Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:25:12.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antifungal stewardship: the Latin American experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2023

Fernando Riera*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Sanatorio Allende Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina Infectious Diseases, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
Jorge Cortes Luna
Affiliation:
Medicine Department of Internal Medicine School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia
Ricardo Rabagliatti
Affiliation:
Departamento de Enfermedades Infecciosas del Adulto, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Pablo Scapellato
Affiliation:
Chief Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital D.F. Santojanni, Medicina Universidad Favaloro, Argentina
Juan Pablo Caeiro
Affiliation:
HIV/Infectious Diseases Services at AltaMed, Infectious Diseases, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
Marcello Mihalenko Chaves Magri
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Services, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Claudia Elena Sotomayor
Affiliation:
CIBICI-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Laboratory of Innate Immunity to Fungal Pathogens, Córdoba, Argentina Departamento de Bioquímica Clínica, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
Diego Rodrigues Falci
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Service, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil Infectious Diseases at the School of Medicine, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Fernando Riera; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Antifungal stewardship is a critical component of healthcare management that focuses on optimizing the use of antifungal medications to improve patient outcomes, minimize resistance, and reduce healthcare costs.  In resource-limited settings, the prevalence of fungal infections remains a significant health concern, often exacerbated by factors such as compromised immune systems, inadequate diagnostic capabilities, and limited access to antifungal agents. This paper reviews the current state of antifungal stewardship practices in developing countries, addressing the unique socioeconomic and healthcare landscape.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© Fernando Riera, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

Antifungal use has steadily risen over time in concert with the increase in the number of immunocompromised adults and children at risk for invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and opportunistic fungal infections. Despite the growing concern, fungal infections receive very little attention and resources, leading to a paucity of quality data on fungal disease distribution and antifungal resistance patterns. Reference Brown, Denning, Gow, Levitz, Netea and White1

The diagnosis and treatment of Invasive Fungal Diseases (IFDs) are challenged by limited access to quality diagnostics and treatment as well as emergence of antifungal resistance in many settings. 2

People infected by a resistant microorganism or by microorganisms that are difficult to treat, such as fungi, have a higher risk of death by infection, prolonged stays, and more expensive hospital stays. Reference Barlam, Cosgrove and Abbo3

Antimicrobial stewardship programs aim to improve utilization, achieve better patient outcomes, combat antibiotic resistance, and reduce costs. Reference Barlam, Cosgrove and Abbo3 These programs are an important tool to decrease the unnecessary and suboptimal use of antimicrobials. However, most current efforts have targeted antibiotic use, whereas antifungal stewardship has been relatively overlooked. Reference Johnson, Lewis and Dodds Ashley4,Reference Muñoz, Valerio, Vena and Bouza5 High drug costs and the toxicities of antifungal agents are the principal rationale for AFS while antifungal resistance is an emerging but less prevalent issue. Reference Alegria and Patel6,Reference Ananda-Rajah, Slavin and Thursky7

The current literature on antifungal stewardship programs and the use of antifungals is scarce in Latin America, where access to diagnostic and treatment to IFI is difficult. This review summarizes the current status of antifungal stewardship programs in Latin America and highlights future development needs.

Fungal burden Latin America

Antifungal use is intimately linked to the burden of fungal disease. Epidemiology Latin America shares characteristics common to the rest of the world but also has its own regional characteristics. Serious fungal diseases can affect more than 2 million people annually in Central and South America and the Caribbean, of which more than 350 000 cases are life-threatening. Reference Da Matta, Souza and Colombo8

Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the first fungal priority pathogens list (WHO FPPL). The WHO FPPL aims to focus and drive further research and policy interventions to strengthen the global response to fungal infections and antifungal resistance. The pathogens included were ranked and then categorized into three priority groups (critical, high, and medium) (Table 1). Reference Brown, Denning, Gow, Levitz, Netea and White1,2

Table 1. WHO fungal priority pathogens list (WHO FPPL)

