Evidence Hub

Comparison of the rates of Clostridium difficile and bacteremia after delaying fluoroquinolone prophylaxis from day 0 to day +3 post autologous stem cell transplantation

Koseck K, Steinberg A, Caliendo G, Meyer J, Kim SS

Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society, 2017

118 participants

Abstract

Prophylactic fluoroquinolones are routinely administered after stem cell transplantation (SCT) to prevent bacterial infection; however, fluoroquinolones may increase the risk of Clostridium difficile infection, particularly in immunocompromised patients. This study is designed to evaluate the effect of a delay by 3 days in fluoroquinolone prophylaxis after autologous SCT (ASCT) on the rates of C. difficile infection and bacteremia. A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed in 118 patients who received levofloxacin prophylaxis following ASCT at our institution between November 2014 and October 2015. In efforts to reduce the rate of C. difficile, initiation of levofloxacin prophylaxis was delayed from day 0 to day +3 of SCT beginning April 30, 2015. The incidence of C. difficile infection and of bacteremia in patients who initiated levofloxacin on day 0 was compared with those who started prophylaxis on day +3. We found no difference in the rates of C. difficile (7.9% vs 5.5%, P=.593) and bacteremia (7.9% vs 3.6%, P=.323) in patients who initiated levofloxacin on day 0 compared with those who initiated prophylaxis on day +3. Delaying the initiation of levofloxacin prophylaxis by 3 days post ASCT showed no difference in the incidence of C. difficile or bacteremia. Future studies are warranted to show feasibility of delaying the initiation of antibiotic prophylaxis until neutropenia post ASCT, to further minimize the duration of antibiotic exposure.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 118 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free