Impact of a candidaemia care bundle on patient care at a large teaching hospital in England

Antifungal stewardship: What we need to know

Antimicrobial stewardship refers to a well-coordinated program which promotes the scientific and rational use of antimicrobials, reduces the chances of drug resistance and improves patient outcomes. A comprehensive English language literature search was done across multiple databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane) for the period 1990-2022, revealing a large volume of reports of growing resistance to established antifungal therapies, against a backdrop of irrational and unscientific prescriptions. As a result of this, antifungal stewardship, a new kid on the block, has recently garnered attention. This review article is an attempt to summarise the basic concept of stewardship programs, highlighting the dire need to implement the same in the present situation of antifungal resistance and treatment failure.

A work in progress: antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant patient populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent medical literature addressing antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Few studies with a strict focus on SOT patients have been published to date. Team-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions in SOT populations do have beneficial impacts on antimicrobial stewardship-relevant outcomes. Several studies have compared SOT-specific antibiograms to widely accepted hospital antibiograms; these studies all have found important differences in resistance rates among bacterial pathogens. Novel biomarkers like virome monitoring for assessing the net state of immunosuppression hold promise for individualized antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

SUMMARY

SOT patients are an understudied population with respect to antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Current antimicrobial stewardship interventions for SOT patients are largely extrapolated from studies in general patient populations and may not accurately reflect SOT-specific infection risks or outcomes. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions do impact SOT-relevant care goals but require significantly more research to achieve the depth and reach of antimicrobial stewardship interventions developed for general populations.

White paper on antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have made immense strides in optimizing antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral use in clinical settings. However, although ASPs are required institutionally by regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada, they are not mandated for transplant centers or programs specifically. Despite the fact that solid organ transplant recipients in particular are at increased risk of infections from multidrug-resistant organisms, due to host and donor factors and immunosuppressive therapy, there currently are little rigorous data regarding stewardship practices in solid organ transplant populations, and thus, no transplant-specific requirements currently exist. Further complicating matters, transplant patients have a wide range of variability regarding their susceptibility to infection, as factors such as surgery of transplant, intensity of immunosuppression, and presence of drains or catheters in situ may modify the risk of infection. As such, it is not feasible to have a "one-size-fits-all" style of stewardship for this patient population. The objective of this white paper is to identify opportunities, risk factors, and ASP strategies that should be assessed with solid organ transplant recipients to optimize antimicrobial use, while producing an overall improvement in patient outcomes. We hope it may serve as a springboard for development of future guidance and identification of research opportunities.

Efficacy of a "Checklist" Intervention Bundle on the Clinical Outcome of Patients with Candida Bloodstream Infections: A Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Study

Introduction

To evaluate the clinical impact of a comprehensive care bundle for the management of candidemia.

Methods

A quasi-experimental pre-post study was implemented. During the pre-intervention period (May 2014–September 2015), a non-mandatory antifungal stewardship program (ASP) was implemented, and patients with candidemia were visited by an infectious disease specialist who provided diagnostic and therapeutic advice according to standard of care as soon as possible. During the post-intervention period (October 2015–May 2017), patients were managed according to a candidemia care bundle with clear and structured recommendations written in their medical history.

Results

Overall, 109 patients were included, 56 in the pre-intervention and 53 in the post-intervention period. Overall, compliance with the Candida bundle significantly improved between the pre- [27/56 (48.2%)] and post-intervention [43/53 (81.1%); p = 0.01] period. Individual bundle components that significantly improved in the post-intervention period were early adequate antifungal therapy [47/56 (83.9%) vs. 51/53 (96.2%), p = 0.05], early adequate source control of the infection [37/56 (82.2%) vs. 41/53 (97.6%), p = 0.03] and appropriate duration of therapy [27/56 (48.2%) vs. 43/53 (81.1%), p = 0.01]. Adherence to follow-up blood cultures, ophthalmologic examination and echocardiography improved in the post-intervention period, but the difference was not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis revealed that being managed according to candidemia bundle had a favorable impact on 14-day mortality (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01–0.45, p = 0.02) and 30-day mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18–0.89, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

A simple bundle focused on increasing adherence to a few evidence-based interventions contributed to a significant reduction in 14- and 30-day mortality in patients with candidemia.