Regarding invasive candidiasis, regional data show a high incidence of candidemia; compared to the rest of the world, countries like Brazil and Colombia are the ones with the highest incidence. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Angiolini9,Reference Calvo, Melo and Perozo-Mena11 C. parapsilosis (5–49%) and C. tropicalis (9.7% and 39%) are the main non-albicans species in the region, and Nakaseomyces glabrata (Candida glabrata) is less common than in North America and Europe, but its frequency is increasing. Reference Sabino, Veríssimo, Pereira and Antunes10,Reference Maldonado, Cano and De Bedout12 Overall, resistance rates to fluconazole increased from 0.4% to 1.2% among C. albicans, from 0.5% to 2.3% among isolates of C. tropicalis, and from 0 to 2.6% for C. parapsilosis. Reference Da Matta, Souza and Colombo8,Reference Sabino, Veríssimo, Pereira and Antunes10,Reference Calvo, Melo and Perozo-Mena11,Reference Nobrega De Almeida, Brandão and Francisco13

Echinocandin resistance remains rare, possibly related to the low use of echinocandins in the region and probably underestimated since most routine laboratories do not perform antifungal susceptibility tests. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Angiolini9 Maldonado et al in Colombia in a study of 300 isolates of Candida found 7.3% and 7.7% resistance to anidulafungin and caspofungin, respectively, and found higher middle-income countries (MICs) for these echinocandins in almost all species. Reference Maldonado, Cano and De Bedout12

Candida auris is an emerging fungal pathogen that is associated with nosocomial infections and is considered a serious global health threat. Reference Nobrega De Almeida, Brandão and Francisco13 This species was detected in Latin America in 2013 and later spread in the región. Multiple cases have been reported in Venezuela, Reference Sabino, Veríssimo, Pereira and Antunes10 Colombia, Reference Morales-López, Parra-Giraldo and Ceballos-Garzón14 Panama, Reference Araúz, Caceres and Santiago15 Brazil, Reference Nobrega De Almeida, Brandão and Francisco13 and, in 2022, Argentina. Reference Fernandez16

Aspergillus is the most common cause of IFI in patients with allogenic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) in Latin America, with a bimodal distribution (before posttransplant day 30 or after day 90), and it is the second most common cause in solid-organ transplant recipients. Reference Sifuentes-Osornio, Corzo-León and Ponce-de-León17 Their frequency depends on the level of development of the health system and the availability of these procedures. Reference Rodriguez Tudela, Cole and Ravasi18 In addition, this fungus also affects patients recovered from TB (a very frequent infection in the region), with an estimated infection rate of around 10%. Reference Denning, Pleuvry and Cole19 Of concern and with very limited information, resistance to azoles has been identified in environmental isolates in the region, which may limit the use of these products. Reference Alvarez-Moreno, Lavergne, Hagen, Morio, Meis and Le Pape20,Reference Macedo, Leonardelli, Gamarra and Garcia-Effron21

Fusarium is mainly observed in patients with leukemias or transplants. Isolations of these microorganisms have been relatively limited, and outbreaks caused by this type of microorganism have been observed in the region, especially in Brazil where it is more frequent than mucormycosis in this group of patients. Reference Nucci, Varon and Garnica22Reference Litvinov, Da Silva and Van Der Heijden24 Voriconazole or a lipid formulation are the drugs selected for the primarytreatment of invasive fusariosis. Reference Hoenigl, Salmanton-García and Walsh25

Mucormycosis is an emerging disease, and its incidence has increased in hospitals over the years. Reference Bonifaz, Tirado-Sánchez and Hernández-Medel26Reference Riera, Marangoni and Allende28 In a review of 143 cases in South America, the most common underlying conditions associated with mucormycosis were diabetes mellitus (42.0%) and penetrating trauma/burns (20.0%). Underlying conditions involving immunosuppression, including treatment of hematological malignancy, solid organ transplant, and corticosteroid use, also accounted for a large proportion of cases (45.5%). Reference Nucci, Engelhardt and Hamed27 Early diagnosis, control of the underlying disease, and prompt management may increase the survival rate.

