All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional.
The GvHD Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your GvHD Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe GvHD Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the GvHD Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The GvHD Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The GvHD Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Medac and supported through grants from Sanofi and Therakos. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Interventional antibiotic treatment vs systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing allo-HSCT
Bookmark this article
|
SAP during neutropenia is commonly used in patients undergoing allo-HSCT to reduce the risk of BSI. However, this approach can disrupt the intestinal microbiome, increasing the risk of GvHD and colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms.1 A retrospective analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of IAT in adult patients undergoing allo-HSCT (n = 68) compared with SAP-treated patients (n = 67). Results from this analysis were published in Annals of Hematology by Toenges et al.1
|
| Key learnings: |
|
IAT was associated with a shorter median duration of antibiotic treatment (18 days vs 24 days) compared with SAP, resulting in lower patient antibiotic exposure (p = 0.0001). |
|
IAT was linked with a higher cumulative incidence of BSI in the first 100 days post-transplant vs SAP (40% vs 13%; p < 0.001), but did not impact OS at 3 years (66% vs 68.9%), increase NRM at 3 years (10.96% vs 9.75%), or result in ICU admissions (13% vs 6%), supporting the safety of the IAT approach. |
|
The cumulative incidence of acute GvHD Grade 2–4 at 100 days (38.71% vs 29.85%; p = 0.307) and chronic GvHD of any grade at 3 years (44.75% vs 50.01%; p = 0.952) was similar between the IAT and SAP groups, although there was a trend toward less severe chronic GvHD in the IAT cohort (13.46% vs 27.86%; p = 0.098), suggesting a potential benefit of microbiome preservation. |
|
The findings suggest that replacing SAP with IAT is safe and feasible in clinical practice, providing an opportunity to limit antibiotic exposure without compromising outcomes in patients undergoing allo-HSCT. However, larger, prospective studies are warranted to confirm this potential benefit. |
Abbreviations: allo-HSCT, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; BSI, bloodstream infections; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; IAT, interventional antibiotic treatment; ICU, intensive care unit; NRM, non-relapse mortality; OS, overall survival; SAP, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.
- Toenges R, Lang F, Ghaffar R, et al. Interventional antibiotic treatment replacing antibiotic prophylaxis during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is safe and leads to a reduction of antibiotic administration. Ann Hematol. 2024. Online ahead of print. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-024-05986-4
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to GvHD delivered to your inbox