Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

2020

S175-S198

2020 Aug 05

1537-6613

<p>In recent years, the global public health community has increasingly recognized the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the fight to improve outcomes, decrease costs, and curb increases in antimicrobial resistance around the world. However, the subject of antifungal stewardship (AFS) has received less attention. While the principles of AMS guidelines likely apply to stewarding of antifungal agents, there are additional considerations unique to AFS and the complex field of fungal infections that require specific recommendations. In this article, we review the literature on AMS best practices and discuss AFS through the lens of the global core elements of AMS. We offer recommendations for best practices in AFS based on a synthesis of this evidence by an interdisciplinary expert panel of members of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. We also discuss research directions in this rapidly evolving field. AFS is an emerging and important component of AMS, yet requires special considerations in certain areas such as expertise, education, interventions to optimize utilization, therapeutic drug monitoring, and data analysis and reporting.</p>

10.1093/infdis/jiaa394

J. Infect. Dis.

32756879

Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

2019

2019 Dec 05

1537-6591

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.</p>

10.1093/cid/ciz1008

Clin. Infect. Dis.

31802125