Abstract
Infection is a major complication of patients with hematological malignancies. Prophylaxis is a key element in the management of these patients, and is composed by two main components: infection control measures and antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis. Infection control measures are safe, but not always effective. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is usually effective but may increase resistance rates, toxicity, and cost. Therefore, a careful evaluation of the actual risk for infection, the pathogens that predominate in a particular setting, and the periods at risk are important in order to define the most appropriate strategy. In this chapter we review the most important parameters to assess the risk on an individual basis, and the evidences and recommendations supporting infection control measures and antimicrobial prophylaxis against bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction and General Principles: A Risk-Targeted Approach
Infection is a frequent complication and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies . Problems associated with the management of infections in these patients include difficulties in early diagnosis because the clinical signs of infection are subtle, the low performance of diagnostic tests, and suboptimal response to treatment because recovery of host defenses is a key factor for resolution of infection. Preventing these infections relies on infection control measures and antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis. While infection control measures are safe (but not always effective), the use of antimicrobial agents for prophylaxis of infection is not devoid of problems. Its wide use may increase the possibility of the development of resistance, select for resistant organisms, and increase toxicity and cost. Therefore, any attempt to administer an antimicrobial agent should be accompanied by a reflection of the potential benefits and risks of prophylaxis.
In general, the higher is the incidence of infection, the more beneficial is likely to be antimicrobial prophylaxis . Likewise, the shorter is the period at risk (and therefore the predicted duration of prophylaxis), the higher is the possibility that prophylaxis will work. However, the prediction of an incidence of infection is not simple, and requires an analysis of various factors including patient’s prior exposure to pathogens, underlying disease, previous and current treatment, comorbidities, geographic area, and others. Therefore, three questions are critical in defining the appropriateness of antimicrobial prophylaxis: what is the risk for infection; what are the pathogens that predominate in this setting; and what is the period at risk. In this chapter, we describe various strategies directed at the prevention of infections in patients with hematological malignancies, according to this risk-based strategy.
Table 49.1 provides a risk-targeted approach to prophylaxis of infections in patients with hematological malignancies and Table 49.2 presents the most frequent pathogens responsible for infection according to type of immunodeficiency present.
Infection Control Measures
Patients and health care workers should be educated about the risk of and methods to prevent acquisition of pathogens. These methods include:
Personal Hygiene
Handwashing
Handwashing remains the simplest and most effective measure to prevent the acquisition of organisms by patients [1]. Patients and health care workers should wash their hands before eating, smoking, or inserting or removing contact lenses, and after using the restroom, blowing their nose, coughing, sneezing, handling dirty items such as garbage, and after touching an animal. In addition, health care workers should also wash their hands between patients. All surfaces should be thoroughly cleaned, including wrists, palms, back of hands, fingers, and under the fingernails, preferably with an alcohol-based hand rub [2]. However, if hands are visibly dirty or soiled with blood or body fluids, soap and water are best for cleaning hands [3]. Additional recommendations include the removal of rings prior to handwashing, keeping nails short and clean, and avoiding the use of artificial nails as they may carry pathogens [4].
Skin and Mucosal Care
The skin flora could potentially be a source of infections. Patients should keep their skin clean with daily baths using an antiseptic solution with special attention to potential portals of infection such as the perineum, and catheter sites.
The oral flora can lead to infection especially in the setting of severe mucositis, after radiotherapy, or in patients with graft vs. host disease (GVHD). Recommendations to maintain a good oral and dental hygiene include: (a) oral rinses 4–6 times a day with sterile water, normal saline, or sodium bicarbonate; (b) tooth brushing at least twice a day with a soft or ultrasoft toothbrush. Swabs are less effective, but should be used if the patient cannot tolerate brushings.