Histoplasmosis and cryptococcosis are fungal infections mainly observed in patients with HIV, in advanced stages. According to epidemiological data, an incidence of more than 2% has been calculated in those living with HIV in Guatemala, Belize, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname, close to 1% in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Argentina, and less than 1% in the rest of the region. Reference Adenis, Valdes and Cropet29

Data from Guatemala, Reference Medina, Rodriguez-Tudela and Pérez30 Argentina, Reference Frola, Guelfand and Blugerman31 and Brazil Reference Borges, De Araújo Filho and Oliveira32 show that the incidence of cryptococcosis in patients with a recent diagnosis of HIV infection and CD4 counts below 100 cells per ml is greater than 5%, using screening strategies.

Availability of fungal pathogens diagnostic tests

To achieve favorable results in an antifungal stewardship program, the availability of appropriate diagnostic tools and a comprehensive drug armamentarium is essential. Reference Alegria and Patel6,Reference Chakrabarti, Mohamed and Capparella33 Studies about diagnostic capabilities and access to antifungal drugs are scarce. Beyond two recent works recently published, which differ in the period, survey method, and scope, there are no other studies with a systematic evaluation of these questions in Latin America. Reference Falci and Pasqualotto34Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36

In a survey directed to representatives of many institutions in Latin America and Caribbean, Falci and Pasqualotto aimed to design a snapshot of diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of the region, and perceptions of fungal disease by the responders. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 The authors classified the mycology laboratories of the institutions according to the European Confederation of Medical Mycology standards of excellence. Only 9% of the laboratories met the proposed standards. This study enrolled 129 institutions, mainly in Brazil (74%) and the majority reported third level of care complexity. Fundamental tools for antifungal stewardship, such as fungal identification and susceptibility tests, had shown to be lacking. The authors highlight that an incorrect identification and unawareness of antifungal resistance data can lead to inadequate treatments and unfavorable outcomes. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 The use of MALDI-ToF was reported in only 20% of institutions. Another highly valuable resource for enhancing an antifungal stewardship program is the use of therapeutic drug monitoring, Reference Borges, De Araújo Filho and Oliveira32 was reported in less than 20% of responders. Voriconazole was the drug more frequently measured (16%), followed by itraconazole (10%) and posaconazole (4%). Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 Regarding antigen testing, the scenario was also not good, with a low proportion of responders reporting access to Histoplasma and beta-glucan antigen detection, and cryptococcal antigen availability was absent in around 25% of centers. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 The galactomannan (GM) test, useful for an effective antifungal stewardship program, was reported in only 48% of institutions. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 Moreover, beta-glucan testing was demonstrated also to be a beneficial and cost-effective tool in stewardship strategies and its absence in most centers signifies a missed opportunity to reduce unnecessary drug use. Reference Gross, Steib-Bauert and Kern37

A different approach, focusing only on the endemic mycoses, was recently published by Caceres and colleagues. Reference Caceres, Echeverri Tirado and Bonifaz35 The authors describe the main findings of an analysis made by participants of the first International Meeting on Endemic Mycoses of the Americas. Representatives of 27 territories (divided into 9 regions) responded about availability of diagnostic methods and treatment for endemic mycoses. Moreover, a regional Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats analysis was performed by selected participants. This study reported that conventional tools for endemic diseases such as microscopy and culture were available, in at least one reference center per region. However, for other tools like serology and antigen detection, inequalities have been reported across the regions. Reference Caceres, Echeverri Tirado and Bonifaz35

Riera and colleagues, between June and August 2022, surveyed infectious disease, and clinicians from each of the 24 sites of Argentina were contacted to describe local access to fungal diagnostic tools and antifungal agents. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 Thirty responses were collected from facilities throughout Argentina. Most institutions were governmental (77%). A mycology department was available in 83% of them. Histopathology was available in almost 93% of the sites, while automated methods and GM tests were available in 57%, each; 53% of the sites had access to MALDI-TOF-MS through regional reference laboratories, and polymerase chain reaction was present in 20% of the sites. Susceptibility testing was available in 63% of the laboratories. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36

Antifungal drugs: consumption, availability, and use strategies reported for the region

The global consumption of antifungal agents is on the rise, especially in MICs, and certain life-saving antifungal agents indicated in severe fungal infections such as echinocandins and polyenes may be underutilized, especially in these countries. Reference Pathadka, Yan and Neoh38

