RESUMO
Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains the most common clinically significant infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Objectives: The present study was designed to describe and compare the incidence of untreated CMV reactivation (uCMVr), clinically significant infection (cs-CMVi) and disease (CMVd), as well as CMV-related hospitalization and outcome of allo-HCT patients, either treated with letermovir (LET) primary prophylaxis or managed with preemptive therapy (PET). Methods: This is a prospective observational cohort study of adult CMV seropositive allo-HCT patients who either received primary prophylaxis with LET within the first 100 days after HCT or were managed with PET. Results: The study population comprised 105 patients (28 in the LET group and 77 in the PET group). Compared to the PET group, patients in the LET group received more allo-HCT from alternative donors (54.5% vs. 82.14%, P=0.012). More than half of the patients in both groups were classified as high risk for CMVd. In the LET vs. PET group, cs-CMVi and CMVd developed respectively in 0 vs. 50 (64.94%), P=<0.0001, and 0 vs. 6 (7.79%), P=0.18. In the LET group, uCMVr occurred in 5 (17.8%) and were all considered blips. Hospital admissions related to cs-CMVi or CMVd in the PET group vs. LET group were 47 (61.04%) vs. 0, respectively, P=<0.0001. No differences were observed in 100-day mortality. Conclusions: LET primary prophylaxis proved effective in preventing cs-CMVi and CMVd and reducing hospitalizations in allo-HCT adults. Blips can occur during prophylaxis and do not require LET discontinuation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCCIÓN: Las bacteriemias por Enterobacterales productores de carbapenemasa KPC (EPC-KPC) presentan una mortalidad elevada y opciones terapéuticas limitadas. OBJETIVOS: Describir y comparar la evolución de los pacientes con bacteriemia por EPC-KPC tratados con ceftazidima/avibactam (CA) frente a otros antimicrobianos (OA). PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo y retrospectivo de casos y controles. Se incluyeron pacientes adultos con bacteriemia por EPC-KPC, con una proporción entre casos tratados con CA y controles tratados con OA. de 1:2. Se analizaron variables clínicas, epidemiológicas y de evolución. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 48 pacientes (16 CA y 32 OA). Los casos se encontraban más frecuentemente neutropénicos (50 vs.16%, p = 0,012); asimismo, presentaron medianas de score de APACHE II más altas y de score de Pitt más bajas. El 65% de la cohorte total presentó un foco clínico y Klebsiellapneumoniae fue el microorganismo más frecuentemente aislado. Los casos recibieron una mayor proporción de tratamiento antimicrobiano empírico adecuado (81 vs. 53%, p = 0,05). La antibioterapia dirigida en casos y controles fue combinada en 38 y 91%, p = 0,009. Los casos presentaron menor mortalidad al día 7 y al día 30 relacionada a infección (0 vs. 22%, p = 0,04 y 0 vs. 34%, p = 0,008). Solo los controles desarrollaron shock, ingresaron a la unidad de cuidados intensivos y presentaron bacteriemia de brecha. CONCLUSIÓN: CA mostró beneficio clínico frente a OA para el tratamiento de pacientes con bacteriemia por EPC-KPC.
BACKGROUND: KPC-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia (KPCCPE) is associated with a high mortality rate and limited therapeutic options. AIM: To describe and compare the outcome of patients with KPC-CPE bacteremia treated with ceftazidime/avibactam (CA) versus other antibiotics (OA). METHODS: Prospective and retrospective cases and control study performed in adult patients with KPC-CPE bacteremia, with a 1:2 ratio between cases treated with CA. and controls treated with OA. Clinical, epidemiological, and outcome variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (16 CA and 32 OA) were included. Cases were more frequently neutropenic (50 vs. 16%, p = 0.012), presented higher median APACHE II score and lower Pitt score. Of the total cohort, 65% had a clinical source, and Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most frequently isolated microorganism. Cases received more adequate empirical antibiotic treatment (81 vs. 53%, p = 0.05). Targeted antibiotic therapy in cases and controls was combined in 38 and 91%, p = 0.009. Cases had a lower 7-day mortality and 30-day infection-related mortality (0 vs. 22%, p = 0.04 and 0 vs. 34%, p = 0.008). Only controls developed shock, were admitted to the intensive care unit, and had breakthrough bacteremia. CONCLUSION: CA. showed clinical benefit over OA in the treatment of patients with EPC-KPC bacteremia.
