Ceftazidime-Avibactam Improves Outcomes in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales Bacteremia.

Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam (CA) for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia (KPC-PEB) in high-risk neutropenic patients. This is a prospective multicenter observational study in high-risk neutropenic patients with multi-drug resistant Enterobacterales bacteremia. They were compared according to the resistance mechanism and definitive treatment provided: KPC-CPE treated with CA (G1), KPC-CPE treated with other antibiotics (G2), and patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia who received appropriate definitive therapy (G3). Thirty-day mortality was evaluated using a logistic regression model, and survival was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves. A total of 238 patients were included: 18 (G1), 52 (G2), and 168 (G3). Klebsiella spp. (60.9%) and Escherichia coli (26.4%) were the Enterobacterales most frequently isolated, and 71% of the bacteremias had a clinical source. The resistance profile between G1 and G2 was colistin 35.3% vs. 36.5%, amikacin 16.7% vs. 40.4%, and tigeclycline 11.1% vs. 19.2%. The antibiotics prescribed in combination with G2 were carbapenems, colistin, amikacin, fosfomycin, tigecycline, and fluoroquinolones. Seven-day clinical response in G1 vs. G2 vs. G3 was 94.4% vs. 42.3% vs. 82.7%, respectively (p < 0.001). Thirty-day overall mortality in G1 vs. G2 vs. G3 was 22.2% vs. 53.8% vs. 11.9%, respectively (p < 0.001), and infection-related mortality was 5.5% vs. 51.9% vs. 7.7% (p < 0.001). The independent risk factors for mortality were Pitt score > 4: OR 3.63, 95% CI, 1.18-11.14 (p = 0.025) and KPC-PEB treated with other antibiotics: OR 8.85, 95% CI, 2.58-30.33 (p = 0.001), while 7-day clinical response was a protective factor for survival: OR 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01-0.08 (p < 0.001). High-risk neutropenic patients with KPC-CPE treated with CA had an outcome similar to those treated for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, with higher 7-day clinical response and lower overall and infection-related mortality than those treated with other antibiotics. In view of these data, CA may be considered the preferred therapeutic option for KPC-PEB in high-risk neutropenic patients.

Development of a Clinical Score to Stratify the Risk for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Bacteremia in Patients with Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Identifying the risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) bacteremia in cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients would allow earlier initiation of an appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment. This is a prospective multicenter observational study in patients from 12 centers in Argentina, who presented with cancer or hematopoietic stem-cell transplant and developed Enterobacterales bacteremia. A multiple logistic regression model identified risk factors for CRE bacteremia, and a score was developed according to the regression coefficient. This was validated by the bootstrap resampling technique. Four hundred and forty-three patients with Enterobacterales bacteremia were included: 59 with CRE and 384 with carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE). The risk factors that were identified and the points assigned to each of them were: ≥10 days of hospitalization until bacteremia: OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.88-8.66 (2 points); previous antibiotics > 7 days: OR 4.65, 95% CI 2.29-9.46 (2 points); current colonization with KPC-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales: 33.08, 95% CI 11.74-93.25 (5 points). With a cut-off of 7 points, a sensitivity of 35.59%, specificity of 98.43%, PPV of 77.7%, and NPV of 90.9% were obtained. The overall performance of the score was satisfactory (AUROC of 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.91). Finally, the post-test probability of CRE occurrence in patients with none of the risk factors was 1.9%, which would virtually rule out the presence of CRE bacteremia.

[Primary antifungal prophylaxis in oncohematological patients: who, when, and with what?] / Profilaxis antifúngica primaria en pacientes oncohematológicos: ¿a quiénes, cuándo y con qué?

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are among the main infectious complications in patients with hematological malignancies and with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), causing high morbidity and mortality and significantly increasing the healthcare cost and hospital stay. The epidemiology of IFIs has changed in recent decades, with filamentous fungi, particularly Aspergillus spp., being the main etiological agents. There are multiple risk factors for having an IFI; however, the most important are profound and prolonged neutropenia and severe cellular immunodeficiency. For this reason, the population at greatest risk is made up of patients with acute leukemias, myelodysplasias and allogeneic HSCT with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) treated with corticosteroids. Numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that primary antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) significantly reduces the incidence of IFI, particularly those caused by Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp., IFI-related mortality, and overall mortality in some group of patients. Likewise, in high-risk patients, where a high incidence of IFI is expected, it is a cost-effective strategy. Several antifungals have demonstrated clinical benefit. They can be used as a AFP strategy in different settings, presenting advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account in each case. For this, national and international scientific societies have issued recommendations for the indication of AFP. Aspects related to the different antifungals' clinical efficacy are analyzed considering the population at risk, the potential disadvantages, timing, and form of administration.

