PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 19, 2025Frontiers in Microbiology1 citationsOpen Access

Low rate of infectious mortality omitting fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in high-risk hematological patients, a single centre experience

View Full Paper
ASAdele SantoniMMMargherita MalchiodiEZElisabetta Zappone

Key Points

  • Despite high infection rates, infection-related mortality was only 3.0% in high-risk patients without fluoroquinolone prophylaxis.
  • Fever and neutropenia occurred in 80.5% of cases, with the most common causes linked to bloodstream infections and fevers of unknown origin.
  • The study is based on data from 236 high-risk hematological patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy and omitting fluoroquinolone prophylaxis.
  • Findings suggest that discontinuing fluoroquinolone prophylaxis does not significantly increase risks for infection-related mortality or overall mortality.

Abstract

Introduction In hematological patients treated with intensive chemotherapy (CHT), febrile neutropenia (FN) is the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) due to infections that occur during prolonged neutropenia. Fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis is still recommended by several guidelines for neutropenic patients because it helps reduce bacterial infection rates and fever episodes, although it does not affect infection-related mortality (IRM). However, in the era of multi-drug resistance (MDR), the use of FQs should be evaluated carefully. Methods We present a retrospective, single-center study based on real-life data that includes 512 intensive chemotherapy treatments and the occurrence of prolonged neutropenia in 236 high-risk (HR) hematological patients treated without FQ prophylaxis. Results In the entire cohort, we recorded FN in 80.5% of the cases. Among these, 33.7% were attributed to fevers of unknown origin, 45.4% were associated with bloodstream infections (BSIs), 9.0% involved bacterial organ infections, 13.6% were due to fungal infections, and 3.4% were linked to viral infections. Septic shock was observed in 7.6% of the patients. Although we documented a high infection rate, the IRM and overall mortality rates were 3.0% (7/236) and 9.3% (22/236), respectively. These rates are comparable to those found in settings where FQ prophylaxis is used. Conclusion Although our cohort was small, our results advocate for the exclusion of FQ prophylaxis in HR hematological patients, without increasing the IRM rate and addressing the risk of life-threatening MDR infections. While we believe it is mandatory to have an efficient protocol for the prompt treatment of FN, our data should encourage hematologists to limit the use of FQ prophylaxis.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Santoni et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68f43f03854d1061a58ac501https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1632055
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper