Search

Background: Invasive candidiasis is still recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality. To support clinicians in the optimal use of antifungals for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, a computerized decision support system (CDSS) was developed based on institutional guidelines., Objectives: To evaluate the correlation of this newly developed CDSS with clinical practices, we set-up a retrospective multicentre cohort study with the aim of providing the concordance rate between the CDSS recommendation and the medical prescription (NCT05656157)., Patients and Methods: Adult patients who received caspofungin or fluconazole for the treatment of an invasive candidiasis were included. The analysis of factors associated with concordance was performed using mixed logistic regression models with department as a random effect., Results: From March to November 2022, 190 patients were included from three centres and eight departments: 70 patients from centre A, 84 from centre B and 36 from centre C. Overall, 100 patients received caspofungin and 90 received fluconazole, mostly (59%; 112/190) for empirical/pre-emptive treatment. The overall percentage of concordance between the CDSS and medical prescriptions was 91% (173/190) (confidence interval 95%: 82%-96%). No significant difference in concordance was observed considering the centres (P > 0.99), the department of inclusion (P = 0.968), the antifungal treatment (P = 0.656) or the indication of treatment (P = 0.997). In most cases of discordance (n = 13/17, 76%), the CDSS recommended fluconazole whereas caspofungin was prescribed. The clinical usability evaluated by five clinicians was satisfactory., Conclusions: Our results demonstrated the high correlation between current antifungal clinical practice and this user-friendly and institutional guidelines-based CDSS., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Candidemia is a major cause of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), an echinocandin is recommended as initial therapy and fluconazole as an alternative. In a context of echinocandin resistance development, the question arising is whether azoles are a suitable alternative to echinocandins for the treatment of candidemia in critically ill patients., Methods: A 3-year (2015-2017) retrospective multicentric cohort study was conducted. Adult patients with a diagnosis of candidemia during the ICU stay and treated with echinocandins or azoles were included. Demographic, clinical data, mycological data, and antifungal treatments were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, univariate analysis, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis using a propensity score with the inverse probability of treatment weighting method were performed., Findings: Seventy-nine patients (n = 79) were analyzed. Treatment success, as well as survival on day 90 (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log rank test, p = 0.542), were comparable between patients who received echinocandins (caspofungin (n = 47)) or azoles (fluconazole (n = 29) or voriconazole (n = 3)). A multivariable analysis demonstrated that higher SOFA score on the day of candidemia diagnosis and absence of adequate Candida source control were independently associated with a greater risk of 90-day mortality, whereas azoles treatment was not associated with an excess 90-day mortality., Interpretation: This study confirms that the use of azoles recommended for candidemia, mostly fluconazole, as a first-line therapy is a reasonable alternative to caspofungin for ICU patients in our institution. This needs to be included in local guidelines through antifungal stewardship programs., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)