Las infecciones fúngicas invasoras (IFI) constituyen una de las principales complicaciones infecciosas en pacientes oncohematológicos y con trasplante de células progenitoras hematopoyéticas (TCPH), ocasionando alta morbimortalidad e incrementando significativamente los costos de atención y la estadía hospitalaria. La epidemiología de las IFI ha cambiado en las últimas décadas, siendo los hongos filamentosos, particularmente Aspergillus spp., los principales agentes etiológicos. Existen múltiples factores de riesgo para una IFI; pero la neutropenia profunda y prolongada, y la inmunodeficiencia celular severa siguen siendo los más importantes. Por este motivo, la población de mayor riesgo la constituyen los pacientes con leucemias agudas, mielodisplasias y TCPH alogénicos con enfermedad injerto contra huésped (EICH), en tratamiento con corticoides. Numerosos ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y metaanálisis han demostrado que la profilaxis antifúngica primaria (PAF) reduce significativamente la incidencia de IFI, tanto de aquellas causadas por Candida spp. como por Aspergillus spp., la mortalidad relacionada a IFI y la mortalidad global en algunos grupos de pacientes. Asimismo, en enfermos de alto riesgo, en donde se espera una incidencia de IFI elevada, es una estrategia costo-efectiva. Varios antifúngicos han demostrado beneficio clínico y pueden utilizarse como estrategia de PAF en diferentes escenarios, presentando ventajas y desventajas que deben ser tenidas en cuenta al momento de indicar una PAF. Para esto, sociedades científicas nacionales e internacionales, han emitido recomendaciones de indicación de PAF. Se analizan los aspectos relacionados con la eficacia clínica de los diferentes antifúngicos según la población de riesgo, las potenciales desventajas, momento y forma de administración.

Profilaxis antifúngica primaria en pacientes oncohematológicos: ¿a quiénes, cuándo y con qué? / Primary antifungal prophylaxis in oncohematological patients: who, when, and with what?

Resumen Las infecciones fúngicas invasoras (IFI) constituyen una de las principales complicaciones infecciosas en pacientes oncohematológicos y con trasplante de células progenitoras hematopoyéticas (TCPH), ocasionando alta morbimortalidad e incrementando significativamente los costos de atención y la estadía hos pitalaria. La epidemiología de las IFI ha cambiado en las últimas décadas, siendo los hongos filamentosos, particularmente Aspergillus spp., los principales agentes etiológicos. Existen múltiples factores de riesgo para una IFI; pero la neutropenia profunda y prolongada, y la inmunodeficiencia celular severa siguen siendo los más importantes. Por este motivo, la población de mayor riesgo la constituyen los pacientes con leucemias agudas, mielodisplasias y TCPH alogénicos con enfermedad injerto contra huésped (EICH), en tratamiento con corticoides. Numerosos ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y metaanálisis han demostrado que la profilaxis antifúngica primaria (PAF) reduce significativamente la incidencia de IFI, tanto de aquellas causadas por Candida spp. como por Aspergillus spp., la mortalidad relacionada a IFI y la mortalidad global en algunos grupos de pacientes. Asimismo, en enfermos de alto riesgo, en donde se espera una incidencia de IFI elevada, es una estrategia costo-efectiva. Varios antifúngicos han demostrado beneficio clínico y pueden utilizarse como estrategia de PAF en diferentes escenarios, presentando ventajas y desventajas que deben ser tenidas en cuenta al momento de indicar una PAF. Para esto, sociedades científicas nacionales e internacionales, han emitido recomendaciones de indicación de PAF. Se analizan los aspectos relacionados con la eficacia clínica de los diferentes antifúngicos según la población de riesgo, las potenciales desventajas, momento y forma de administración.