Falci and Pasqualotto reported access to flucytosine had the worst case, with less than 20% of access across the region. Echinocandins had variable availability, around 30–41%. Azoles like fluconazole and itraconazole, along with deoxycholate amphotericin B, were most accessible. Liposomal amphotericin and the newer azoles (including voriconazole) had uneven availability reported by the responders. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36

Caceres and colleagues Reference Caceres, Echeverri Tirado and Bonifaz35 reported access to sulfonamide, azoles (such as itraconazole and voriconazole), and deoxycholate amphotericin B in most territories. Nonetheless, in some regions liposomal amphotericin has limited availability, as well as the newer azoles (posaconazole and isavuconazole). Reference Caceres, Echeverri Tirado and Bonifaz35

Riera and colleagues found that fluconazole was the only antifungal agent available in all institutions. This was followed by amphotericin B deoxycholate (83%) and itraconazole (80%). Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36 If an antifungal agent was not available onsite, then 60% of the patients could receive adequate antifungal treatment within the first 48 h upon request. Reference Riera, Caeiro and Cornely36

Several studies have found that fluconazole is still the most frequently prescribed antifungal agent despite the market introduction of echinocandins and mold-active azoles. Reference Gross, Steib-Bauert and Kern37,Reference Olaechea-Astigarraga, Álvarez-Lerma and Palomar-Martínez39

Quiros et al. Reference Quirós, Bardossy and Angeleri40 in a study included a network of hospitals from nine Latin American countries. In a study that included 84 Medical Surgical ICUs from tertiary-care hospitals in Latin America. Among the 426 systemic antifungal prescriptions, triazole drugs were the most frequently prescribed: 2.4% of total prescriptions for community acquired infections and 3.4% of total prescriptions of hospital acquired infections. The consumption of antifungals expressed in defined daily dose (DDD) every 100 patient days was: triazoles 7.4–7.9 DDD per 100 PD, amphotericin 2.2–3.4 DDD per 100 PD, and echinocandins 2.2–2.6 DDD/100 DDD per 100 PD. Reference Quirós, Bardossy and Angeleri40

Regarding the strategies for the use of antifungals (prophylaxis, empiric therapy, preemptive to antifungal treatment directed by confirmed diagnosis), Reference Cortegiani, Russotto, Raineri, Gregoretti, De Rosa and Giarratano41 regional data are scarce and the data come from closed immunocompromised patients (Table 2). Reference Nucci42

Table 2. Antifungal treatment strategies for invasive fungal infections

Prophylaxis consists of the administration of antifungals in patients at high risk of IFI without an evidence of IFI. Fluconazole is the main drug used, aimed at the prevention of candidiasis, and voriconazole/posaconazole/isavuconazole are recommended to extend the prophylaxis of IFIs due to filamentous fungi. Reference Nucci42Reference Cornely, Maertens and Winston44

The use of antifungal prophylaxis in Latin America is reported in several studies. In a Brazilian hospital, it was identified that 38 (11.9%) of the prescriptions corresponded to prophylaxis, fluconazole being the most indicated; the study showed a low proportion of appropriate antifungal drug use; the dosage and drug–drug interactions criteria were the determining factors for the high percentage of non-adherence to treatment guidelines in the hospital. Reference De Souza, Dos Santos and Reis45 There is reported experience of the use of prophylactic antifungals in a reference center in Peru, Reference Gomez, Caniza and Fynn46 in 47 children under 13 years of age; patients who received posaconazole showed an increase in transaminase values and the development of breakthrough fungal infections. The published data of 251 children with autologous or allogeneic HPCT in Argentina Reference Gomez, Caniza and Fynn46 describe that until 2006 they used fluconazole and then switched to voriconazole as IFI prophylaxis. During an experience at a children’s hospital, which included the management of 139 HSCT recipients in Colombia, Reference Perez, Patiño and Franco47 reported that the results with the use of voriconazole prophylaxis, the frequency of IFI was 4.4 vs. 7.4% with use of other prophylactic antifungals, with no statistically significant difference (Table 3).

