You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Infectious diseases
Original research
Exploring failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy for transplant recipients: a systematic review
  1. Anne-Grete Märtson1,
  2. Martijn Bakker2,
  3. Hans Blokzijl3,
  4. Erik A M Verschuuren4,
  5. Stefan P Berger5,
  6. Lambert F R Span2,
  7. Tjip S van der Werf4,5,
  8. Jan-Willem C Alffenaar1,6
  1. 1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Hematology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  5. 5 Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  6. 6 The University of Sydney, Sydney Pharmacy School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Jan-Willem C Alffenaar; j.w.c.alffenaar{at}umcg.nl

Abstract

Objectives Infections remain a threat for solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy have improved survival of these patients; however, the failure rates of prophylaxis are not negligible. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the reasons behind failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy.

Setting This systematic review included prospective randomised controlled trials and prospective single-arm studies.

Participants The studies included were on prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy of opportunistic infections in transplant recipients. Studies were included from databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase published until October first 2018.

Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome measures were breakthrough infections, adverse events leading to stopping of treatment, switching medication or dose reduction. Secondary outcome measures were acquired resistance to antimicrobials, antifungals or antivirals and death.

Results From 3317 identified records, 30 records from 24 studies with 2851 patients were included in the systematic review. Seventeen focused on prophylactic and pre-emptive treatment of cytomegalovirus and seven studies on invasive fungal infection. The main reasons for failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy were adverse events and breakthrough infections, which were described in 54% (13 studies) and 38% (9 studies) of the included studies, respectively. In 25%, six of the studies, a detailed description of patients who experienced failure of prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy was unclear or lacking.

Conclusions Our results show that although failure is reported in the studies, the level of detail prohibits a detailed analysis of failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy. Clearly reporting on patients with a negative outcome should be improved. We have provided guidance on how to detect failure early in a clinical setting in accordance to the results from this systematic review.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017077606.

  • transplant medicine
  • infectious diseases
  • infection control
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

View Full Text

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034940

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AGM did the screening, writing, data analysis, risk of bias analysis, searches and planning; MB did the screening, searches, data analysis, writing; HB, EAMV, SPB, LFRS and TSvdW did the planning, writing, reviewing of manuscript; JWA did the writing, analysis and planning.

    • Funding AGM was funded by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Grant Agreement number: 713660 — PRONKJEWAIL — H2020-MSCA-COFUND-2015

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Copyright information:

    © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.