Handling Pets
Pet owners should follow the following recommendations [3, 5]: (a) avoid contact with young animals as pets (higher risk of shedding Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. because of a higher incidence of diarrhea); (b) obtain veterinarian consultation when a new pet is adopted and yearly thereafter; (c) keep pet’s vaccinations current; (d) keep pet’s feeding areas clean and its litter box away from kitchen and eating areas; (e) feed pets only with high-quality commercial pet foods, cooked egg, poultry and meat products, and pasteurized dairy products, and avoid access to garbage; (f) supervise pets when they are outdoors to prevent contact with other pet’s feces; (g) prevent animals from roaming through tick-infested woods; (h) wash hands after handling pets and avoid contact with pet’s feces and bird droppings; (i) avoid contact with animals with diarrhea, dogs exposed to shows or kennels, wild birds (especially pigeons), birds with avian tuberculosis, reptiles (high carriage and shedding of Salmonella spp.), and swine (source of B. bronchiseptica); (j) keep pets away from face and wounds; (k) trim pet’s nail short; (l) notify physician immediately if patient is bitten or injured by a pet; (m) instruct kids not to share kisses with the classroom pet; and (n) when cleaning cages, wear a particulate mask and avoid shaking cages.
Other Personal Hygiene Items Including Food Handling
High-risk patients should follow additional precautions to prevent serious infections as summarized in Table 49.3.
Environmental Precautions
Hospital Environment
Air Precautions
Air quality is important to prevent infections in high-risk patients by airborne organisms such as molds (Aspergillus spp. or other filamentous fungi), Legionella spp. and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Patients at very high risk for invasive aspergillosis (IA) should be placed in sealed rooms with HEPA filters (central or point-in-use) and positive pressure. Air flow should be direct (air intake at one side of the room and air exhaust at the opposite side), and the system should be able to make ≥12 air exchanges per hour [6]. This group is represented mostly by patients receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and in the pre-engraftment period of myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) .
The conidia levels in outdoor air vary widely, from 1–5 cfu/m3 [7] to 2400 in winter and fall in certain areas [8]. The safe concentration of airborne fungi is not established and probably depends on the patient’s immune status. The efficacy of HEPA filters in preventing the entry of contaminated outside air into the hospital was confirmed after the demolition of a building. Despite the increase in the number of conidia of filamentous fungi, no conidia were found in most HEPA filter-equipped areas [9]. Because construction and renovation may increase the concentration of airborne fungi, guidelines have been developed when such activities are taking place close to areas were high-risk patients are cared for [10].
Portable HEPA filters decrease the concentration of airborne fungal spores [11] and their use has successfully prevented the occurrence of fungal infections during building construction [12]. However, it is generally agreed that they are less efficient than central or point-in-use HEPA filters [3].
Airborne fungi have been shown to secondarily aerosolize from a water source [13]. Therefore, preventive measures to limit exposure to water can decrease the airborne concentration of fungal pathogens (see below).
Diet
Although no data exist to support a role for sterile or low-level microbial-content (<1000 CFU/mL of nonpathogenic organisms) diets for patients with hematological malignancy, this practice is generally recommended [3]. A randomized study compared cooked and uncooked diet for patients undergoing induction remission for AML. There were no differences in the rates of episodes of major infection and death [14]. A Cochrane review published in 2016 found only three studies comparing cooked and uncooked food. Since pooling of results was not possible, and serious methodologic limitations were found, the authors could not provide solid recommendations for clinical practice [15].
Water
The hospital water system can be a reservoir for Legionella spp. [16], bacteria [17–19], and the opportunistic molds, especially Aspergillus spp. [13, 20–22], Fusarium spp. [23, 24], and Exophiala jeanselmei [25]. Potential modes of acquisition of infection include contamination of intravenous solutions, direct contact with skin breakdowns, and aerosolization of fungal spores. Measures to prevent the occurrence of infection depend on the mode of acquisition. It is generally recommended that patients at risk for such infections should avoid direct exposure to contaminated water. In addition, specific measures have been tested, including the use of point-in-use water filters for Legionella spp. [26] and cleaning water-related structures to prevent aerosolization of fungi [27].
Health Care Workers (HCW)
Infections can be transmitted from the HCW to the patient. The risk of transmission is high for Varicella zoster (VZV), viral conjunctivitis, measles, and tuberculosis, and intermediate for influenza, mumps, Parvovirus B19, pertussis, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), rotavirus, and rubella. Therefore, HCW with any of the abovementioned infections or with HSV lesions in lips or fingers should not be in contact with patients [3].
HCW who care for patients with hematological cancer should be immunized against rubella, measles, mumps, influenza, and chickenpox, in addition to the already recommended tetanus and hepatitis B immunization [3].
