侵袭性真菌感染成人抗真菌治疗使用审计:一项前瞻性观察研究。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
Ankesh Gupta, Immaculata Xess, Manish Soneja, Vishakh C Keri, Kapil Sikka, Vijaydeep Siddharth, Janya Sachdev, R M Pandey, Arvind Kumar, Naveet Wig, Gagandeep Singh
{"title":"侵袭性真菌感染成人抗真菌治疗使用审计:一项前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Ankesh Gupta, Immaculata Xess, Manish Soneja, Vishakh C Keri, Kapil Sikka, Vijaydeep Siddharth, Janya Sachdev, R M Pandey, Arvind Kumar, Naveet Wig, Gagandeep Singh","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The antifungal audit aimed to evaluate antifungal usage in a tertiary care center. It focused on patient profiles, the appropriateness of antifungal use, associated adverse drug reactions, reasons for suboptimal usage, and the economic burden caused by prolonged non-optimal antifungal use.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India from January 2019 to December 2020, the study evaluated systemic antifungal use in 100 hospitalized adults with invasive fungal infections. Data collected included patient characteristics, evidence of disease, antifungal agents used, drug ADRs, appropriateness, and economic impact. Antifungal use was assessed using a predefined score (score <10 considered non-optimal), and ideal therapy duration was calculated based on treatment guidelines (IDSA & ECIL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Optimal antifungal use was observed in 66.0 % of cases. Common reasons for non-optimal use included alternate drug selection (18 %), inappropriate dosage (12 %), lack of adjustment after microbiological results (14 %), and incorrect therapy duration (16 %). Targeted antifungal therapy was observed in 39 out of 100 patients, while pre-emptive antifungal therapy was used in 32 out of 100 patients. Voriconazole (35.1 %), caspofungin (23.1 %), and liposomal amphotericin B (20.1 %) were commonly prescribed. Liposomal amphotericin B had the highest adverse reaction rate (81.4 %). The total cost of antifungal therapy for 100 patients was ₹67,06,840 (approximately 80,350 $), with non-optimal prolonged therapy leading to an additional economic burden of ₹1,149,191 (approximately 13,841 $). Overall, 748 (39.7 %) day of therapy were non-optimal, contributing to 17.1 % of the total cost of antifungal therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed non-optimal use of antifungal agents in 34 % of the study participants. The study results show that the antifungal audit enhances stewardship by pinpointing causes of non-optimal use, ensuring adherence to prescribing standards, optimizing clinical outcomes, and minimizing drug-related toxicities in tertiary care centres.</p>","PeriodicalId":13284,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"100784"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Audit for antifungal treatment usage in adults with invasive fungal infection: A prospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Ankesh Gupta, Immaculata Xess, Manish Soneja, Vishakh C Keri, Kapil Sikka, Vijaydeep Siddharth, Janya Sachdev, R M Pandey, Arvind Kumar, Naveet Wig, Gagandeep Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The antifungal audit aimed to evaluate antifungal usage in a tertiary care center. It focused on patient profiles, the appropriateness of antifungal use, associated adverse drug reactions, reasons for suboptimal usage, and the economic burden caused by prolonged non-optimal antifungal use.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India from January 2019 to December 2020, the study evaluated systemic antifungal use in 100 hospitalized adults with invasive fungal infections. Data collected included patient characteristics, evidence of disease, antifungal agents used, drug ADRs, appropriateness, and economic impact. Antifungal use was assessed using a predefined score (score <10 considered non-optimal), and ideal therapy duration was calculated based on treatment guidelines (IDSA & ECIL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Optimal antifungal use was observed in 66.0 % of cases. Common reasons for non-optimal use included alternate drug selection (18 %), inappropriate dosage (12 %), lack of adjustment after microbiological results (14 %), and incorrect therapy duration (16 %). Targeted antifungal therapy was observed in 39 out of 100 patients, while pre-emptive antifungal therapy was used in 32 out of 100 patients. Voriconazole (35.1 %), caspofungin (23.1 %), and liposomal amphotericin B (20.1 %) were commonly prescribed. Liposomal amphotericin B had the highest adverse reaction rate (81.4 %). The total cost of antifungal therapy for 100 patients was ₹67,06,840 (approximately 80,350 $), with non-optimal prolonged therapy leading to an additional economic burden of ₹1,149,191 (approximately 13,841 $). Overall, 748 (39.7 %) day of therapy were non-optimal, contributing to 17.1 % of the total cost of antifungal therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed non-optimal use of antifungal agents in 34 % of the study participants. The study results show that the antifungal audit enhances stewardship by pinpointing causes of non-optimal use, ensuring adherence to prescribing standards, optimizing clinical outcomes, and minimizing drug-related toxicities in tertiary care centres.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100784\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100784\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对某三级保健中心抗真菌药物的使用情况进行审核。它侧重于患者概况,抗真菌药物使用的适当性,相关的药物不良反应,次优使用的原因,以及长期非最佳抗真菌药物使用造成的经济负担。方法:病理学:该研究于2019年1月至2020年12月在印度新德里全印度医学科学研究所进行,评估了100名侵袭性真菌感染住院成人的全身抗真菌药物使用情况。收集的数据包括患者特征、疾病证据、使用的抗真菌药物、药物不良反应、适当性和经济影响。使用预定义评分评估抗真菌药物使用情况(评分结果:66.0%的病例观察到最佳抗真菌药物使用情况。非最佳使用的常见原因包括替代药物选择(18%)、剂量不合适(12%)、微生物学结果后缺乏调整(14%)和治疗时间不正确(16%)。100例患者中有39例采用靶向抗真菌治疗,32例采用先发制人的抗真菌治疗。常用处方伏立康唑(35.1%)、卡泊芬净(23.1%)、两性霉素B脂质体(20.1%)。两性霉素B脂质体不良反应发生率最高(81.4%)。100名患者抗真菌治疗的总费用为67,06,840卢比(约80,350美元),非最佳长期治疗导致额外的经济负担为1,149,191卢比(约13,841美元)。总体而言,748天(39.7%)的治疗是非最佳的,占抗真菌治疗总成本的17.1%。结论:我们观察到34%的研究参与者使用非最佳抗真菌药物。研究结果表明,通过查明非最佳使用的原因,确保遵守处方标准,优化临床结果,并最大限度地减少三级保健中心的药物相关毒性,抗真菌审计加强了管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Audit for antifungal treatment usage in adults with invasive fungal infection: A prospective observational study.

