Cargando…

2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis for high-risk neutropenic patients has been shown to reduce rates of febrile neutropenia and is standard at many centers. For patients who cannot receive a FQ, oral third-generation cephalosporins (OTGCs) are often used as an alternative; however, this st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DeVoe, Catherine, Trinh, Trang D, Moises, Joshua, Pham, Binh C, Tran, Allen V, Vuong, Lisa, Doernberg, Sarah B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810486/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2362
_version_ 1783462267506917376
author DeVoe, Catherine
Trinh, Trang D
Moises, Joshua
Pham, Binh C
Tran, Allen V
Vuong, Lisa
Doernberg, Sarah B
author_facet DeVoe, Catherine
Trinh, Trang D
Moises, Joshua
Pham, Binh C
Tran, Allen V
Vuong, Lisa
Doernberg, Sarah B
author_sort DeVoe, Catherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis for high-risk neutropenic patients has been shown to reduce rates of febrile neutropenia and is standard at many centers. For patients who cannot receive a FQ, oral third-generation cephalosporins (OTGCs) are often used as an alternative; however, this strategy is not well studied. We sought to compare clinically-relevant outcomes in patients receiving FQ vs. OTGC prophylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who were admitted to the Malignant Hematology service at the University of California, San Francisco between December 2012 and June 2018 and received >48 hours of an OTGC (cefdinir or cefpodoxime) or an FQ (levofloxacin) for neutropenic prophylaxis. For each OTGC patient, an FQ patient was randomly selected from the same admission year. Exclusion criteria were fever on admission, receipt of systemic antibiotics prior to or during the prophylaxis period, diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia, and crossover. A multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, QTc, Charlson Comorbidity Index, underlying diagnosis, receipt of stem cell transplant (SCT), and duration of neutropenia was used to compare the groups with respect to a primary composite outcome of 30-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and bacteremia. RESULTS: Of 520 patients screened, 173 (33.3%) were included in the study; 76 of these received an OTGC and 97 received an FQ. Hematologic diagnoses included multiple myeloma (38.2%), acute myeloid leukemia (29.5%), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (8.7%), B-cell lymphoma (12.7%), aplastic anemia (2.9%), and others (3.5%). During admission, 9.2% underwent allogeneic SCT and 28.3% underwent autologous SCT. Outcomes are shown in Table 1. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis with an OTGC rather than a FQ was not associated with worse outcomes in this pragmatic evaluation of a heterogeneous group of patients with hematologic malignancies. In this multivariable model, neutropenia lasting more than 7 days was the only consistent predictor of failure across outcomes, suggesting that degree of immunosuppression is a much more significant driver of poor outcomes in this population than is prophylaxis choice. Further evaluation of the role of prophylaxis is needed. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6810486
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68104862019-10-28 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies DeVoe, Catherine Trinh, Trang D Moises, Joshua Pham, Binh C Tran, Allen V Vuong, Lisa Doernberg, Sarah B Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis for high-risk neutropenic patients has been shown to reduce rates of febrile neutropenia and is standard at many centers. For patients who cannot receive a FQ, oral third-generation cephalosporins (OTGCs) are often used as an alternative; however, this strategy is not well studied. We sought to compare clinically-relevant outcomes in patients receiving FQ vs. OTGC prophylaxis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who were admitted to the Malignant Hematology service at the University of California, San Francisco between December 2012 and June 2018 and received >48 hours of an OTGC (cefdinir or cefpodoxime) or an FQ (levofloxacin) for neutropenic prophylaxis. For each OTGC patient, an FQ patient was randomly selected from the same admission year. Exclusion criteria were fever on admission, receipt of systemic antibiotics prior to or during the prophylaxis period, diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia, and crossover. A multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, QTc, Charlson Comorbidity Index, underlying diagnosis, receipt of stem cell transplant (SCT), and duration of neutropenia was used to compare the groups with respect to a primary composite outcome of 30-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and bacteremia. RESULTS: Of 520 patients screened, 173 (33.3%) were included in the study; 76 of these received an OTGC and 97 received an FQ. Hematologic diagnoses included multiple myeloma (38.2%), acute myeloid leukemia (29.5%), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (8.7%), B-cell lymphoma (12.7%), aplastic anemia (2.9%), and others (3.5%). During admission, 9.2% underwent allogeneic SCT and 28.3% underwent autologous SCT. Outcomes are shown in Table 1. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis with an OTGC rather than a FQ was not associated with worse outcomes in this pragmatic evaluation of a heterogeneous group of patients with hematologic malignancies. In this multivariable model, neutropenia lasting more than 7 days was the only consistent predictor of failure across outcomes, suggesting that degree of immunosuppression is a much more significant driver of poor outcomes in this population than is prophylaxis choice. Further evaluation of the role of prophylaxis is needed. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810486/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2362 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
DeVoe, Catherine
Trinh, Trang D
Moises, Joshua
Pham, Binh C
Tran, Allen V
Vuong, Lisa
Doernberg, Sarah B
2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title_full 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title_fullStr 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title_full_unstemmed 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title_short 2685. Oral Third-Generation Cephalosporins vs. Levofloxacin for Antibacterial Prophylaxis in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies
title_sort 2685. oral third-generation cephalosporins vs. levofloxacin for antibacterial prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810486/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2362
work_keys_str_mv AT devoecatherine 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT trinhtrangd 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT moisesjoshua 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT phambinhc 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT tranallenv 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT vuonglisa 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies
AT doernbergsarahb 2685oralthirdgenerationcephalosporinsvslevofloxacinforantibacterialprophylaxisinneutropenicpatientswithhematologicmalignancies