Table 3. Antifungal core elements

The clinical guidelines for the management of NF published in the region in 2005 recommend the use of empirical antifungal therapy to the extent that NF patients persist febrile on the 7th day despite appropriate antibacterial therapy. However, it is suggested to consider a study with GM and perform lung imaging at the time of its prescription. Reference Santolaya, Rabagliati and Bidart48

In a publication of a survey of NF therapy practices in 19 hospitals in Latin America, the use of empirical antifungals is the most frequent practice, indicating it as soon as possible in high-risk episodes, usually after 72 hours of persistence of fever, previously performing a chest CT scan in 89.62% of the centers and 70.37% performing a GM measurement, resulting in amphotericin use in some of its formulations being the most frequently prescribed antifungal. Reference Melgar, Homsi and Happ49

Regarding the use of antifungal in a preemptive strategy, Santolaya et al Reference Santolaya, Alvarez and Acuña50 compared the strategy of empirical vs preemptive. A total of 149 children were randomized, 73 to empirical therapy and 76 to preemptive therapy. Thirty-two of 76 (42%) children in the preemptive group received antifungal therapy. The median duration of antifungal therapy was 11 days in the empirical arm and 6 days in the preemptive arm (P < 0.001), with similar overall mortality (8% in the empirical arm and 5% in the preemptive arm, P = 0.47). IFD-related mortality was the same in both groups (3%, P = 0.97), as were the percentage of children with IFD (12%, P = 0.92) and the number of days of fever (9, P = 0.76). Preemptive antifungal therapy was as effective as empirical antifungal therapy in children with cancer, fever, and neutropenia, significantly reducing the use of antifungal drugs. Reference Santolaya, Alvarez and Acuña50 Obviously, to consider the preemptive strategy, it is essential to have quick access to GM measurement, images, BAL, among others.

Concerning the use of GM, in a study conducted in Brazil, Reference Dos Santos, Hermes and Pasqualotto51 the reasons for requesting GM were evaluated during a 1-year period, including 245 samples corresponding to 158 patients, in which 60.1% were hemato-oncology patients, most of them due to diagnostic purposes 46.5%, followed by preemptive strategy surveillance 25.7% and therapeutic follow-up 15.1%.

Antimicrobial stewardship and antifungal stewardship in Latin America

The worldwide development and implementation of AMS programs vary considerably. In a 2015 survey, the availability of regional standards for antimicrobial stewardship in Latam was 30%. Reference Howard, Pulcini and Levy Hara52 The main barriers to implementing AMS programs described in this survey were perceived to be a lack of funding or personnel, a lack of information technology, and prescriber opposition. Reference Howard, Pulcini and Levy Hara52 Few hospitals in Latin America report having a structure or resources needed for a successful ASP and antimicrobial stewardship activities differ significantly among Latin American countries. Reference Cortegiani, Russotto, Raineri, Gregoretti, De Rosa and Giarratano41

Gamarra et al. Reference Gamarra, Nucci and Nouér53 documented the unique experience of the Antifungal stewardship (AFS) in Latam, in this study evaluating the quality of antifungal prescriptions in a tertiary care hospital, and to test if a simple educational activity could improve the quality of prescriptions. Among 333 prescriptions, fluconazole was the most frequently (80.5%) prescribed agent. Hematology (26.7%), infectious diseases department (22.8%), internal medicine (15.9%), and intensive care unit (14.4%) were the units with most antifungal prescriptions. The researchers observed that 72.7% of prescriptions were considered inappropriate. With simple educational activity, a large proportion of inappropriate prescriptions was improved.

Conclusion

Current literature about AFS shows a difficult scenario in Latin America. There are substantial inequalities in the regional and local availability of antifungal agents. Treatment, accessibility of antifungal agents, and stewardship were some of those measures. Reference Wattal, Chakrabarti and Oberoi54

These programs must be comprehensive and not forget the concept of One Health, since they are drugs used in crops and animals and influenced by changes in environment. Reference Mackenzie and Jeggo55

Many decisions involved in the management of IFD must be instituted in a specific sequence over a short time frame to have maximal clinical impact. Clinical care pathways or treatment bundles are useful strategies, to maximize treatment effectiveness. Reference Johnson, Lewis and Dodds Ashley4

ASPs centered on hospitalized patients may be an efficient strategy to optimize antifungal use in hospitals. The applicability in hospitals may have to be focused on critical care units and immunocompromised patients units, places where antifungals are used more frequently. Reference Muñoz, Valerio, Vena and Bouza5Reference Ananda-Rajah, Slavin and Thursky7,Reference Riera, Caeiro and Sotomayor56 It is recommended that the professionals who carry out the task have special training in mycology and in the management of antifungals given their special characteristics (prolonged use, toxicity, and interactions). Reference Muñoz, Valerio, Vena and Bouza5,Reference Ananda-Rajah, Slavin and Thursky7

We recommended four actionable core measures for antifungal stewardship programsReference Johnson, Lewis and Dodds Ashley4:

  1. 1. Full support of hospital governance.