Household Exposure
The recommendations for immunization and precautions that apply to the HCW also apply to close contacts of patients with hematological cancer [3]. Immunization against hepatitis A and B is highly recommended for sexual contacts of patients. In addition, immunization against hepatitis A should be considered for all households of patients with chronic liver disease or living in endemic areas. Oral polio vaccine is contraindicated for all households of patients with hematological cancer since live polioviruses can be transmitted to and cause disease in immunocompromised patients, especially during the first month after vaccination [28]. Patients with hematological cancer should also avoid exposure to individuals with vesicular rash secondary to chickenpox immunization to prevent VZV disease [3].
Sexual partners: Sexually active patients should avoid unprotected sex during the periods of significant immunosuppression to reduce the risk of exposure to CMV, HSV, HIV, HPV, HBV, HBC, and other sexually transmitted infections [3].
Invasive Procedures
Procedures that break the integrity of natural barriers such as skin and mucosa should be avoided when possible. Fixed orthodontic appliances and space maintainers should not be worn during any period of neutropenia to avoid oral trauma and infection. Enemas, suppositories, rectal temperature check, or/and rectal examination are contraindicated. Necessary dental procedures should be performed prior to chemotherapy to allow proper healing before neutropenia and mucositis develop [29]. Bone marrow biopsies should be done aseptically to avoid cellulitis and osteomyelitis.
Recommendations for the insertion of indwelling devices include careful cleaning and sterilization of instruments and devices (particularly reusable ones) and guidelines for the prevention of intravascular device-related infections [30]. However, solid evidence to support some of the guidelines for the prevention of intravascular device-related infections is lacking.
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis
Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be primary, when prevention targets an individual that has not been infected in the past, and secondary, when prevention is used to avoid recurrence of infection in an individual who has been previously infected.
Antibacterial Prophylaxis
Bacterial infections occur frequently in two settings: neutropenia and hypogammaglobulinemia . As shown in Table 49.2, common bacterial infections in patients with neutropenia include staphylococci, enterococci, and viridans streptococci among the Gram-positive bacteria, and enterobacteria and non-fermentative bacteria (especially Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and Stenotrophomonas spp. among the Gram-negative bacteria).
Because Gram-negative bacteremia may be associated with high mortality rates, strategies of antibacterial prophylaxis during neutropenia have been focused mostly to prevent the occurrence of Gram-negative bacteremia, and the quinolones have been extensively studied. A meta-analysis pooling data from 95 trials showed that quinolones reduced the incidence of fever, documented infections, and mortality associated with infection [31]. A major concern is the development of resistance. Another meta-analysis examined the effect of quinolone prophylaxis on microbial resistance. There was no difference in the incidence of colonization by resistant organisms, or in the rates of infection caused by resistant pathogens [32]. These data, however, must be interpreted with caution, because rates of resistance are very different among different institutions, cities, and countries. As a general rule, once the clinician decides to give prophylaxis with a quinolone for neutropenic patients, a careful attention to the development of resistance is advised.
Another concern when using quinolone prophylaxis is the increase in the incidence of infections caused by Gram-positive organism, notably viridans streptococci [33, 34]. A great concern related to such infections is that they may occasionally evolve to shock and respiratory failure [35]. Although most of such infections may be prevented by penicillin or macrolides [36], some strains are resistant to these agents [37]. The use of glycopeptides is not generally recommended for prophylaxis [3]. Table 49.4 shows the usual doses of quinolones in the prophylaxis of bacterial infections in neutropenic patients.
Hypogammaglobulinemia is frequent in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and in allogeneic HCT recipients who develop GVHD. These patients are at greater risk of developing bacterial infections, particularly by encapsulated bacteria. Intravenous immunoglobulin (400 mg/kg) every 4 weeks may be effective for the prevention of bacterial infections, and this recommendation is supported by randomized controlled studies [38–40]. However, since its use is costly, intravenous immunoglobulin should be reserved to a selected population of patients with repeated episodes of severe infections. A meta-analysis of nine studies comparing intravenous immunoglobulin with a control group in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or multiple myeloma did not show any survival benefit of immunoglobulin prophylaxis. However, a reduction in the incidence of major infections and of clinically documented infections was observed. The authors concluded that intravenous immunoglobulin should not be recommended routinely [41]. A cheaper alternative to immunoglobulin is to give quinolone prophylaxis with levofloxacin (500 mg/day), moxifloxacin (400 mg/day), or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (TMP-SMX) (Table 49.4) [42].
