Penicillin Prophylaxis in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease Beyond Age 5 Years

Tyler G. Eastep, Rebecca M. Kendsersky, Jessica Zook, Astrela Moore
{"title":"Penicillin Prophylaxis in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease Beyond Age 5 Years","authors":"Tyler G. Eastep, Rebecca M. Kendsersky, Jessica Zook, Astrela Moore","doi":"10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at increased risk for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Immunization and antimicrobial prophylaxis may prevent this complication, and landmark clinical trials support discontinuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis at age 5 years. However, antimicrobial prophylaxis continues in some patients indefinitely. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of culture-positive IPD and other infections in the setting of penicillin prophylaxis in the pediatric SCD population. METHODS This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with SCD who continued antimicrobial prophylaxis with penicillin, compared with those whose antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued. Included patients were aged 5 to 18 years during the study period and had no history of IPD or surgical splenectomy. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, immunizations, penicillin prescription history, and microbiologic culture data. RESULTS Antimicrobial prophylaxis continued beyond age 5 years in 65% of patients, a higher percentage of whom had hemoglobin SS or S beta-zero disease. No patients whose antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued experienced IPD; 1 patient who continued antimicrobial prophylaxis died of S pneumoniae sepsis. Rates of other infections were comparable between groups (21% in prophylaxis versus 18% in no prophylaxis). CONCLUSIONS These results support appropriate de-prescribing of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with SCD who are not at high risk for IPD. Further multicenter studies are needed to evaluate consequences of antimicrobial prophylaxis with alternative agents on antibiotic resistance, examine provider rationale for continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis, and assess quality of life effects (e.g., medication adherence, adverse drug reactions) of antimicrobial prophylaxis.","PeriodicalId":22794,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at increased risk for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Immunization and antimicrobial prophylaxis may prevent this complication, and landmark clinical trials support discontinuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis at age 5 years. However, antimicrobial prophylaxis continues in some patients indefinitely. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of culture-positive IPD and other infections in the setting of penicillin prophylaxis in the pediatric SCD population. METHODS This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with SCD who continued antimicrobial prophylaxis with penicillin, compared with those whose antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued. Included patients were aged 5 to 18 years during the study period and had no history of IPD or surgical splenectomy. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, immunizations, penicillin prescription history, and microbiologic culture data. RESULTS Antimicrobial prophylaxis continued beyond age 5 years in 65% of patients, a higher percentage of whom had hemoglobin SS or S beta-zero disease. No patients whose antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued experienced IPD; 1 patient who continued antimicrobial prophylaxis died of S pneumoniae sepsis. Rates of other infections were comparable between groups (21% in prophylaxis versus 18% in no prophylaxis). CONCLUSIONS These results support appropriate de-prescribing of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with SCD who are not at high risk for IPD. Further multicenter studies are needed to evaluate consequences of antimicrobial prophylaxis with alternative agents on antibiotic resistance, examine provider rationale for continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis, and assess quality of life effects (e.g., medication adherence, adverse drug reactions) of antimicrobial prophylaxis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
5岁以上镰状细胞病患者的青霉素预防
目的镰状细胞病(SCD)患者发生由肺炎链球菌引起的侵袭性肺炎球菌病(IPD)的风险增加。免疫接种和抗菌素预防可以预防这种并发症,具有里程碑意义的临床试验支持在5岁时停止抗菌素预防。然而,抗菌素预防在一些患者中无限期地继续进行。本研究的目的是评估儿童SCD人群中青霉素预防设置中培养阳性IPD和其他感染的发生率。方法:这是一项单中心、回顾性队列研究,将继续使用青霉素进行抗菌预防治疗的SCD患者与停用抗菌预防治疗的患者进行比较。纳入的患者在研究期间年龄在5至18岁之间,没有IPD或脾切除术史。回顾了患者图表的人口统计、免疫接种、青霉素处方史和微生物培养数据。结果:65%的患者在5岁以上仍继续使用抗菌素预防,其中较高比例的患者患有血红蛋白SS或S β - 0疾病。停用抗菌素预防治疗的患者未发生IPD;1例继续抗菌预防的患者死于肺炎链球菌败血症。其他感染率在两组之间具有可比性(预防组为21%,未预防组为18%)。结论:这些结果支持在非IPD高风险SCD患者中适当减少抗菌药物预防处方。需要进一步的多中心研究来评估使用替代药物进行抗菌素预防对抗生素耐药性的影响,检查提供者继续进行抗菌素预防的理由,并评估抗菌素预防对生活质量的影响(例如,药物依从性,药物不良反应)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of Elexacaftor/Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Acquisition and Chronic Infection at a Single Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Care Center The Precompetitive Space for Drug or Vaccine Development: What Does It Look Like Now and What Could It Look Like in the Future? Ethanol Lock for Prevention of CVC-Related Bloodstream Infection in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Effect of Phytonadione on Correction of Coagulopathy in Pediatric Patients With Septic Shock Comparison of Outcomes in Neonates Receiving Cefepime or Ceftazidime
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1