Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey.

IF 3.8 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20499361241271863
Jannik Stemler, Eleni Gavriilaki, Oksana Hlukhareva, Nina Khanna, Dionysios Neofytos, Murat Akova, Livio Pagano, José-Miguel Cisneros, Oliver A Cornely, Jon Salmanton-García
{"title":"Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey.","authors":"Jannik Stemler, Eleni Gavriilaki, Oksana Hlukhareva, Nina Khanna, Dionysios Neofytos, Murat Akova, Livio Pagano, José-Miguel Cisneros, Oliver A Cornely, Jon Salmanton-García","doi":"10.1177/20499361241271863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional observational survey study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 <i>E. coli</i> (10% vs 7%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (10% vs 5%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR <i>E. coli</i> (5% vs 3%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (5% vs 3%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46154,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","volume":"11 ","pages":"20499361241271863"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361241271863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

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
高危血液病患者筛查和抗菌预防革兰氏阴性菌感染的当前做法:泛欧调查的结果。
背景:细菌感染经常发生在血液病患者身上,尤其是在强化化疗后的长期中性粒细胞减少期间,通常会导致血流感染和肺炎:目的:针对高危血液病患者的常规抗菌药预防(AMP)仍存在争议,而全球多重耐药(MDR)革兰氏阴性菌(GNB)的流行率却在不断上升。我们旨在评估目前在这一人群中使用 AMP 的情况:横断面观察调查研究。方法:邀请欧洲范围内的血液科医生和传染病医生参与在线调查,调查内容包括革兰氏阴性菌的常规筛查、MDR-革兰氏阴性菌定植的发生率、抗菌药预防措施、血流感染(BSI)率、重症监护室入院率以及因革兰氏阴性菌和 MDR-GNB 感染而导致的死亡率:来自 28 个国家的 120 个血液学中心参加了此次研究。86.7%的中心对 MDR-GNB 进行了筛查,主要是通过直肠拭子(58.3%)。39.2%的中心常规使用 AMP,主要是氟喹诺酮类药物。在大肠杆菌(10% 对 7%)、克雷伯菌属(10% 对 5%)和假单胞菌属(5% 对 4%)方面,未接受抗 GNB 预防治疗的患者的 GNB-BSI 感染率高于接受预防治疗的患者。在对 MDR 大肠杆菌(5% vs 3%)、克雷白杆菌属(5% vs 3%)和假单胞菌属(2% vs 1%)使用 AMP 的中心,MDR-GNB 感染率估计较低。在一项探索性分析中,南欧和东欧国家的 MDR-GNB 感染率较高,而 ICU 入院率和死亡率较低,这可能存在估计偏差:结论:MDR-GNB 的筛查经常进行。结论:MDR-GNB 的筛查经常进行,针对 GNB 感染的 AMP 仍经常实施。估计的 BSI 感染率相当低,而 MDR-GNB 感染率却在上升。包括抗菌药物管理在内的定制预防措施变得更加重要。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
64
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Social disparities on PrEP use and awareness among sexual and gender minorities using smartphones in India. Challenges in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by L. braziliensis in four travelers: a case series. Fungal Infections, Treatment and Antifungal Resistance: The Sub-Saharan African Context. Polio: Background and perspective on how international travel can be made safe against polio. Emerging trends in fungal endocarditis: clinical complexity, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic implications - a case series and literature review.
×
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