Antifungal stewardship in a tertiary care paediatric hospital: the PROAFUNGI study

Antifungal therapy; Antimicrobial management; PaediatricsTerapia antifúngica; Gestión antimicrobiana; PediatríaTeràpia antifúngica; Gestió antimicrobiana; PediatriaBackground The increasing use of antifungal drugs (AF) in children and the concern for related adverse events and costs has led to the development of specific AF stewardship programmes (AFS). Studies in adult patients have shown improvements in AF prescription and usage after implementation, but paediatric data are scant. The aim of this PROAFUNGI study was to describe the use and appropriateness of AF in a high complexity paediatric centre. Methods Observational, prospective, single-centre, modified point-prevalence study (11 surveys, July–October 2018), including paediatric (< 18 years) patients receiving at least one systemic AF. Prescriptions were evaluated by the AFS team. Results The study included 119 prescriptions in 55 patients (53% males, median age 8.7 years [IQR 2.4–13.8]). The main underlying condition was cancer (45.5% of patients; HSCT in 60% of them); and the first indication for AF was prophylaxis (75 prescriptions, 63.2%). Liposomal amphotericin B was used most commonly (46% prescriptions), mainly as prophylaxis (75%). Among the 219 evaluations, 195 (89%) were considered optimal. The reason for non-optimal prescriptions was mostly lack of indication (14/24), especially in critical patients with ventricular assist devices. The use of AF without paediatric approval accounted for 8/24 inappropriate prescriptions. Conclusions A high rate of AF appropriateness was found for the children’s hospital as a whole, in relation with a well-established AFS. Nonetheless, the identification of specific areas of improvement should guide future actions of the AFS team, which will focus mainly on prophylaxis in critically ill patients receiving circulatory assistance and the use of non-approved drugs in children.This study was supported by an Investigator-Sponsored Research grant from Gilead Sciences. Gilead provided grant support for this study, but did not take part in the study design, data collection, or analysis of the results