The Journal of infection · 2017
Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in haematological cancer patients with neutropenia: ECIL critical appraisal of previous guidelines.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mikulska Malgorzata, Averbuch Diana, Tissot Frederic, Cordonnier Catherine, Akova Murat, Calandra Thierry, Ceppi Marcello, Bruzzi Paolo, Viscoli Claudio, European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis was recommended in 2005 by European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) for patients with prolonged neutropenia. In consideration of a worldwide increase in antibiotic resistance, the issue of FQ prophylaxis during neutropenia was re-evaluated.
METHODS: Literature review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published in years 2006-2014 was performed. Their results were analysed in meta-analysis. Meta-regression model was applied to evaluate whether the rates of FQ resistance in community and hospital settings influenced the efficacy of FQ prophylaxis. The impact of FQ prophylaxis on colonisation and infection with resistant bacteria was reviewed.
RESULTS: Two RCTs and 12 observational studies were identified. FQ prophylaxis did not have effect on mortality (pooled OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.73-1.41), but was associated with lower rate of bloodstream infections (BSI) (pooled OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.43-0.74) and episodes of fever during neutropenia (pooled OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.20-0.50). No effect of the background rate of FQ resistance on the efficacy of FQ prophylaxis was observed. In few studies, FQ prophylaxis resulted in an increased colonisation or infection with FQ- or multi-drug resistant strains.
CONCLUSIONS: The possible benefits of FQ prophylaxis on BSI rate, but not on overall mortality, should be weighed against its impact in terms of toxicity and changes in local ecology in single centres.
METHODS: Literature review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published in years 2006-2014 was performed. Their results were analysed in meta-analysis. Meta-regression model was applied to evaluate whether the rates of FQ resistance in community and hospital settings influenced the efficacy of FQ prophylaxis. The impact of FQ prophylaxis on colonisation and infection with resistant bacteria was reviewed.
RESULTS: Two RCTs and 12 observational studies were identified. FQ prophylaxis did not have effect on mortality (pooled OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.73-1.41), but was associated with lower rate of bloodstream infections (BSI) (pooled OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.43-0.74) and episodes of fever during neutropenia (pooled OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.20-0.50). No effect of the background rate of FQ resistance on the efficacy of FQ prophylaxis was observed. In few studies, FQ prophylaxis resulted in an increased colonisation or infection with FQ- or multi-drug resistant strains.
CONCLUSIONS: The possible benefits of FQ prophylaxis on BSI rate, but not on overall mortality, should be weighed against its impact in terms of toxicity and changes in local ecology in single centres.