An evidence-based bundle improves the quality of care and outcomes of patients with candidaemia

Background

Candidaemia is a leading cause of bloodstream infections in hospitalized patients all over the world. It remains associated with high mortality.

Objectives

To assess the impact of implementing an evidence-based package of measures (bundle) on the quality of care and outcomes of candidaemia.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify measures related to better outcomes in candidaemia. Eight quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) were identified and a set of written recommendations (early treatment, echinocandins in septic shock, source control, follow-up blood culture, ophthalmoscopy, echocardiography, de-escalation, length of treatment) was prospectively implemented. The study was performed in 11 tertiary hospitals in Spain. A quasi-experimental design before and during bundle implementation (September 2016 to February 2018) was used. For the pre-intervention period, data from the prospective national surveillance were used (May 2010 to April 2011).

Results

A total of 385 and 263 episodes were included in the pre-intervention and intervention groups, respectively. Adherence to all QCIs improved in the intervention group. The intervention group had a decrease in early (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23–0.89; P = 0.022) and overall (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.4–0.94; P = 0.023) mortality after controlling for potential confounders.

Conclusions

Implementing a structured, evidence-based intervention bundle significantly improved patient care and early and overall mortality in patients with candidaemia. Institutions should embrace this objective strategy and use the bundle as a means to measure high-quality medical care of patients.

Systematic clinical management of patients with candidemia improves survival

OBJECTIVES

Taking into account the significant morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs related to Candidemia, our objective is to define if improving appropriateness in candidemia management was associated with better clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational monocentric cohort study was conducted. Adherence to five main elements was examined: appropriate selection of initial therapy; follow-up blood culture; echocardiography; ophthalmological examination; and removal of a central venous catheter. The correlation between the number of appropriate elements achieved and 30 day survival was examined.

RESULTS

Patients with candidemia (n = 213) were enrolled. Adherence to all five elements was achieved in 36 cases (16.9%), while the majority adhered to three or four elements (28.2% and 37.1%, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that the number of elements achieved was associated with survival [HR: 0.39 (0.30-0.52); p < 0.001]. Also, the number of elements achieved correlated positively with duration of therapy (p = 0.01), but not length of hospital stay (p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Five elements, including therapeutic and non-therapeutic-related aspects, of care were good indicators of appropriate management of patients with candidemia. Implementation of evidence-based practice regarding optimal clinical management is crucial for any antimicrobial stewardship program.

An investigation of antifungal stewardship programmes in England

PURPOSE

We sought to explore the current status of antifungal stewardship (AFS) initiatives across National Health Service (NHS) Trusts within England, the challenges and barriers, as well as ways to improve current AFS programmes.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic survey was sent to all 155 acute NHS Trusts in England. A total of 47 Trusts, corresponding to 30 % of English acute Trusts, responded to the the survey; 46 Trusts (98 %) had an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme but only 5 (11 %) had a dedicated AFS programme. Overall, 20 (43 %) Trusts said they included AFS as part of their AMS programmes. From those conducting AFS programmes, 7 (28 %) have an AFS/management team, 16 (64 %) monitor and report on antifungal usage, 5 (20 %) have dedicated AFS ward rounds and 12 (48 %) are directly involved in the management of invasive fungal infections.Results/Key findings. Altogether, 13 acute Trusts (52 %) started their AFS programme to manage costs, whilst 12 (48 %) commenced the programme due to clinical need; 27 (73 %) declared that they would increase their AFS initiatives if they could. Of those without an AFS programme, 14 (67 %) responded that this was due to lack of resources/staff time. Overall, 12 Trusts (57 %) responded that the availability of rapid diagnostics and clinical support would enable them to conduct AFS activities.

CONCLUSION

Although a minority of Trusts conduct dedicated AFS programmes, nearly half include AFS as part of routine AMS activities. Cost issues are the main driver for AFS, followed by clinical need. The availability of rapid diagnostics and clinical support could help increase AFS initiatives.