Evidence Hub

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

Catherine DeVoe, T. Trinh, J. Moisés, Binh-Chau Pham, Allen Tran, L. Vuong, S. Doernberg

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2019

520 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Abstract 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…

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: 520 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