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.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) have been proposed as an opportunity to optimize antifungal use. The antifungal resistance is a significant and emerging threat. The literature on antifungal stewardship (AFS) and its influence on performance and clinical outcome measures is scarce. This study aimed to examine global evidence of the impact of AFS on patients and performance measures.
METHODS: The \"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses\" (PRISMA) was used for the flow of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched using the term \'\'antifungal stewardship\'\' on 15 February 2023. Search terms included antifungal stewardship, antimicrobial stewardship, candida, candidemia, candiduria, and invasive fungal disease. Of the 1366 records, 1304 were removed since they did not describe an antifungal stewardship intervention. Among the 62 full texts assessed, 21 articles were excluded since they were non-interventional studies and did not include the outcome of interest. Thus, 41 articles were eligible for systematic review. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS program and evaluated clinical or performance measures.
RESULTS: Of the 41 included studies, the primary performance measure collected was antifungal consumption (22 of 41), and mortality (22 of 41), followed by length of stay (11 of 41) and cost (9 of 41). Most studies were single-center, quasi-experimental, with varying interventions across studies. The principal finding from most of the studies in this systematic review is a reduction in mortality expressed in different units and the use of antifungal agents (13 studies out of 22 reporting mortality). Antifungal consumption was significantly blunted or reduced following stewardship initiation (10 of 22). Comparing studies was impossible due to a lack of standard units, making conducting a meta-analysis unfeasible, which would be a limitation of our study.
CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that AFS interventions may improve antifungal consumption and other performance measures. According to available published studies, antifungal consumption and mortality appear to be the possible performance measures to evaluate the impact of AFS.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs represent efficacious measures for reducing antibiotic overuse and improving outcomes in different settings. Specific data on pediatric oncology are lacking. We conducted a systematic review on the PubMed and Trip databases according to the PRISMA guidelines, searching for reports regarding antimicrobial stewardship in pediatric oncology and hematology patients. The aim of the study was to summarize the present literature regarding the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs or initiatives in this particular population, and provide insights for future investigations. Nine papers were included in the qualitative analysis: three regarding antifungal interventions, five regarding antibacterial interventions, and one regarding both antifungal and antibacterial stewardship interventions. Variable strategies were reported among the included studies. Different parameters were used to evaluate the impact of these interventions, including days of therapy per 1000-patient-days, infections with resistant strains, safety analysis, and costs. We generally observed a reduction in the prescription of broad-spectrum antibiotics and an improved appropriateness, with reduced antibiotic-related side effects and no difference in infection-related mortality. Antibiotic stewardship programs or interventions are effective in reducing antibiotic consumption and improving outcomes in pediatric oncology hematology settings, although stewardship strategies differ substantially in different institutions. A standardized approach needs to be implemented in future studies in order to better elucidate the impact of stewardship programs in this category of patients.

Antifungal stewardship (AFS) programs are key to optimizing antifungal use and improving outcomes in patients with invasive fungal infections. Our systematic literature review evaluated the impact of diagnostics in AFS programs by assessing performance and clinical measures. Most eligible studies were from Europe and the United States (n = 12/17). Diagnostic approaches included serum β-1-3-D-glucan test (n/N studies, 7/17), galactomannan test (4/17), computed tomography scan (3/17), magnetic resonance (2/17), matrix-assisted laser desorption and ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS; 2/17), polymerase chain reaction (1/17), peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA-FISH) assay (1/17), and other routine methods (9/17). Time to species identification decreased significantly using MALDI-TOF and PNA-FISH (n = 2). Time to targeted therapy and length of empiric therapy also decreased (n = 3). Antifungal consumption decreased by 11.6%-59.0% (7/13). Cost-savings ranged from 13.5% to 50.6% (5/10). Mortality rate (13/16) and length of stay (6/7) also decreased. No negative impact was reported on patient outcomes. Diagnostics-driven interventions can potentially improve AFS measures (antifungal consumption, cost, mortality, and length of stay); therefore, AFS implementation should be encouraged.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a widely recognized public health threat, and stewardship interventions to combat this problem are well described. Less is known about antifungal stewardship (AFS) initiatives and their influence within the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate evidence on the impact of AFS interventions on clinical and performance measures.
METHODS: A systematic review of English language studies identified in the PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed through November 2017. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. Search terms included antifungal stewardship, antimicrobial stewardship, Candida, candidemia, candiduria, and invasive fungal disease. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS program or intervention occurring in the US and evaluated clinical or performance measures.
RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were identified and 13 were included. Five studies evaluated AFS interventions and reported clinical outcomes (mortality and length of stay) and performance measures (appropriate antifungal choice and time to therapy). The remaining eight studies evaluated general stewardship interventions and reported data on antifungal consumption. All studies were single center, quasi-experimental with varying interventions across studies. AFS programs had no impact on mortality (3 of 3 studies), with an overall rate of 27% in the intervention group and 23% in the non-intervention group. Length of stay (5 of 5) was also similar between groups (range, 9-25 vs. 11-22). Time to antifungal therapy improved in 2 of 5 studies, and appropriate choice of antifungal increased in 2 of 2 studies. Antifungal consumption was significantly blunted or reduced following stewardship initiation (8 of 8), although a direct comparison between studies was not possible due to a lack of common units.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that AFS interventions can improve performance measures and decrease antifungal consumption. Although this review did not detect improvements in clinical outcomes, significant adverse outcomes were not reported.