TY - JOUR
T1 - Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey
AU - Stemler, J.
AU - Gavriilaki, E.
AU - Hlukhareva, O.
AU - Khanna, N.
AU - Neofytos, D.
AU - Akova, M.
AU - Pagano, Livio
AU - -M., Cisneros J.
AU - Cornely, O. A.
AU - Salmanton-Garcia, J.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia. Objective: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population. Design: Cross-sectional observational survey study. Methods: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB. Results: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for E. coli (10% vs 7%) Klebsiella spp. (10% vs 5%), and Pseudomonas spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR E. coli (5% vs 3%) Klebsiella spp. (5% vs 3%), and Pseudomonas spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias. Conclusion: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.
AB - Background: Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia. Objective: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population. Design: Cross-sectional observational survey study. Methods: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB. Results: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for E. coli (10% vs 7%) Klebsiella spp. (10% vs 5%), and Pseudomonas spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR E. coli (5% vs 3%) Klebsiella spp. (5% vs 3%), and Pseudomonas spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias. Conclusion: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.
KW - acute leukaemia
KW - antimicrobial stewardship
KW - bloodstream infection
KW - immunocompromised host
KW - infection control
KW - surveillance
KW - acute leukaemia
KW - antimicrobial stewardship
KW - bloodstream infection
KW - immunocompromised host
KW - infection control
KW - surveillance
UR - https://publicatt.unicatt.it/handle/10807/302037
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85208778677&origin=inward
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85208778677&origin=inward
U2 - 10.1177/20499361241271863
DO - 10.1177/20499361241271863
M3 - Article
SN - 2049-9361
VL - 11
SP - 863
EP - 868
JO - Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease
JF - Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease
IS - 2024
ER -