Abstract Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are among the main infectious complications in patients with hema tological malignancies and with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), causing high morbidity and mortality and significantly increasing the healthcare cost and hospital stay. The epidemiology of IFIs has changed in recent decades, with filamentous fungi, particularly Aspergillus spp., being the main etiological agents. There are multiple risk factors for having an IFI; however, the most important are profound and prolonged neutropenia and severe cellular immunodeficiency. For this reason, the population at greatest risk is made up of patients with acute leukemias, myelodysplasias and allogeneic HSCT with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) treated with cortico steroids. Numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that primary antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) significantly reduces the incidence of IFI, particularly those caused by Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp., IFI-related mortality, and overall mortality in some group of patients. Likewise, in high-risk patients, where a high incidence of IFI is expected, it is a cost-effective strategy. Several antifungals have demonstrated clinical benefit. They can be used as a AFP strategy in different settings, presenting advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account in each case. For this, national and international scientific societies have issued recom mendations for the indication of AFP. Aspects related to the different antifungals' clinical efficacy are analyzed considering the population at risk, the potential disadvantages, timing, and form of administration.

Proposal of a clinical score to stratify the risk of multidrug-resistant gram-negative rods bacteremia in cancer patients

ABSTRACT Introduction: Multidrug-resistant gram-negative rods (MDR GNR) represent a growing threat for patients with cancer. Our objective was to determine the characteristics of and risk factors for MDR GNR bacteremia in patients with cancer and to develop a clinical score to predict MDR GNR bacteremia. Material and Methods: Multicenter prospective study analyzing initial episodes of MDR GNR bacteremia. Risk factors were evaluated using a multiple logistic regression (forward-stepwise selection) analysis including variables with a p < 0.10 in univariate analysis. Results: 394 episodes of GNR bacteremia were included, with 168 (42.6 %) being MDR GNR. Five variables were identified as independent risk factors: recent antibiotic use (OR = 2.8, 95 % CI 1.7-4.6, p = 0.001), recent intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.9, 95 % CI 1.1-7.8, p = 0.027), hospitalization ≥ 7 days prior to the episode of bacteremia (OR = 3.5, 95 % CI 2-6.2, p = 0.005), severe mucositis (OR = 5.3, 95 % CI 1.8-15.6, p = 0.002), and recent or previous colonization/infection with MDR GNR (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI 1.2-4.3, p = 0.028). Using a cut-off value of two points, the score had a sensitivity of 66.07 % (95 % CI 58.4-73.2 %), a specificity of 77.8 % (95 % CI 71.4-82.7 %), a positive predictive value of 68 % (95 % CI 61.9-73.4 %), and a negative predictive value of 75.9 % (95 % CI 71.6-79.7 %). The overall performance of the score was satisfactory (AUROC 0.78; 95 % CI 0.73-0.82). In the cases with one or none of the risk factors identified, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 and the post-test probability of having MDR GNR was 11.68 %. Conclusions: With the growing incidence of MDR GNR as etiologic agents of bacteremia in cancer patients, the development of this score could be a potential tool for clinicians.

Proposal of a clinical score to stratify the risk of multidrug-resistant gram-negative rods bacteremia in cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Multidrug-resistant gram-negative rods (MDR GNR) represent a growing threat for patients with cancer. Our objective was to determine the characteristics of and risk factors for MDR GNR bacteremia in patients with cancer and to develop a clinical score to predict MDR GNR bacteremia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter prospective study analyzing initial episodes of MDR GNR bacteremia. Risk factors were evaluated using a multiple logistic regression (forward-stepwise selection) analysis including variables with a p<0.10 in univariate analysis. RESULTS: 394 episodes of GNR bacteremia were included, with 168 (42.6 %) being MDR GNR. Five variables were identified as independent risk factors: recent antibiotic use (OR=2.8, 95 % CI 1.7-4.6, p=0.001), recent intensive care unit admission (OR=2.9, 95 % CI 1.1-7.8, p=0.027), hospitalization ≥ 7 days prior to the episode of bacteremia (OR=3.5, 95 % CI 2-6.2, p=0.005), severe mucositis (OR=5.3, 95 % CI 1.8-15.6, p=0.002), and recent or previous colonization/infection with MDR GNR (OR=2.3, 95 % CI 1.2-4.3, p=0.028). Using a cut-off value of two points, the score had a sensitivity of 66.07 % (95 % CI 58.4-73.2 %), a specificity of 77.8 % (95 % CI 71.4-82.7 %), a positive predictive value of 68 % (95 % CI 61.9-73.4 %), and a negative predictive value of 75.9 % (95 % CI 71.6-79.7 %). The overall performance of the score was satisfactory (AUROC 0.78; 95 % CI 0.73-0.82). In the cases with one or none of the risk factors identified, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 and the post-test probability of having MDR GNR was 11.68 %. CONCLUSIONS: With the growing incidence of MDR GNR as etiologic agents of bacteremia in cancer patients, the development of this score could be a potential tool for clinicians.

