ABSTRACT
Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) infection often occurs in immunocompromised patients, which also face an increased risk of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. A deeper knowledge of the risk factors for MDR-PSA infection in this patient population may help to choose appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy. Methods: a single-center case-control (1:2) retrospective study that included 48 patients with underlying immunosuppression developing MDR-PSA infection (cases) and 96 patients also immunocompromised that were infected with non-MDR-PSA (controls) was conducted. Both groups were matched by site of infection, clinical features and type of immunosuppression. Risk factors for MDR-PSA were assessed by logistic regression. Clinical outcomes were also compared between both groups. Results: immunosuppression was due to solid cancer in 63 (43.8%) patients, solid organ transplantation in 39 (27.1%), hematological disease in 35 (24.3%) and other causes in 7 (4.9%). Independent risk factors for MDR-PSA infection were diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR]: 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63−13.79; p = 0.004), antibiotic therapy in the previous 3 months (OR: 5.32; 95% CI: 1.93−14.73; p = 0.001), previous MDR-PSA colonization (OR: 42.1; 95% CI: 4.49−394.8; p = 0.001) and septic shock (OR: 3.73; 95% CI: 1.36−10.21; p = 0.010). MDR-PSA cases were less likely to receive adequate empirical therapy (14 [29.2%] vs. 69 [71.9%]; p < 0.001). 30-day clinical improvement was less common in MDR-PSA cases (25 [52.1%] vs. 76 [79.2%]; p = 0.001). Conclusions: diabetes mellitus, previous MDR-PSA colonization, prior receipt of antibiotics and septic shock acted as risk factors for developing MDR-PSA infections in immunocompromised patients, who have a poorer outcome than those infected with non-MDR-PSA strains.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It is necessary to develop a safe alternative to isoniazid for tuberculosis prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin. METHODS: An open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin (500 mg q24h for 9 months) initiated in patients awaiting liver transplantation and isoniazid (300 mg q24h for 9 months) initiated post-transplant when liver function was stabilized. Efficacy was measured by tuberculosis incidence at 18 months after transplantation. All adverse events related to the medication were recorded. RESULTS: CONSORT guidelines were followed in order to present the results. The safety committee suspended the study through a safety analysis when 64 patients had been included (31 in the isoniazid arm and 33 in the levofloxacin arm). The reason for suspension was an unexpected incidence of severe tenosynovitis in the levofloxacin arm (18.2%). Although the clinical course was favorable in all cases, tenosynovitis persisted for 7 weeks in some patients. No patients treated with isoniazid, developed tenosynovitis. Only 32.2% of patients randomized to isoniazid (10/31) and 54.5% of patients randomized to levofloxacin (18/33, P = .094) completed prophylaxis. No patient developed tuberculosis during the study follow-up (median 270 days). CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin prophylaxis of tuberculosis in liver transplant candidates is associated with a high incidence of tenosynovitis that limits its potential utility.
