analysis, DOT/1000 PDs for aides (-21%) and polyenes (-47%) decreased between 2006 and 2012, whereas echinocandins increased 11% during 2006-10 and declined after 2011. Unspecified septicaemia, HIV and antineoplastic therapy were among the top primary diagnosis codes for patients who received antifungals. Conclusions: Antifungals were most frequently used in ICU settings and fluconazole accounted for a large, but declining, proportion of antifungal use. Antifungal stewardship efforts may have the most impact if focused in ICUs, among certain patient groups (e.g. HIV and malignancy) and on stopping empirical antifungal therapy for unspecified sepsis when not indicated.

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

4.7
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