Home > Publications database > Antibiotic Prophylaxis or Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Support in Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation. > print

001     169981
005     20240229133702.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3390/cancers13143439
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:34298654
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a altmetric:110342848
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2021-01681
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Klein, Eva-Maria
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Antibiotic Prophylaxis or Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Support in Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.
260 _ _ |a Basel
|c 2021
|b MDPI
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1627383825_7922
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a We compare, in this manuscript, antibiotic prophylaxis versus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support as anti-infective strategies, in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), undergoing high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). At our institution, antibiotic prophylaxis after HDT/ASCT in MM was stopped in January 2017 and replaced by G-CSF support in March 2017. Consecutive MM patients who received HDT/ASCT between March 2016 and July 2018 were included in this single-center retrospective analysis. In total, 298 patients and 353 individual cases of HDT/ASCT were evaluated. In multivariate analyses, G-CSF support was associated with a significantly shortened duration of severe leukopenia < 1/nL (p < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) = 16.22), and hospitalization (estimate = -0.19, p < 0.001) compared to antibiotic prophylaxis. Rates of febrile neutropenia, need of antimicrobial therapy, transfer to intensive care unit, and death, were similar between the two groups. Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly increased risk for the development of multidrug resistant bacteria especially vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium compared to G-CSF support (odds ratio (OR) = 17.38, p = 0.01). Stop of antibiotic prophylaxis as an anti-infective strategy was associated with a reduction in overall resistance rates of bacterial isolates. These results indicate that G-CSF support should be the preferred option in MM patients undergoing HDT/ASCT.
536 _ _ |a 313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|c POF4-313
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo01.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de
650 _ 7 |a anti-infective strategies
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a antibiotic prophylaxis
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a autologous stem cell transplantation
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a infectious complications
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a multidrug resistant bacteria
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a multiple myeloma
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Sauer, Sandra
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Klein, Sabrina
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Tichy, Diana
|0 P:(DE-He78)2ef631585610340ff425c9c31fcabd03
|b 3
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Benner, Axel
|0 P:(DE-He78)e15dfa1260625c69d6690a197392a994
|b 4
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Bertsch, Uta
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Brandt, Juliane
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Kimmich, Christoph
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Goldschmidt, Hartmut
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Müller-Tidow, Carsten
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Jordan, Karin
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Giesen, Nicola
|b 11
773 _ _ |a 10.3390/cancers13143439
|g Vol. 13, no. 14, p. 3439 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2527080-1
|n 14
|p 3439
|t Cancers
|v 13
|y 2021
|x 2072-6694
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:169981
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-He78)2ef631585610340ff425c9c31fcabd03
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-He78)e15dfa1260625c69d6690a197392a994
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2021
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2019
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0320
|2 StatID
|b PubMed Central
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Blind peer review
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1190
|2 StatID
|b Biological Abstracts
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a IF >= 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9905
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2019
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2021-05-04
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2021-05-04
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
|k C060
|l C060 Biostatistik
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21