  2. 2. Institution-wide education program.

  3. 3. Measures to support optimal antifungal utilization.

  4. 4. Measures to control antifungal prescribing, utilization, and resistance.

On the other hand, scientific societies should develop and update regional guides and stimulate the publication of experiences in the field to obtain more information. We still have a long way to go; efforts should be urgently made to improve diagnostic capabilities, equalize regional disparities, and qualify antifungal stewardship programs in Latin America.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

Brown, GD, Denning, DW, Gow, NAR, Levitz, SM, Netea, MG, White, TC. Hidden killers: Human fungal infections. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:165rv13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004404 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO fungal priority pathogens list to guide research, development and public health action. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240060241. Accessed August 14, 2023.Google Scholar
Barlam, TF, Cosgrove, SE, Abbo, LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:e51e77. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, MD, Lewis, RE, Dodds Ashley, ES, et al. Core recommendations for antifungal stewardship: A statement of the mycoses study group education and research consortium. The J Infect Dis 2020;222:S175S198. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, P, Valerio, M, Vena, A, Bouza, E. Antifungal stewardship in daily practice and health economic implications. Mycoses 2015;58:1425. doi: 10.1111/myc.12329 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alegria, W, Patel, PK. The current state of antifungal stewardship in immunocompromised populations. JoF 2021;7:352. doi: 10.3390/jof7050352 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ananda-Rajah, MR, Slavin, MA, Thursky, KT. The case for antifungal stewardship: Curr Opin Infect Dis 2012;25:107115. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32834e0680 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Da Matta, D, Souza, A, Colombo, A. Revisiting species distribution and antifungal susceptibility of Candida bloodstream isolates from Latin American Medical Centers. JoF 2017;3:24. doi: 10.3390/jof3020024 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riera, FO, Caeiro, JP, Angiolini, SC, et al. Invasive candidiasis: update and current challenges in the management of this mycosis in South America. Antibiotics (Basel) 2022;11:877. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11070877 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabino, R, Veríssimo, C, Pereira, ÁA, Antunes, F. Candida auris, an agent of hospital-associated outbreaks: Which challenging issues do we need to have in mind? Microorganisms 2020;8:181. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8020181 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calvo, B, Melo, ASA, Perozo-Mena, A, et al. First report of Candida auris in America: Clinical and microbiological aspects of 18 episodes of Candidemia. J Infect 2016;73:369374. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.07.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maldonado, NA, Cano, LE, De Bedout, C, et al. Association of clinical and demographic factors in invasive candidiasis caused by fluconazole-resistant Candida species: a study in 15 hospitals, Medellín, Colombia 2010–2011. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 2014;79:280286. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.02.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nobrega De Almeida, J, Brandão, IB, Francisco, EC, et al. Axillary Digital Thermometers uplifted a multidrug-susceptible Candida auris outbreak among COVID-19 patients in Brazil. Mycoses 2021;64:10621072. doi: 10.1111/myc.13320 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morales-López, SE, Parra-Giraldo, CM, Ceballos-Garzón, A, et al. Invasive infections with multidrug-resistant yeast Candida auris, Colombia. Emerg Infect Dis 2017;23:162164. doi: 10.3201/eid2301.161497 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araúz, AB, Caceres, DH, Santiago, E, et al. Isolation of Candida auris from 9 patients in Central America: Importance of accurate diagnosis and susceptibility testing. Mycoses 2018;61:4447. doi: 10.1111/myc.12709 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, NB. Un patógeno fúngico emergente multirresistente en Argentina. Rev Argent Microbiol 2022;54:261262. doi: 10.1016/j.ram.2022.11.001 Google Scholar
