Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are a group of life-threatening diseases associated with significant morbidity, mortality and high healthcare costs. Some modern management programs known as AFS (antifungal stewardship programs) have now been developed. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the different declinations of antifungal stewardship programs (AFPs).
METHODS: Articles were systematically reviewed using the PRISMA checklist 2020. EMBASE and MEDLINE/PubMED were searched using the term \"antifungal stewardship\" (2012-2022 data) on 2 January 2023. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS and included an intervention, performance evaluation and outcome measures.
RESULTS: A total of 22/796 studies were included. Approximately two-thirds (16) were published between 2018 and 2022. 16 (72.7%) stated a minimal complete AFS team. 12 (54.5%) adopted a non-compulsory AFS approach, 6(27.3%) had an Educational AFS and 4(18.2%) a compulsory AFS. Cost analyses of 12 studies showed a decrease for 7 (31.8%) compared to an increase for 5 (22.7%). In terms of outcomes, 18 studies showed a lower (10;45.5%) or the same (8;36.4%) pre-post intervention mortality rate.
CONCLUSIONS: AFS programs seem to be related to lower costs and better outcomes and should thus be implemented in tandem with antimicrobial stewardship programs.
METHODS: Articles were systematically reviewed using the PRISMA checklist 2020. EMBASE and MEDLINE/PubMED were searched using the term \"antifungal stewardship\" (2012-2022 data) on 2 January 2023. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS and included an intervention, performance evaluation and outcome measures.
RESULTS: A total of 22/796 studies were included. Approximately two-thirds (16) were published between 2018 and 2022. 16 (72.7%) stated a minimal complete AFS team. 12 (54.5%) adopted a non-compulsory AFS approach, 6(27.3%) had an Educational AFS and 4(18.2%) a compulsory AFS. Cost analyses of 12 studies showed a decrease for 7 (31.8%) compared to an increase for 5 (22.7%). In terms of outcomes, 18 studies showed a lower (10;45.5%) or the same (8;36.4%) pre-post intervention mortality rate.
CONCLUSIONS: AFS programs seem to be related to lower costs and better outcomes and should thus be implemented in tandem with antimicrobial stewardship programs.
摘要：
背景：侵袭性真菌感染（FI）是一组与高发病率相关的危及生命的疾病，死亡率和高医疗费用。现在已经开发了一些称为AFS（抗真菌管理计划）的现代管理计划。本系统评价的目的是评估抗真菌管理计划（AFPs）的不同下降。
方法：使用PRISMA清单2020对文章进行了系统审查。EMBASE和MEDLINE/PubMED于2023年1月2日使用术语“抗真菌管理”（2012-2022年数据）进行搜索。符合条件的研究是那些描述AFS并包括干预措施的研究，绩效评估和结果衡量标准。
结果：共纳入22/796项研究。大约三分之二（16）在2018年至2022年之间发布。16（72.7％）表示只有最少的完整AFS团队。12名(54.5%)采用非强制性AFS方法，6人（27.3%）有教育AFS，4人（18.2%）有强制性AFS。12项研究的成本分析显示，7项研究(31.8%)下降，5项研究增加(22.7%)。在结果方面,18项研究显示干预前死亡率较低(10;45.5%)或相同(8;36.4%)。
结论：AFS计划似乎与更低的成本和更好的结果有关，因此应与抗菌药物管理计划一起实施。
方法：使用PRISMA清单2020对文章进行了系统审查。EMBASE和MEDLINE/PubMED于2023年1月2日使用术语“抗真菌管理”（2012-2022年数据）进行搜索。符合条件的研究是那些描述AFS并包括干预措施的研究，绩效评估和结果衡量标准。
结果：共纳入22/796项研究。大约三分之二（16）在2018年至2022年之间发布。16（72.7％）表示只有最少的完整AFS团队。12名(54.5%)采用非强制性AFS方法，6人（27.3%）有教育AFS，4人（18.2%）有强制性AFS。12项研究的成本分析显示，7项研究(31.8%)下降，5项研究增加(22.7%)。在结果方面,18项研究显示干预前死亡率较低(10;45.5%)或相同(8;36.4%)。
结论：AFS计划似乎与更低的成本和更好的结果有关，因此应与抗菌药物管理计划一起实施。
