Prophylactic application of fluoroquinolones for selective decontamination of the gut: friend or foe

Evaluation and Management of Bacterial and Fungal Infections Occurring in Patients with a Hematological Malignancy: A 2011 Update

Patients with a hematological malignancy are a heterogeneous patient population who are afflicted with diseases that range from rapidly fatal acute leukemia to indolent lymphoma or chronic leukemia. Treatment options for these patients range from observation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but all patients are more susceptible to infection. The problem of infection is dynamic with continued shifts in pathogenic organisms and microbial susceptibilities, new treatment regimens that further diminish immune function, and patients receiving treatment who are now older and frailer. The classic patterns of immunodeficiency for patients with a hematological malignancy include: periods of profound neutropenia, increased iatrogenic risks (i.e., central vascular catheters), and cellular immune suppression that affects HSCT recipients, patients with lymphoid malignancies, and those receiving treatment with corticosteroids or agents like alemtuzumab [1–4]. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development, new technology, clinical trial results, and further clinical experience have enhanced the database on which to make infection prophylaxis and treatment decisions. However, the practicing clinician must remember that the majority of basic infection management principles for patients who are neutropenic remain unchanged.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia.

Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving.

What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens.

Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care–associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients with ascites, without gastro-intestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is frequent among cirrhotic patients, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Selective intestinal decontamination employing antibiotics is a proposed prophylactic measure. While data regarding this modality among cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding exist, there is insufficient data synthesis regarding cirrhotic patients with ascites and no gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis decreases spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and mortality among cirrhotic patients with ascites and no gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified relevant randomised trials by searching trial registries of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group and The Cochrane Collaboration, medical literature search engines, and reviewing all literature we found on the topic until February 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials assessing prophylactic treatment among adult cirrhotic patients with ascites and no gastrointestinal bleeding, comparing antibiotic therapy with no intervention, placebo, or with another antibiotic regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three independent authors searched for and collected the trials and extracted relevant data. Four other independent authors validated the findings and assessed them. The studies were assessed for design, patient and intervention characteristics, and quality. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate measures of association between antibiotic prophylaxis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included in the review. Seven trials, comparing antibiotics to placebo or no treatment, were meta-analysed. Systematic bias in design or publication is suggested by trial results. The randomisation results suggest that the probability that true randomisation took place in all trials is very small and the report of most trials regarding design was poor. The proportion of participants with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis varied between the trials from 15% to 50%. The calculated relative risks (95% confidence interval) of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and mortality among patients treated with antibiotics compared with no treatment/placebo were 0.20 (0.11 to 0.37) and 0.61 (0.43 to 0.87). There were very few reports of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pooled estimates suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis might be prudent among cirrhotic patients with ascites and no gastrointestinal bleeding. However, poor trial methodology and report coupled with findings suggesting systematic bias in publication and design reflect the fragility of these findings. Potential hazard to society and the patients themselves from resistant pathogens should be considered when promoting long-lasting antibiotic prophylaxis. It seems that recommending antibiotic prophylaxis is still far from being a substantiated prevention strategy. Trials of better design, well reported, and of longer follow-up are greatly needed.