Decreasing the incidence and impact of infections in neutropenic patients: evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Markers of intestinal mucositis to predict blood stream infections at the onset of fever during treatment for childhood acute leukemia

Despite chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis being a main risk factor for blood stream infections (BSIs), no studies have investigated mucositis severity to predict BSI at fever onset during acute leukemia treatment. This study prospectively evaluated intestinal mucositis severity in 85 children with acute leukemia, representing 242 febrile episodes (122 with concurrent neutropenia) by measuring plasma levels of citrulline (reflecting enterocyte loss), regenerating islet-derived-protein 3α (REG3α, an intestinal antimicrobial peptide) and CCL20 (a mucosal immune regulatory chemokine) along with the general neutrophil chemo-attractants CXCL1 and CXCL8 at fever onset. BSI was documented in 14% of all febrile episodes and in 20% of the neutropenic febrile episodes. In age-, sex-, diagnosis- and neutrophil count-adjusted analyses, decreasing citrulline levels and increasing REG3α and CCL20 levels were independently associated with increased odds of BSI (OR = 1.6, 1.5 and 1.7 per halving/doubling, all p < 0.05). Additionally, higher CXCL1 and CXCL8 levels increased the odds of BSI (OR = 1.8 and 1.7 per doubling, all p < 0.0001). All three chemokines showed improved diagnostic accuracy compared to C-reactive protein and procalcitonin. These findings underline the importance of disrupted intestinal integrity as a main risk factor for BSI and suggest that objective markers for monitoring mucositis severity may help predicting BSI at fever onset.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

METHODS

TEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research.

Efficacy of selective digestive decontamination in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) with the oral, non-absorbable antimicrobial substances gentamicin, vancomycin and amphotericin B was optionally used at our institution to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal tract derived infections in multiple myeloma (MM) patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation (HDCT/ASCT). The majority of patients received sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim as pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis. From 203 patients receiving their first HDCT/ASCT between 2009 and 2015, we compared retrospectively 90 patients receiving SDD to 113 patients not receiving SDD. The administration of SDD was associated with a reduction of bacterial infections after HDCT/ASCT (overall: 8% versus 24%, p = .002; gram-negative pathogens: 1% versus 11%, p = .006) and less use of systemic antibiotics (62% versus 77%, p = .022). Omission of SDD was an independent risk factor for developing neutropenic fever and bloodstream infections. SDD could be an option to reduce bacterial infections in patients undergoing HDCT/ASCT that needs to be tested in prospective trials.

Antimicrobial-impregnated and -coated shunt catheters for prevention of infections in patients with hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECT The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial-impregnated and -coated shunt catheters (antimicrobial catheters) in reducing the risk of infection in patients undergoing CSF shunting or ventricular drainage. METHODS The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Catheter implantation was classified as either shunting (mainly ventriculoperitoneal shunting) or ventricular drainage (mainly external [EVD]). Studies evaluating antibioticimpregnated catheters (AICs), silver-coated catheters (SCCs), and hydrogel-coated catheters (HCCs) were included. A random effects model meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS Thirty-six studies (7 randomized and 29 nonrandomized, 16,796 procedures) were included. The majority of data derive from studies on the effectiveness of AICs, followed by studies on the effectiveness of SCCs. Statistical heterogeneity was observed in several analyses. Antimicrobial shunt catheters (AICs, SCCs) were associated with lower risk for CSF catheter-associated infections than conventional catheters (CCs) (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.56). Fewer infections developed in the patients treated with antimicrobial catheters regardless of randomization, number of participating centers, funding, shunting or ventricular drainage, definition of infections, de novo implantation, and rate of infections in the study. There was no difference regarding gram-positive bacteria, all staphylococci, coagulase-negative streptococci, and Staphylococcus aureus, when analyzed separately. On the contrary, the risk for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA, RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.26-5.51), nonstaphylococcal (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.22-2.52), and gram-negative bacterial (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33-3.43) infections increased with antimicrobial shunt catheters. CONCLUSIONS Based on data mainly from nonrandomized studies, AICs and SCCs reduce the risk for infection in patients undergoing CSF shunting. Future studies should evaluate the higher risk for MRSA and gram-negative infections. Additional trials are needed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the different types of antimicrobial catheters.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis and outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult neutropenic oncology outpatients and on selection and treatment as outpatients of those with fever and neutropenia.