Sifuentes-Osornio, J, Corzo-León, DE, Ponce-de-León, LA. Epidemiology of invasive fungal infections in Latin America. Curr Fungal Infect Rep 2012;6:2334. doi: 10.1007/s12281-011-0081-7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez Tudela, JL, Cole, DC, Ravasi, G, et al. Integration of fungal diseases into health systems in Latin America. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:890892. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30469-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denning, D, Pleuvry, A, Cole, D. Global burden of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis as a sequel to pulmonary tuberculosis. Bull World Health Org 2011;89:864872. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.089441 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvarez-Moreno, C, Lavergne, RA, Hagen, F, Morio, F, Meis, JF, Le Pape, P. Fungicide-driven alterations in azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus are related to vegetable crops in Colombia, South America. Mycologia 2019;111:217224. doi: 10.1080/00275514.2018.1557796 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macedo, D, Leonardelli, F, Gamarra, S, Garcia-Effron, G. Emergence of triazole resistance in Aspergillus spp. in Latin America. Curr Fungal Infect Rep 2021;15:93103. doi: 10.1007/s12281-021-00418-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nucci, M, Varon, AG, Garnica, M, et al. Increased Incidence of invasive fusariosis with cutaneous portal of entry, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2013;19:15671572. doi: 10.3201/eid1910.120847 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlesse, F, Amaral, APC, Gonçalves, SS, et al. Outbreak of Fusarium oxysporum infections in children with cancer: an experience with 7 episodes of catheter-related fungemia. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017;6:93. doi: 10.1186/s13756-017-0247-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litvinov, N, Da Silva, MTN, Van Der Heijden, IM, et al. An outbreak of invasive fusariosis in a children’s cancer hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:268.e1268.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigl, M, Salmanton-García, J, Walsh, TJ, et al. Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of rare mould infections: an initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology in cooperation with the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology and the American Society for Microbiology. Lancet Infect Dis 2021;21:e246e257. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30784-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonifaz, A, Tirado-Sánchez, A, Hernández-Medel, ML, et al. Mucormycosis at a tertiary-care center in Mexico. A 35-year retrospective study of 214 cases. Mycoses 2021;64:372380. doi: 10.1111/myc.13222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nucci, M, Engelhardt, M, Hamed, K. Mucormycosis in South America: A review of 143 reported cases. Mycoses 2019;62:730738. doi: 10.1111/myc.12958 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riera, F, Marangoni, LD, Allende, BL, et al. [Mucormycosis. Clinical cases and update]. Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba 2014;71:192198.Google ScholarPubMed
Adenis, AA, Valdes, A, Cropet, C, et al. Burden of HIV-associated histoplasmosis compared with tuberculosis in Latin America: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18:11501159. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30354-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medina, N, Rodriguez-Tudela, JL, Pérez, JC, et al. Epidemiology and mortality of cryptococcal disease in Guatemala: two-year results of a cryptococcal antigen screening program. Microorganisms 2022;10:1388. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10071388 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frola, C, Guelfand, L, Blugerman, G, et al. Prevalence of cryptococcal infection among advanced HIV patients in Argentina using lateral flow immunoassay. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0178721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178721 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borges, MASB, De Araújo Filho, JA, Oliveira, BDJS, et al. Prospective cohort of AIDS patients screened for cryptococcal antigenaemia, pre-emptively treated and followed in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2019;14:e0219928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219928 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakrabarti, A, Mohamed, N, Capparella, MR, et al. The role of diagnostics-driven antifungal stewardship in the management of invasive fungal infections: A systematic literature review. Open Forum Infect Dis 2022;9:ofac234. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac234 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falci, DR, Pasqualotto, AC. Clinical mycology in Latin America and the Caribbean: A snapshot of diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Mycoses 2019;62:368373. doi: 10.1111/myc.12890 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caceres, DH, Echeverri Tirado, LC, Bonifaz, A, et al. Current situation of endemic mycosis in the Americas and the Caribbean: Proceedings of the first international meeting on endemic mycoses of the Americas (IMEMA). Mycoses 2022;65:11791187. doi: 10.1111/myc.13510 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riera, F, Caeiro, JP, Cornely, OA, et al. The Argentinian landscape of mycological diagnostic capacity and treatment accessibility. Med Mycol 2023;61:myad058. doi: 10.1093/mmy/myad058 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, BN, Steib-Bauert, M, Kern, WV, et al. Hospital use of systemic antifungal drugs: a multi-center surveillance update from Germany. Infection 2015;43:423429. doi: 10.1007/s15010-015-0742-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pathadka, S, Yan, VKC, Neoh, CF, et al. Global consumption trend of antifungal agents in humans from 2008 to 2018: Data from 65 middle- and high-income countries. Drugs. 