Snigdha Vallabhaneni1, James Baggs2, Sharon Tsay1,3, Arjun R Srinivasan2, John A Jernigan2, Brendan R Jackson1. 1. Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Division of Healthcare Quality and Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
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 antifungal use in the USA. Methods: Using billing data for antifungals from the Truven Health MarketScan® 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 antifungal use (28.5/1000 PDs), followed by echinocandins (5.0/1000 PDs). By multivariable trend analysis, DOT/1000 PDs for azoles (-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.
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 antifungal use in the USA. Methods: Using billing data for antifungals from the Truven Health MarketScan® 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 antifungal use (28.5/1000 PDs), followed by echinocandins (5.0/1000 PDs). By multivariable trend analysis, DOT/1000 PDs for azoles (-21%) and polyenes (-47%) decreased between 2006 and 2012, whereas echinocandins increased 11% during 2006-10 and declined after 2011. Unspecifiedsepticaemia, 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 unspecifiedsepsis when not indicated.
Authors: Jeffrey M Rybak; Laura A Doorley; Andrew T Nishimoto; Katherine S Barker; Glen E Palmer; P David Rogers Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kaitlin Benedict; Sharon V Tsay; Monina G Bartoces; Snigdha Vallabhaneni; Brendan R Jackson; Lauri A Hicks Journal: Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Date: 2022-12-22
Authors: Laura A Doorley; Jeffrey M Rybak; Elizabeth L Berkow; Qing Zhang; Joachim Morschhäuser; P David Rogers Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Melissa D Johnson; Russell E Lewis; Elizabeth S Dodds Ashley; Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner; Theoklis Zaoutis; George R Thompson; David R Andes; Thomas J Walsh; Peter G Pappas; Oliver A Cornely; John R Perfect; Dimitrios P Kontoyiannis Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Alissa J Cooper; Steven P Keller; Christina Chan; Brett E Glotzbecker; Michael Klompas; Rebecca M Baron; Chanu Rhee Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-04
Authors: Michael A Pfaller; Cecilia Carvalhaes; Shawn A Messer; Paul R Rhomberg; Mariana Castanheira Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Marina Machado; Esther Chamorro de Vega; María Del Carmen Martínez-Jiménez; Carmen Guadalupe Rodríguez-González; Antonio Vena; Raquel Navarro; María Isabel Zamora-Cintas; Caroline Agnelli; María Olmedo; Alicia Galar; Jesús Guinea; Ana Fernández-Cruz; Roberto Alonso; Emilio Bouza; Patricia Muñoz; Maricela Valerio Journal: J Fungi (Basel) Date: 2021-01-17
Authors: Jeffrey M Rybak; José F Muñoz; Katherine S Barker; Josie E Parker; Brooke D Esquivel; Elizabeth L Berkow; Shawn R Lockhart; Lalitha Gade; Glen E Palmer; Theodore C White; Steve L Kelly; Christina A Cuomo; P David Rogers Journal: mBio Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 7.867