Skip to main content
Log in

Pharmacist review of high-risk haematology outpatients to improve appropriateness of antifungal prophylaxis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Patients with haematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive fungal infections. However, there is a lack of information about the utilisation of the recommended Australian antifungal prophylaxis guidelines in haematology outpatients. Objective To assess the impact of a weekly pharmacist review of high-risk adult haematology outpatients on the utilisation of appropriate antifungal prophylaxis. Setting Outpatient cancer centre, tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Method A 3-month pre-and post-interventional study was conducted. A retrospective audit was conducted to obtain baseline utilisation of antifungal guidelines in adult haematology outpatients with acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome receiving chemotherapy. This was followed by a weekly pharmacist review over a 3-month period of all eligible outpatients assessing the appropriateness of antifungal agent, dose, use of therapeutic drug monitoring and presence of drug-interactions/contraindications. Recommendations to physicians were conveyed weekly and outcomes recorded. Main outcome measure Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines in outpatient haematology patients before and after implementation of a 3-month weekly pharmacist review service. Results Forty patients were included in the retrospective group, equating to 348 reviews, while 42 patients equating to 269 reviews were included in the prospective group. Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines increased from 31 to 54% post implementation of a pharmacist review (Odds Ratio = 2.44, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–5.58, p = 0.0344). The most common reason for nonadherence to guidelines in both groups was lack of therapeutic drug monitoring and failure to prescribe antifungal prophylaxis where indicated. The percentage of appropriate use of antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia increased from 13 to 46% (p value < 0.01) after pharmacist intervention. The pharmacist made 153 recommendations from 269 reviews, with a percentage uptake of 40%. Moderate to severe drug interactions were identified in 19 reviews from 10 patients. One major azole antifungal-chemotherapy interaction was avoided. Conclusions Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines can be improved through a regular pharmacist review. Future studies should identify whether improving adherence to antifungal guidelines leads to improved patient outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Halpern AB, Lyman GH, Walsh TJ, Kontoyiannis DP, Walter RB. Primary antifungal prophylaxis during curative-intent therapy for acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015;126(26):2790–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Pechlivanoglou P, Le HH, Daenen S, Snowden JA, Postma MJ. Mixed treatment comparison of prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients receiving therapy for haematological malignancies: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleming S, Yannakou CK, Haeusler GM, Clark J, Grigg A, Heath CH, et al. Consensus guidelines for antifungal prophylaxis in haematological malignancy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1283–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen SC, Sorrell TC, Chang CC, Paige EK, Bryant PA, Slavin MA. Consensus guidelines for the treatment of yeast infections in the haematology, oncology and intensive care setting. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1315–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Slavin MA, Thursky KA, Worth LJ, Chang CC, Morrissey CO, Blyth CC, et al. Introduction to the updated Australian and New Zealand consensus guidelines for the use of antifungal agents in the haematology/oncology setting. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1267–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chau MM, Kong DC, van Hal SJ, Urbancic K, Trubiano JA, Cassumbhoy M, et al. Consensus guidelines for optimising antifungal drug delivery and monitoring to avoid toxicity and improve outcomes in patients with haematological malignancy. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1364–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nivoix Y, Launoy A, Lutun P, Moulin JC, Phai Pang KA, Fornecker LM, et al. Adherence to recommendations for the use of antifungal agents in a tertiary care hospital. J Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2012;67(10):2506–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lachenmayr SJ, Berking S, Horns H, Strobach D, Ostermann H, Berger K. Antifungal treatment in haematological and oncological patients:need for quality assessment in routine care. Mycoses. 2018;61:464–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Souza MC, Dos Santos AG, Reis AM. Drug utilization study of systemic antifungal agents in a Brazilian tertiary care hospital. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(6):1398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berking S, Doedens D, Horns H, Fiegl M, Ostermann H, Rieger CT. Antifungal prophylaxis in newly diagnosed AML patients–Adherence to guidelines and feasibility in a real life setting. Mycoses. 2017;60(9):600–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Valerio M, Rodriguez-Gonzalez CG, Muñoz P, Caliz B, Sanjurjo M, Bouza E, et al. Evaluation of antifungal use in a tertiary care institution: antifungal stewardship urgently needed. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(7):1993–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Valerio M, Muñoz P, Rodríguez CG, Caliz B, Padilla B, Fernández-Cruz A, et al. Antifungal stewardship in a tertiary-care institution: a bedside intervention. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21(5):492–e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mondain V, Lieutier F, Hasseine L, Gari-Toussaint M, Poiree M, Lions C, et al. A 6-year antifungal stewardship programme in a teaching hospital. Infection. 2013;41(3):621–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Micallef C, Aliyu SH, Santos R, Brown NM, Rosembert D, Enoch DA. Introduction of an antifungal stewardship programme targeting high-cost antifungals at a tertiary hospital in Cambridge. Engl J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(6):1908–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. López-Medrano F, Juan RS, Lizasoain M, Catalán M, Ferrari JM, Chaves F, et al. A non-compulsory stewardship programme for the management of antifungals in a university-affiliated hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19(1):56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reslan Z, Lindsay J, Kerridge I, Gellatly R. Adherence to antifungal guidelines in malignant hematology patients: a review of the literature. J Pharm Technol. 2019;35(6):270–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ashbee HR, Barnes RA, Johnson EM, Richardson MD, Gorton R, Hope WW. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungal agents: guidelines from the british society for medical mycology. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(5):1162–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stott KE, Hope WW. Therapeutic drug monitoring for invasive mould infections and disease: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72((suppl_1)):i12–i8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Belling M, Kanate AS, Shillingburg A, Lu X, Wen S, Shah N, Craig M, Cumpston A. Evaluation of serum posaconazole concentrations in patients with hematological malignancies receiving posaconazole suspension compared to the delayed-release tablet formulation. Leuk Res Treat. 2017;2017:3460892. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3460892

  20. Chin A, Pergam SA, Fredricks DN, Hoofnagle AN, Baker KK, Jain R. Evaluation of posaconazole serum concentrations from delayed-release tablets in patients at high risk for fungal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(10):e00569–17. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00569-17

  21. Maertens JA, Girmenia C, Brüggemann RJ, Duarte RF, Kibbler CC, Ljungman P et al (2018) European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 73:3221–3230

  22. Pomares H, Arnan M, Sanchez-Ortega I, Sureda A, Duarte RF. Invasive fungal infections in AML/MDS patients treated with azacitidine: a risk worth considering antifungal prophylaxis? Mycoses. 2016;59(8):516–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mellinghoff SC, Panse J, Alakel N, Behre G, Buchheidt D, Christopeit M, et al. Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancies: 2017 update of the recommendations of the infectious diseases working party (AGIHO) of the German society for haematology and medical oncology (DGHO). Ann Hematol. 2018;97(2):197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Pharmacy and Haematology Departments at Royal North Shore Hospital for their support of this project. We would also like to acknowledge the statistician Rachel O’Connell for her help in the data analysis.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zainab Reslan.

Ethics declarations

Availability of data and material (data transparency)

Original data is available from the authors if required

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Consent for publication

The authors have obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organisation where the work was carried out.

Consent to participate

As per ethics approval (low risk research), patient reviews were considered standard of care for the haematology pharmacist therefore consent was not required.

Ethics approval

Institutional ethics approval was obtained to conduct this study (Northern Sydney Local Health District Reference: RESP/17/1350).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reslan, Z., Lindsay, J., Kerridge, I. et al. Pharmacist review of high-risk haematology outpatients to improve appropriateness of antifungal prophylaxis. Int J Clin Pharm 42, 1412–1418 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01090-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01090-5

Keywords

Navigation