2022;82:11931205. doi: 10.1007/s40265-022-01751-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olaechea-Astigarraga, PM, Álvarez-Lerma, F, Palomar-Martínez, M, et al. Evolución del consumo de antifúngicos en pacientes críticos. Estudio multicéntrico observacional, 2006-2010. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiol Clín 2012;30:435440. doi: 10.1016/j.eimc.2012.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirós, RE, Bardossy, AC, Angeleri, P, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in adult intensive care units in Latin America: Implementation, assessments, and impact on outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:181190. doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.80 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortegiani, A, Russotto, V, Raineri, SM, Gregoretti, C, De Rosa, FG, Giarratano, A. Untargeted antifungal treatment strategies for invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill patients: Current evidence and insights. Curr Fungal Infect Rep 2017;11:8491. doi: 10.1007/s12281-017-0288-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nucci, M. Use of antifungal drugs in hematology. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoterapia 2012;34:383391. doi: 10.5581/1516-8484.20120095 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullmann, AJ, Lipton, JH, Vesole, DH, et al. Posaconazole or fluconazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:335347. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061098 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornely, OA, Maertens, J, Winston, DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007;356:348359. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061094 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Souza, MCP, Dos Santos, AG, Reis, AMM. Drug utilization study of systemic antifungal agents in a Brazilian tertiary care hospital. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:13981406. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0382-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, SM, Caniza, M, Fynn, A, et al. Fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children at a pediatric children’s hospital in Argentina. Transpl Infect Dis 2018;20:e12913. doi: 10.1111/tid.12913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, P, Patiño, J, Franco, AA, et al. Prophylaxis for invasive fungal infection in pediatric patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood Res 2022;57:3440. doi: 10.5045/br.2021.2021127 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santolaya, ME, Rabagliati, R, Bidart, T, et al. [Consensus: Rational approach towards the patient with cancer, fever and neutropenia]. Rev Chilena Infectol 2005;22:S79113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melgar, MA, Homsi, MR, Happ, B, et al. Survey of practices for the clinical management of febrile neutropenia in children in hematology-oncology units in Latin America. Support Care Cancer 2021;29:79037911. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06381-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santolaya, ME, Alvarez, AM, Acuña, M, et al. Efficacy of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy in children with cancer and high-risk febrile neutropenia: a randomized clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018;73:28602866. doi: 10.1093/jac/dky244 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dos Santos, JS, Hermes, DM, Pasqualotto, AC. Galactomannan use in clinical practice: providing free testing is not the full answer. Braz J Infect Dis 2018;22:3740. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2017.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P, Pulcini, C, Levy Hara, G, et al. An international cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:12451255. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku497 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamarra, F, Nucci, M, Nouér, SA. Evaluation of a stewardship program of antifungal use at a Brazilian tertiary care hospital. Braz J Infect Dis 2022;26:102333. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2022.102333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattal, C, Chakrabarti, A, Oberoi, JK, Issues in antifungal stewardship: an opportunity that should not be lost, J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:969974. 10.1093/jac/dkw506 Google Scholar
Mackenzie, JS, Jeggo, M. The one health approach-why is it so important? Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019 31;4(2):88. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed4020088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riera, F, Caeiro, JP, Sotomayor, CE. Antifungal stewardship in low- and middle-income countries. Curr Treat Options Infect Dis 2019;11:292299. doi: 10.1007/s40506-019-00197-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. WHO fungal priority pathogens list (WHO FPPL)

Figure 1

Table 2. Antifungal treatment strategies for invasive fungal infections

Figure 2

Table 3. Antifungal core elements