Antifungal Prophylaxis
Primary prophylaxis against invasive candidiasis is not indicated in all neutropenic patients. In allogeneic HCT recipients, two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that fluconazole reduced the frequency of superficial and systemic candidiasis, as well as infection-related mortality [43, 44]. In one of these trials, fluconazole was given until day +75 posttransplant, and a post hoc analysis of the trial has shown that fluconazole was associated with prolonged protection against invasive candidiasis, even beyond the period of prophylaxis [45].
The benefit of prophylaxis against invasive candidiasis was not as apparent in other settings, such as in patients with acute leukemia [46]. However, the ineffectiveness of fluconazole in non-HSCT neutropenic patients is probably related to the heterogeneity of the populations of neutropenic patients studied (with different incidences of invasive candidiasis) rather than an absence of efficacy. In general, the higher is the risk for the patient to develop severe mucositis during neutropenia, the higher is the risk for invasive candidiasis.
Fluconazole is the drug of choice, usually at a dose of 400 mg daily. Fluconazole is not effective in preventing infection caused by all Candida species. Candida krusei is intrinsically resistant to fluconazole, and Candida glabrata exhibits minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) higher than other species. As a consequence, fluconazole is not recommended for the prevention of infection due to these two species.
Other than fluconazole, itraconazole oral solution (but not capsules) [47], voriconazole [48], posaconazole [49], and micafungin [50] effectively prevent the occurrence of invasive candidiasis during neutropenia.
Invasive aspergillosis usually occurs in the context of prolonged (>15 days) and profound (<100/mm3) neutropenia in patients receiving induction therapy for AML or myelodysplasia (MDS), or after myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic HCT [51]. In addition, HCT recipients with GVHD are at high risk for IA. In these patients, severe T-cell mediated immunodeficiency rather than profound and prolonged neutropenia is the main risk factor [52]. More recently, cases of IA have been diagnosed in patients with other hematological malignancies, including patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving treatment with alemtuzumab, and patients with multiple myeloma [53–56].
In the setting of AML/MDS, posaconazole (200 mg 3×/day) was superior to fluconazole or itraconazole oral solution in a large randomized controlled trial, and is considered the drug of choice for anti-Aspergillus prophylaxis [49]. By contrast, a reduction in the incidence of IA was not observed in trials comparing itraconazole with fluconazole, and itraconazole was associated with more adverse events [47, 57]. A recent meta-analysis of itraconazole trials suggest that there is a reduction in Aspergillus infections but only if a certain threshold of bioavailable dosing is used [58]. Its ability to prevent invasive fungal diseases (IFD) has been associated with trough itraconazole concentrations >500 ng/mL, best achieved with the IV formulation (followed by the oral solution if the gastrointestinal function is intact). The oral capsule formulation suffers from erratic bioavailability and is best avoided.
In allogeneic HCT recipients, itraconazole oral solution resulted in a reduction in the frequency of IA in 2 trials, but about 25% of patients discontinued itraconazole because of gastrointestinal side effects [59, 60]. In these trials, prophylaxis was used both in the early pre-engraftment and in the post-engraftment period. Another randomized clinical trial compared posaconazole to fluconazole in allogeneic HCT recipients who developed GVHD. Although the primary endpoint (incidence of IFD from randomization to day 112 of prophylaxis) was not achieved, posaconazole significantly reduced the incidence of IA [61]. Micafungin given during the pre-engraftment period was associated with a trend suggesting ability to prevent aspergillosis. In this trial the incidence of IA was 0.2% among 425 patients receiving micafungin and 1.5% among 457 patients receiving fluconazole (p = 0.07) [50].
Two randomized clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of voriconazole as prophylaxis in allogeneic HCT recipients. In the first study, patients received voriconazole or fluconazole from day zero until day +100 (or beyond, in the presence of GVHD) posttransplant. For the primary endpoint (fungal-free survival at 180 days), no differences were observed in the two arms (75% fluconazole vs. 78% voriconazole, p = 0.49). There was a trend for a lower incidence of IA in voriconazole recipients (p = 0.09) [48]. The other study compared voriconazole and itraconazole, given for the same period as the previous study [62]. The incidence of IFD (including IA) was similar in the two arms, but tolerability was better with voriconazole.
