Evidence Hub

Characteristics of gram-negative bacteremia during febrile neutropenia among allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients on levofloxacin prophylaxis

Ogura S, Kimura M, Takagi S, Mitsuki T, Yuasa M, Kageyama K, Kaji D, Nishida A et al.

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021

Abstract

The aim of this study is to clarify the characteristics of gram-negative bacteremia (GNB), including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens, among allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) recipients on levofloxacin (LVFX) prophylaxis. A retrospective analysis on GNB at the first episode of febrile neutropenia (FN) was conducted among allo-HSCT recipients (age ≥ 20 years) on 500 mg/day of oral LVFX prophylaxis. Epidemiological and microbiological features of GNB were investigated and compared between the inappropriate and appropriate empiric therapy groups. In total, FN occurred in 414 allo-HSCT cases, and bacteremia at the first episode of FN occurred in 169 cases. Overall, 29 GNB cases were documented, and the causative organisms identified were Escherichia coli in 21 cases (including 10 ESBLs), Klebsiella pneumoniae in 2, Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 2, and other in 4. The crude 30-day mortality rate was not significantly different among cases of GNB (6.9%), gram-positive bacteremia (GPB) (7.1%), or non-bacteremia (5.4%; P = 0.78). Cefepime (CFPM) was administered in all cases in the inappropriate empiric therapy group, and all causative organisms were ESBL-producing E. coli (ESBL-EC). All patients in the inappropriate empiric therapy group had a low Pitt bacteremia score (≤ 2). Thirty-day mortality did not differ significantly between the inappropriate and appropriate empiric therapy groups (1/10 vs. 1/15, P = 0.61). In conclusion, GNB was…

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.

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