氟康唑和左氧氟沙星预防性治疗是预防急性髓性白血病化疗患者感染的无效策略。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Cancer Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2024.102593
Luiz Ricardo Soldi , Marcelo José Barbosa Silva
{"title":"氟康唑和左氧氟沙星预防性治疗是预防急性髓性白血病化疗患者感染的无效策略。","authors":"Luiz Ricardo Soldi ,&nbsp;Marcelo José Barbosa Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.canep.2024.102593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Acute myeloid leukemia patients are at high risk for infections, which contribute to increased mortality rates of up to 70%. The use of antimicrobial prophylaxis has been shown to significantly lower rates of infection. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of two agents that showed effective results in the literature, levofloxacin and fluconazole, as prophylaxis strategies in AML patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A total of 85 AML patients’ medical records treated with a 7+3 induction chemotherapy protocol in the Cancer Hospital of Uberlândia from 2017 to 2021 were screened and their data was collected. Within these patients, groups for analysis were created based on whether the acting physician included an antibacterial or antifungal prophylaxis protocol during induction. Contingency tables with χ² and odds ratio tests were realized to verify associations between prophylaxis and infection. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier curves with Cox regression were developed to analyze survival.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The use of prophylaxis with either fluconazole or levofloxacin did not lower rates of infection, as those who with prophylaxis did not demonstrate significant differences when compared to those without (20.3–29.7%, and 12.3–23.3%, respectively). Patients who suffered a bacterial infection during induction were shown to have lower overall survival, with a similar trend seen in fungal infections.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Bacterial and fungal infections were associated with higher rates of induction mortality and lower overall survival, and prophylaxis using fluconazole and levofloxacin did not present any significant difference in preventing these infections in this study, contrasting results found in the literature. The individuality of each treatment center should be taken into consideration and future studies should be realized to better determine the most effective methods and agents for prophylaxis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56322,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology","volume":"91 ","pages":"Article 102593"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fluconazole and levofloxacin prophylaxis are ineffective strategies for preventing infections in acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing chemotherapy\",\"authors\":\"Luiz Ricardo Soldi ,&nbsp;Marcelo José Barbosa Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.canep.2024.102593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Acute myeloid leukemia patients are at high risk for infections, which contribute to increased mortality rates of up to 70%. The use of antimicrobial prophylaxis has been shown to significantly lower rates of infection. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of two agents that showed effective results in the literature, levofloxacin and fluconazole, as prophylaxis strategies in AML patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A total of 85 AML patients’ medical records treated with a 7+3 induction chemotherapy protocol in the Cancer Hospital of Uberlândia from 2017 to 2021 were screened and their data was collected. Within these patients, groups for analysis were created based on whether the acting physician included an antibacterial or antifungal prophylaxis protocol during induction. Contingency tables with χ² and odds ratio tests were realized to verify associations between prophylaxis and infection. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier curves with Cox regression were developed to analyze survival.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The use of prophylaxis with either fluconazole or levofloxacin did not lower rates of infection, as those who with prophylaxis did not demonstrate significant differences when compared to those without (20.3–29.7%, and 12.3–23.3%, respectively). Patients who suffered a bacterial infection during induction were shown to have lower overall survival, with a similar trend seen in fungal infections.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Bacterial and fungal infections were associated with higher rates of induction mortality and lower overall survival, and prophylaxis using fluconazole and levofloxacin did not present any significant difference in preventing these infections in this study, contrasting results found in the literature. The individuality of each treatment center should be taken into consideration and future studies should be realized to better determine the most effective methods and agents for prophylaxis.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"91 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000729\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000729","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:急性髓性白血病患者感染的风险很高,导致死亡率增加高达 70%。事实证明,使用抗菌药预防可显著降低感染率。因此,这项回顾性研究旨在评估文献中显示有效的两种药物左氧氟沙星和氟康唑作为急性髓细胞白血病患者预防策略的效果:筛选并收集了乌贝兰迪亚癌症医院在2017年至2021年期间采用7+3诱导化疗方案治疗的85名急性髓细胞白血病患者的病历资料。在这些患者中,根据代理医师是否在诱导期间纳入抗菌或抗真菌预防方案,创建了用于分析的组别。通过χ²和几率比检验的情况表来验证预防措施与感染之间的关联。此外,还利用考克斯回归法绘制了卡普兰-梅耶曲线来分析生存率:结果:使用氟康唑或左氧氟沙星进行预防并未降低感染率,因为使用预防药物的患者与未使用预防药物的患者相比并无显著差异(分别为20.3-29.7%和12.3-23.3%)。在诱导过程中发生细菌感染的患者总生存率较低,真菌感染也有类似趋势:细菌和真菌感染与较高的诱导死亡率和较低的总生存率有关,在本研究中,使用氟康唑和左氧氟沙星进行预防在预防这些感染方面没有任何显著差异,这与文献中的结果形成了鲜明对比。应考虑到每个治疗中心的个体差异,并在今后的研究中更好地确定最有效的预防方法和药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Fluconazole and levofloxacin prophylaxis are ineffective strategies for preventing infections in acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing chemotherapy

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukemia patients are at high risk for infections, which contribute to increased mortality rates of up to 70%. The use of antimicrobial prophylaxis has been shown to significantly lower rates of infection. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of two agents that showed effective results in the literature, levofloxacin and fluconazole, as prophylaxis strategies in AML patients.

Methodology

A total of 85 AML patients’ medical records treated with a 7+3 induction chemotherapy protocol in the Cancer Hospital of Uberlândia from 2017 to 2021 were screened and their data was collected. Within these patients, groups for analysis were created based on whether the acting physician included an antibacterial or antifungal prophylaxis protocol during induction. Contingency tables with χ² and odds ratio tests were realized to verify associations between prophylaxis and infection. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier curves with Cox regression were developed to analyze survival.

Results

The use of prophylaxis with either fluconazole or levofloxacin did not lower rates of infection, as those who with prophylaxis did not demonstrate significant differences when compared to those without (20.3–29.7%, and 12.3–23.3%, respectively). Patients who suffered a bacterial infection during induction were shown to have lower overall survival, with a similar trend seen in fungal infections.

Conclusion

Bacterial and fungal infections were associated with higher rates of induction mortality and lower overall survival, and prophylaxis using fluconazole and levofloxacin did not present any significant difference in preventing these infections in this study, contrasting results found in the literature. The individuality of each treatment center should be taken into consideration and future studies should be realized to better determine the most effective methods and agents for prophylaxis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology
Cancer Epidemiology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
200
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology is dedicated to increasing understanding about cancer causes, prevention and control. The scope of the journal embraces all aspects of cancer epidemiology including: • Descriptive epidemiology • Studies of risk factors for disease initiation, development and prognosis • Screening and early detection • Prevention and control • Methodological issues The journal publishes original research articles (full length and short reports), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor commenting on previously published research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Years of life lost due to cancer in Ecuador Trends in incidence and survival of the four most common cancers by stage at diagnosis in Cyprus: A population-based study from 2004 to 2017 Measuring healthy life expectancy and determinants of poor perceived health: A population-based study among a subset of rare and common cancer survivors Colorectal cancer survival in Mexico: Leveraging a national health insurance database
×
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