Taken together, it seems that mold-active azoles indeed reduce the incidence of IA. These findings, however, should be balanced against our significantly improved ability for the early detection of fungal infections and the potential undesirable consequences including toxicities, drug–drug interactions, costs, and emergence of resistance [63]. The application of serial serum galactomannan monitoring has enabled us to make the diagnosis of IA much earlier, with a significant impact in reducing mortality [56]. Indeed, in the trial comparing voriconazole and fluconazole, screening with twice-weekly serum galactomannan was part of the protocol in the two arms, and appropriate antifungal therapy was started based on positive galactomannan tests. The absence of a significant difference in the incidence of IA suggests that giving an anti-mold agent as prophylaxis or giving fluconazole plus serial monitoring with serum galactomannan results in similar outcomes.
Therefore, several factors should be taken into consideration in determining if prophylaxis is appropriate at a specific treatment center, for a given patient or patient population to target a specific infection or if prophylaxis should be withheld and a diagnostic-based preemptive strategy used instead. In general, the higher the risk, the more likely anti-mold prophylaxis should be given. Therefore, risk assessment (Table 49.1) should be performed in order to decide the best strategy. Patients at high risk to develop IFD should receive anti-mold prophylaxis, while low-risk patients can be managed with fluconazole plus active monitoring with serial (3×/week) serum galactomannan and CT scans, provided that these tools are available in the hospital [64]. Clinicians should keep in mind that this risk assessment is dynamic. For example, a patient with AML who was considered at low risk on admission but presents residual blast cells on day 15 of admission should be reclassified to a higher risk and the prophylactic regimen should be changed accordingly [64].
Secondary prophylaxis is indicated for patients who developed an invasive mold infection and will receive treatment for the underlying malignancy that results in immunosuppression, particularly neutropenia and/or T-cell immunodeficiency [65]. Options for secondary prophylaxis include amphotericin B and its lipid formulations, caspofungin, itraconazole, voriconazole and lipid amphotericin B followed by voriconazole [66–70]. In addition to secondary chemoprophylaxis, strategies to abbreviate the duration of neutropenia, such as the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens and peripheral blood stem cells, and the use of granulocyte transfusions may be employed [71, 72]. The antifungal agents and doses given as prophylaxis are summarized in Table 49.4.
Antiviral Prophylaxis
Most viral infections that complicate the course of chemotherapy in patients with hematological malignancies represent reactivation of latent infections, while a minority are due to exogenous acquisition (such as respiratory viruses).
Cytomegalovirus (CMV)
Until the early 1990s, CMV seropositive allogeneic HCT recipients had a 70–80% risk of viral reactivation, and one-third of these patients developed CMV disease (mainly pneumonia) [73] with a high fatality rate [74]. The application of preemptive therapy guided by serial monitoring with CMV antigenemia has markedly reduced the incidence of patients who develop overt manifestations and/or die of CMV pneumonia [75]. More recently, quantitative PCR for the detection of CMV DNA and CMV RNA have been introduced as alternatives for the antigenemia [76, 77]. Since these techniques are more sensitive than antigenemia, a threshold for starting preemptive therapy should be established for every group of patients; in other words, a specific number of copies of CMV DNA above which triggers the institution of preemptive therapy in allogeneic HCT may not be the same for patients with less severe immunodeficiency. Indeed, the application of these sensitive biomarkers has revealed that hosts not thought to be at risk for CMV reactivation may indeed have positive CMV PCR quite frequently [78]. Outside the setting of allogeneic HCT, patients at higher risk to develop CMV reactivation include patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) receiving fludarabine or (especially) alemtuzumab [79], patients with multiple myeloma receiving highly intensive therapies [80], and autologous HCT recipients treated previously with rituximab [81].
