Evidence Hub

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections in Haematological Malignancies and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Case Series including Cefiderocol-Based Regimens

Lupia T, Carnevale-Schianca F, Vita D, Busca A, Caravelli D, Crisà E, Gregorc V, Curtoni A et al.

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2024

13 citations

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a ubiquitous, aerobic, Gram-negative bacillus causing increasing concern in patients affected by haematological malignancies. Materials and Methods: We report a case series from two centres in Northern Italy to describe the characteristics, outcome and microbiological response of S. maltophilia infections in patients with haematological malignancies and/or allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Results: Ten patients were included. The median age was 67 years, and seven patients (70%) were males. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (IQR: 4-8). The most frequent haematological comorbidities were acute myeloid leukaemia (AML; n = 3; 30%) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 3; 30%). Three (30%) patients underwent aHSCT before infection, all for AML. All the patients had undergone a recent antibiotics course and had an indwelling central venous catheter before infection. The main clinical presentations were nosocomial pneumonia, with (2; 20%) or without (4; 40%) secondary bloodstream infection and CRBSI (3; 30%). Four patients were treated with cefiderocol in monotherapy or combinations therapy with cotrimoxazole. The rest of the patients were treated with cotrimoxazole or levofloxacin in monotherapy. Conclusions: Despite a high rate of clinical improvement (90%) after starting antimicrobial therapy, we faced high 30-day mortality (30%) and in-hospital mortality (50%) rates in a highly comorbid…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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