Utility of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as predictors of Gram-negative bacteremia in febrile hematological outpatients.

This study was designed to determine the utility of procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as predictors of Gram-negative bloodstream infection (GN-BSI) in hematological febrile outpatients at the time of the emergency unit admission. Overall, 286 febrile episodes, which included 42 GN-BSI (16%), were considered. PCT levels at patient admission were statistically higher in GNB-BSI when compared to Gram-positive bacteria BSI (median 4.06 ng/ml (range 1.10-25.04) vs 0.88 ng/ml (0.42-10), p<0.03) and to all other fever etiologies. For CRP, differences within fever etiologies were less profound but statistically significant, except for GN-BSIs vs GP BSIs (p=0.4). ROC analysis of PCT showed that an AUC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.79-0.95) discriminated GN-BSI from all other fever etiologies, with a best cut-off of 0.5 ng/ml, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%, and a negative likelihood ratio (negLR) of 0.1. ROC analysis of CRP showed an AUC of 0.67 (95%CI 0.53-0.81) with a best cut-off of 6.64 mg/dl, a NPV of 94%, and a negLR of 0.33. This study confirms that 0.5 ng/ml represents the PCT best cut-off to differentiate the cause of fever and rule out a GN-BSI in febrile hematologic outpatients at the time of the emergency unit admission. Therefore, introducing PCT testing could be a valid measure in order to tailor a more precise prompt antimicrobial therapy to the febrile outpatient while waiting for blood culture results.

A retrospective study of the safety of over 100,000 peripherally-inserted central catheters days for parenteral supportive treatments.

The type of central vascular access device providers chosen for providing parenteral supportive treatments has evolved over the past years, going from routinely used centrally inserted catheters to a more recent trend of peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICCs) when expected treatment duration is less than 6 months. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety of PICCs in administering parenteral supportive treatments. All adult inpatients and outpatients who had a PICC inserted for the administration of parenteral supportive treatments (i.e., parenteral nutrition, intravenous fluids, blood products, or antibiotics) between September 2007 and December 2014 in four public Italian hospitals were included. The primary outcome was PICC removal because of an adverse event (AE, defined as occlusion, exit-site infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Among the 1,250 included patients, 178 PICC-related removals because of AEs (14.2%; 1.62 AEs per 1,000 PICC days) were reported. Rates of PICC removal because of occlusion, exit-site infection, and symptomatic thrombosis were 1.08, 0.32, and 0.23 per 1,000 PICC days, respectively. The median dwell-time between PICC insertion and its removal because of an AE was 67 days (interquartile range 28-180 days). Risk of PICC removal due to AE was higher with open-system PICCs [hazard ratio = 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.52-4.96]. In this study, we found preliminary evidence that PICCs can be safely used to administer parenteral supportive treatments lasting up to 6 months. PICCs may be a relevant alternative to centrally inserted catheters for medium-term parenteral supportive treatments.

Can Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Be Safely Placed in Patients with Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy? A Retrospective Study of Almost 400,000 Catheter-Days.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco-hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC-related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC-related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model. RESULTS: Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC-related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC-days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24-2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81). CONCLUSION: Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all-AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.

Tapentadol PR for Pain Syndromes in Real Life Patients with Hematological Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of oncohematological patients suffer from pain syndrome, mostly originating from the bone, which often include nociceptive and neuropathic complaints. Tapentadol, a recently available treatment option for cancer pain, exerts a dual analgesic mechanisms (opioid and noradrenergic), allowing for a high clinical efficacy as well as for a reduction in adverse events compared to traditional opioids. AIM: To explore the safety and efficacy of tapentadol as a suitable agent for the pain management in the setting of oncohematology. METHODS: Our observational study included 36 patients with basal pain intensity (NRS) ranging from 5 to 10. Tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was given at the initial dose of 50 mg BID and careful titrated according to the achieved pain control. RESULTS: Tapentadol PR was given at the dosages ranging from 200 and 260 mg/day after a careful titration, allowed for a clinically (-7 points NRS) remarkable reduction of pain intensity without any significant side effects. CONCLUSION: In oncohematological patients on pain, tapentadol PR was effective and well tolerated, so representing a suitable treatment option in this difficult setting.

Elderly patients with Ph+ chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML): results of imatinib mesylate treatment.

Thirty-five patients with Ph+ CML aged more than 60 years were treated with imatinib. Twenty-four patients (group A) were in late chronic phase (CP) and eleven patients (group B) were in accelerated/blastic phase (AP/BP). In group A, complete haematological response (CHR) was achieved by all patients; seventeen patients (70.8%) attained a complete cytogenetic response (CCR), one (4.1%) attained a partial CR, one (4.1%) a minor CR (Ph+ 70%) and five (21%) were resistant (Ph+ 100%), toxicity was mild: seven patients had a transient cytopenia, three a skin reaction, one a moderate oedema and one muscular pain. After a median follow-up of 15 months, 1 patient died in progression and 23 patients are alive (2 in BP and 21 in persisting response). In group B, one patient died after 3 months in aplastic phase from sepsis, three patients were resistant and seven patients (63.7%) achieved CHR; of these, four obtained CCR. After a median follow-up of 17 months, 4 patients have died from progressive disease, 6 are alive; 1 in AP and 5 in CHR (4 of them being in CCR). Present data indicate that imatinib is safe also in elderly with clinical results as good as in younger patients.