Weycker Derek, Chandler David, Barron Rich, Xu Hairong, Wu Hongsheng, Edelsberg John, Lyman Gary H
1 Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI), Brookline, MA, USA.
2 Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017 Jan;23(1):33-42. doi: 10.1177/1078155215614997. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
Purpose Guidelines generally do not recommend oral antimicrobials for prophylaxis against chemotherapy-related infections in patients with solid tumors. Evidence on antimicrobial prophylaxis use, and associated chemotherapy-related infection risk, in US clinical practice is limited. Methods A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2008-2011) were employed. Study population included adults who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, or lung, or for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. For each subject, the first chemotherapy course was characterized, and within the first course, each chemotherapy cycle and chemotherapy-related infection episode was identified. Use of prophylaxis with oral antimicrobials and colony-stimulating factors in each cycle also was identified. Results A total of 7116 (22% of all) non-metastatic breast cancer, 1833 (15%) non-metastatic colorectal cancer, 1999 (15%) non-metastatic lung cancer, and 1949 (21%) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis in ≥1 cycle. Mean number of antimicrobial prophylaxis cycles during the course among these patients was typically <2, with little difference across cancers and chemotherapy regimens. Fluoroquinolones were the most commonly received class of antimicrobials, accounting for 20%-50% all antimicrobials administered. Among subjects who received first-cycle antimicrobial prophylaxis, chemotherapy-related infection risk in that cycle ranged from 3% to 6% across cancer types. Among patients who received first-cycle antimicrobial prophylaxis and developed chemotherapy-related infections, 38%-67% required inpatient care. Chemotherapy-related infection risk in subsequent cycles with antimicrobial prophylaxis was comparable. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that use of antimicrobial prophylaxis during myelosuppressive chemotherapy is far from uncommon in clinical practice. The results also suggest that an important minority of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving antimicrobial prophylaxis still develop serious infection requiring hospitalization.
目的 指南通常不推荐实体瘤患者使用口服抗菌药物预防化疗相关感染。美国临床实践中关于抗菌药物预防使用及其相关化疗相关感染风险的证据有限。方法 采用回顾性队列设计及来自两个美国私人医疗保健索赔数据库(2008 - 2011年)的数据。研究人群包括接受骨髓抑制性化疗的成年患者,这些患者患有非转移性乳腺癌、结肠/直肠癌、肺癌或非霍奇金淋巴瘤。对于每个受试者,对首个化疗疗程进行特征描述,并在首个疗程内确定每个化疗周期及化疗相关感染事件。还确定了每个周期中口服抗菌药物和集落刺激因子的预防使用情况。结果 共有7116例(占所有患者的22%)非转移性乳腺癌、1833例(15%)非转移性结直肠癌、1999例(15%)非转移性肺癌和1949例(21%)非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者在≥1个周期中接受了抗菌药物预防。这些患者在疗程中抗菌药物预防周期的平均数通常<2,不同癌症类型和化疗方案之间差异不大。氟喹诺酮类是最常使用的抗菌药物类别,占所有使用抗菌药物的20% - 50%。在接受首个周期抗菌药物预防的受试者中,该周期化疗相关感染风险在不同癌症类型中为3%至6%。在接受首个周期抗菌药物预防并发生化疗相关感染的患者中,38% - 67%需要住院治疗。后续周期使用抗菌药物预防时化疗相关感染风险相当。结论 本研究结果表明,在骨髓抑制性化疗期间使用抗菌药物预防在临床实践中并不罕见。结果还表明,接受抗菌药物预防的癌症化疗患者中有相当一部分仍会发生需要住院治疗的严重感染。