Dataset Information

Early antimicrobial prophylaxis in autologous stem cell transplant recipients: Conventional versus an absolute neutrophil count-driven approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are at increased risk of developing life-threatening infections. There is discordance in published recommendations for timing of pre- and post-transplant antimicrobial prophylaxis in this patient population, and these recommendations are unsubstantiated by any published comparative analyses.

Methods

An observational, pre- and post-intervention study of consecutive autologous HSCT recipients was conducted over a 2-year period. In the pre-intervention cohort, antimicrobial prophylaxis was initiated on the day prior to transplant. In the post-intervention cohort, antimicrobials were initiated once absolute neutrophil count (ANC) reached ≤500 cells/mm³ . The primary outcome assessed was frequency of febrile occurrences. Secondary outcomes included total days of prophylaxis, positive blood cultures, all-cause mortality, Clostridioides difficile infection rates, and length of stay.

Results

A total of 208 patients were included in the final analysis, with 105 and 103 patients in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts, respectively. The majority of patients included were male. Lower rates of fever occurrences were observed in the post-intervention cohort (83% pre- vs. 69% post-intervention; p = 0.019). A significant reduction in the mean antibacterial days per patient was identified (9.7 vs. 4.6 days; p < 0.001). Other than lower rates of febrile neutropenia in the post-intervention cohort, no differences were identified in secondary outcomes. In multivariable analyses, ANC-driven prophylaxis was independently associated with decreased febrile events.

Conclusions

Delaying prophylaxis until severe neutropenia was not associated with increased febrile events or other secondary clinical outcomes evaluated. This approach is associated with a significant reduction in antimicrobial exposure.

SUBMITTER: Horowitz JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9285346 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesInfections remain a threat for solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy have improved survival of these patients; however, the failure rates of prophylaxis are not negligible. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the reasons behind failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy.SettingThis systematic review included prospective randomised controlled trials and prospective single-arm studies.ParticipantsThe studies included were on prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy of opportunistic infections in transplant recipients. Studies were included from databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase published until October first 2018.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were breakthrough infections, adverse events leading to stopping of treatment, switching medication or dose reduction. Secondary outcome measures were acquired resistance to antimicrobials, antifungals or antivirals and death.ResultsFrom 3317 identified records, 30 records from 24 studies with 2851 patients were included in the systematic review. Seventeen focused on prophylactic and pre-emptive treatment of cytomegalovirus and seven studies on invasive fungal infection. The main reasons for failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy were adverse events and breakthrough infections, which were described in 54% (13 studies) and 38% (9 studies) of the included studies, respectively. In 25%, six of the studies, a detailed description of patients who experienced failure of prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy was unclear or lacking.ConclusionsOur results show that although failure is reported in the studies, the level of detail prohibits a detailed analysis of failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy. Clearly reporting on patients with a negative outcome should be improved. We have provided guidance on how to detect failure early in a clinical setting in accordance to the results from this systematic review.Prospero registration numberCRD42017077606.

Project description:Up to one-third of those with schizophrenia fail to respond to standard antipsychotics and are considered to have treatment-resistant schizophrenia, a condition for which clozapine is the only evidence-based medication. While up to 60% of treated individuals obtain therapeutic benefits from clozapine, it is currently underprescribed worldwide, partly because of concerns related to its broad adverse effect profile. In particular, the potential effects of clozapine on the immune system have gained relevance after a recent study showed that drug plasma concentrations were inversely correlated with neutrophil counts in individuals routinely undergoing treatment. Seeking to investigate this relationship in more detail, we extracted metabolic, immune, and genetic data from a UK cohort of long-term clozapine users linked to a clozapine monitoring service, CLOZUK2 (N = 208). Whilst a correlation analysis was compatible with the original results, a multiple linear regression accounting for dose and other confounding factors additionally allowed us to estimate the decrease in absolute neutrophil counts to approximately 141 cells/mm3 for every 0.1 mg/L increase in clozapine concentration. However, this association was attenuated after controlling for the metabolic ratio between clozapine and its main metabolite, norclozapine, which was itself negatively associated with neutrophil concentrations. Further analyses revealed that these relationships are likely moderated by genetic factors, as three pharmacogenomic SNPs previously associated to norclozapine plasma concentrations and the metabolic ratio (rs61750900, rs2011425 and rs1126545) were shown to be independently associated with a variation in neutrophil counts of about 400 cells/mm3 per effect allele. Such results are compatible with an effect of norclozapine, but not necessarily clozapine, on immune cell counts, and highlight the need for further investigations into the potential role of genetic determinants of clozapine pharmacokinetics in the occurrence of adverse effects during treatment.