Objective: The antifungal audit aimed to evaluate antifungal usage in a tertiary care center. It focused on patient profiles, the appropriateness of antifungal use, associated adverse drug reactions, reasons for suboptimal usage, and the economic burden caused by prolonged non-optimal antifungal use.

Methodology: Conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India from January 2019 to December 2020, the study evaluated systemic antifungal use in 100 hospitalized adults with invasive fungal infections. Data collected included patient characteristics, evidence of disease, antifungal agents used, drug ADRs, appropriateness, and economic impact. Antifungal use was assessed using a predefined score (score <10 considered non-optimal), and ideal therapy duration was calculated based on treatment guidelines (IDSA & ECIL).

Results: Optimal antifungal use was observed in 66.0 % of cases. Common reasons for non-optimal use included alternate drug selection (18 %), inappropriate dosage (12 %), lack of adjustment after microbiological results (14 %), and incorrect therapy duration (16 %). Targeted antifungal therapy was observed in 39 out of 100 patients, while pre-emptive antifungal therapy was used in 32 out of 100 patients. Voriconazole (35.1 %), caspofungin (23.1 %), and liposomal amphotericin B (20.1 %) were commonly prescribed. Liposomal amphotericin B had the highest adverse reaction rate (81.4 %). The total cost of antifungal therapy for 100 patients was ₹67,06,840 (approximately 80,350 $), with non-optimal prolonged therapy leading to an additional economic burden of ₹1,149,191 (approximately 13,841 $). Overall, 748 (39.7 %) day of therapy were non-optimal, contributing to 17.1 % of the total cost of antifungal therapy.

Conclusion: We observed non-optimal use of antifungal agents in 34 % of the study participants. The study results show that the antifungal audit enhances stewardship by pinpointing causes of non-optimal use, ensuring adherence to prescribing standards, optimizing clinical outcomes, and minimizing drug-related toxicities in tertiary care centres.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
73 days
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of high standard in the form of original research, multicentric studies, meta analysis, are accepted. Current reports can be submitted as brief communications. Case reports must include review of current literature, clinical details, outcome and follow up. Letters to the editor must be a comment on or pertain to a manuscript already published in the IJMM or in relation to preliminary communication of a larger study. Review articles, Special Articles or Guest Editorials are accepted on invitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信