METHODS

A literature search identified relevant studies published in English. Primary outcomes included: development of fever and/or infections in afebrile neutropenic outpatients and recovery without complications and overall mortality in febrile neutropenic outpatients. Secondary outcomes included: in afebrile neutropenic outpatients, infection-related mortality; in outpatients with fever and neutropenia, defervescence without regimen change, time to defervescence, infectious complications, and recurrent fever; and in both groups, hospital admissions, duration, and adverse effects of antimicrobials. An Expert Panel developed guidelines based on extracted data and informal consensus.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles from 43 studies met selection criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis are only recommended for patients expected to have < 100 neutrophils/μL for > 7 days, unless other factors increase risks for complications or mortality to similar levels. Inpatient treatment is standard to manage febrile neutropenic episodes, although carefully selected patients may be managed as outpatients after systematic assessment beginning with a validated risk index (eg, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer [MASCC] score or Talcott's rules). Patients with MASCC scores ≥ 21 or in Talcott group 4, and without other risk factors, can be managed safely as outpatients. Febrile neutropenic patients should receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within an hour of triage and should either be monitored for at least 4 hours to determine suitability for outpatient management or be admitted to the hospital. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or plus clindamycin if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empiric therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed.

There should be no ESKAPE for febrile neutropenic cancer patients: the dearth of effective antibacterial drugs threatens anticancer efficacy

The success of modern anticancer treatment is a composite function of enhanced efficacy of surgical, radiation and systemic treatment strategies and of our collective clinical abilities in supporting patients through the perils of their cancer journeys. Despite the widespread availability of antibacterial therapies, the threat of community- or healthcare facility-acquired bacterial infection remains a constant risk to patients during this journey. The rising prevalence of colonization by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in the population, acquired through exposure from endemic environments, antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention and control strategies notwithstanding, increases the likelihood that such organisms may be the cause of cancer treatment-related infection and the likelihood of antibacterial treatment failure. The high mortality associated with invasive MDR bacterial infection increases the likelihood that many patients may not survive long enough to reap the benefits of enhanced anticancer treatments, thus threatening the societal investment in the cancer journey. Since cancer care providers arguably no longer have, and are unlikely to have in the foreseeable future, the antibacterial tools to reliably rescue patients from harm's way, the difficult ethical debate over the risks and benefits of anticancer treatments must now be reopened.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive infections: focus on the study design

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin compared with that of other antibiotics for the treatment of gram-positive infections.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were searched. Data from published randomized controlled trials (January 1, 1950, to September 15, 2011) were pooled using a meta-analytic method.

RESULTS

Fifty-three trials comparing vancomycin with linezolid, daptomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, teicoplanin, iclaprim, and dalbavancin were included in the meta-analysis. Individual antibiotics were as effective as vancomycin, except for linezolid, which was more effective than vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.43). Comparators were as effective as vancomycin in the intent-to-treat population (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18) but were more effective in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) when all infections were pooled. When available data from all trials were pooled, no differences were noted when patients with febrile neutropenia (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39), pneumonia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.37), bacteremia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and skin and soft tissue infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39) were studied. Comparators were more effective in open-label (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50) but not in double-blind trials (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.20). Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups. Mortality was not different between vancomycin and comparator antibiotics when all trials were included in the analysis (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Comparators were associated with higher mortality in open-label (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54) but not double-blind trials (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14).

CONCLUSION

On the basis mainly of data from open-label trials, vancomycin is a treatment choice that is as effective as other available antibiotics for patients with gram-positive infections. Study design seems to make a major contribution to the outcome.

The safety of cefepime in the treatment of infection

BACKGROUND

Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin usually reserved for treating severe nosocomial pneumonia, as well as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia, uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections, uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections.

OBJECTIVE

Since reports of neurotoxic effects and of an all-cause mortality higher with cefepime than with comparators have created some concerns regarding its safety, this paper reviews data available in the PubMed database up to December 2007 on cefepime safety.

METHODS

Literature data from PubMed obtained by combining cefepime and safety, or cefepime and clinical trials, were examined.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Caution in the use of cefepime should be adopted until new evidence on cefepime safety is available.