Relevance of HTLV-1 proviral load in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients living in endemic and non-endemic areas of Argentina.

HTLV-1 proviral load (pVL) in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMCs) is proposed as a marker of disease progression but its role still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the levels of HTLV-1 pVL in symptomatic patients and asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers. In this cross-sectional study the pVL was measured by Real Time PCR in 102 asymptomatic carriers and 22 symptomatic patients (5ATLL, 15 TSP and 2 uveitis). We observed that the HTLV-1 pVL was significantly higher in symptomatic patients (median = 4.99 log10 HTLV-1 copies /106 PBMCs) compared to asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers (median = 4.38 log10 HTLV-1 copies /106 PBMCs; p = 0.0030). A wide variation on the HTLV-1 pVL levels among asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers was observed with some pVL as high as those observed in symptomatic patients. The asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers were divided according to the place of birth and the highest levels of pVL were detected among patients from endemics areas from the North of Argentina. Our results reinforce the usefulness of the proviral load would be a prognostic marker of HTLV-1 disease progression. Moreover, host, viral or socio-environmental factors cannot be excluded as determinant of high proviral load.

Infecciones en pacientes con tumores sólidos de sistema nervioso central y de cabeza y cuello / Infections in patients with solid tumors of the central nervous system and head and neck

Los tumores sólidos representan el 90% de las patologías oncohematológicas que se diagnostican en Argentina. Las infecciones son una de las complicaciones más frecuentes, causando una importante morbimortalidad, y en muchos casos retrasan la prosecución de los tratamientos específicos. La incidencia y tipo de infección depende del sitio específico del tumor, los fenómenos post obstructivos, el tipo e intensidad del tratamiento que se administre, las comorbilidades del paciente y la epidemiología local, entre otros factores. En forma constante se van incorporando nuevos tratamientos al arsenal terapéutico, tales como nuevos esquemas de quimioterapia, terapias blanco e inmunoterapia, y el manejo de las complicaciones asociadas a los mismos representa un desafío para el equipo tratante.En esta revisión abordamos la epidemiología, prevención y manejo de las complicaciones infecciosas más frecuentes en los pacientes con tumores de sistema nervioso central y de cabeza y cuello

Solid tumours represent 90 percent of the oncohematologic pathologies diagnosed in Argentina. Infections are one of the most frequent complications causing important morbidity and mortality and delay in prosecution of their specific treatment. The type of infection depends on the specific site of the tumour, the presence of post obstructive phenomena, the treatment administered, comorbidity and local epidemiology, among others. New therapies are being continuously incorporated to the armamentarium of cancer treatment such as new chemotherapies regimes, target therapy and immunotherapy. The management of adverse events and infectious complications associated with them are a challenge for the physician in charge of these patients.The epidemiology, prevention and management of the most frequent infectious complications in patients with tumours of the central nervous system and head and neck are reviewed in this paper

Pandemic 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients; a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: During March 2009 a novel Influenza A virus emerged in Mexico. We describe the clinical picture of the pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Influenza in cancer patients during the 2009 influenza season. METHODS: Twelve centers participated in a multicenter retrospective observational study of cancer patients with confirmed infection with the 2009 H1N1 Influenza A virus (influenza-like illness or pneumonia plus positive PCR for the 2009 H1N1 Influenza A virus  in respiratory secretions). Clinical data were obtained by retrospective chart review and analyzed.  RESULTS: From May to August 2009, data of 65 patients were collected. Median age was 51 years, 57 % of the patients were female. Most patients (47) had onco-hematological cancers and 18 had solid tumors. Cancer treatment mainly consisted of chemotherapy (46), or stem cell transplantation (SCT) (16). Only 19 of 64 patients had received the 2009 seasonal Influenza vaccine. Clinical presentation included pneumonia (43) and upper respiratory tract infection (22). Forty five of 58 ambulatory patients were admitted. Mechanical ventilation was required in 12 patients (18%). Treatment included oseltamivir monotherapy or in combination with amantadine for a median of 7 days. The global 30-day mortality rate was 18%. All 12 deaths were among the non-vaccinated patients. No deaths were observed among the 19 vaccinated patients. Oxygen saturation <96% at presentation was a predictor of mortality (OR 19.5; 95%CI: 2.28 to 165.9). CONCLUSIONS: In our cancer patient population, the pandemic 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) virus was associated with high incidence of pneumonia (66%), and 30-day mortality (18.5%). Saturation <96% was significantly associated with death. No deaths were observed among vaccinated patients.