Two strategies were reported effective for the prophylaxis of CMV disease in allogeneic HCT recipients: universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. Universal prophylaxis is not usually given because this strategy may lead to a significant increase in the incidence of bacterial and fungal superinfections associated with ganciclovir-induced neutropenia and immunosuppression [82], and the occurrence of late CMV disease [74]. Ganciclovir, administered intravenously, is the drug most often used for preemptive therapy. The usual duration of therapy is 2 weeks, provided antigenemia (or PCR) becomes promptly negative. Otherwise, a prolonged course of ganciclovir or maintenance therapy is indicated. Alternatives to ganciclovir include foscarnet and oral valganciclovir [3]. Investigational agents include brincidofovir [83], letermovir [84], and maribavir [85].
Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)
Reactivation of HSV is frequent in patients with hematological malignancies, especially after induction chemotherapy for acute leukemia, and following conditioning regimens for HCT, and manifests as oral lesions indistinguishable from chemotherapy-induced mucositis [86]. Less frequent manifestations include genital ulcers, esophagitis, hepatitis, and pneumonia. Antiviral prophylaxis against HSV is administered if the patient is seropositive for HSV or conveys a history of recurrent fever blisters, cold sores, or other indications of recurrent HSV infections, particularly if the CD4 counts are low (<50/mm3). The drug of choice is acyclovir, and should be given prior to or at the time of cytotoxic or myeloablative chemotherapy and continued until bone marrow recovery and/or resolution of mucositis [86]. Alternatives to acyclovir are valacyclovir and famciclovir (Table 49.4).
Varicella-Zoster Virus (VZV)
Patients at highest risk for VZV reactivation are those with severe lymphopenia and/or CD4 cytopenia such as patients with lymphoma, leukemia (mainly CLL), heavily treated myeloma patients, HCT recipients and patients receiving fludarabine or alemtuzumab. Without acyclovir prophylaxis, reactivation of VZV is common and can be complicated with severe post-herpetic neuralgia. Visceral dissemination (pneumonitis, meningoencephalitis, and hepatitis) may rarely occur in severely immunocompromised patients [87].
Patients at high risk should avoid contact with persons with VZV disease, as well as vaccine recipients who develop a rash after vaccination. In addition, contact and airborne precautions are recommended if an immunocompromised patient develops VZV disease, in order to decrease the risk of transmission to other patients and to HCW [3].
High-risk patients with a history of recent c ontact with any person with VZV disease should receive varicella-zoster immunoglobulin (VZIG) or, as an alternative, acyclovir or valacyclovir [88]. Acyclovir is indicated as prophylaxis against VZV reactivation in allogeneic HCT recipients, usually given for 1 year [89]. In addition, patients with multiple myeloma receiving regimens containing bortezomib should receive prophylaxis because of the high risk of VZV reactivation [80]. The use of VZV prophylaxis in other settings is more debatable and should be reserved for severely immunosuppressed patients, especially if they develop herpes zoster.
Epstein Barr Virus (EBV)
Patients with EBV disease may present with fever and mononucleosis syndrome. In addition, HCT recipients may present with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) . Patients at high risk for PTLD include recipients of matched unrelated, mismatched, or T-cell depleted transplants, recipients of high dose antithymocyte globulin or anti-T-cell monoclonal antibodies, patients with acute and chronic GVHD, and those receiving radiation as part of the conditioning regimen [90].
High-risk patients who are EBV seronegative should be advised to avoid close contact with EBV seropositive individuals. Increases in EBV viral load following PPSCT/BMT are common, and are highest in patients at risk for PTLD. The best strategy to prevent PLTD is to serial monitor high-risk patients with serum quantitative PCR technique and giving rituximab preemptively for patients who present EBV replication [91].
Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)
Patients with hematological malignancies undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy while infected with HBV have a higher risk for severe liver dysfunction [92]. During therapy-induced aplasia, the possibility of viral replication increases dramatically resulting in acute HBV infection that may be mild, asymptomatic, or chronically progressive leading to fulminant hepatitis. Fulminant hepatitis usually coincides with discontinuation of immunosuppression [93]. Risk factors for reactivation include male gender, younger age, a diagnosis of lymphoma, and positive HBV e antigen [94]. In HCT recipients, the risk of reactivation is as high as 50% [95]. Although any chemotherapy regimen may result in HBV reactivation, the risk is particularly higher after exposure to corticosteroids, rituximab, and alemtuzumab [96, 97].
Patients with circulating HBV DNA should receive preemptive therapy with lamivudine (100 mg/day). This regimen is effective and relatively nontoxic. However, prolonged exposure to lamivudine may result in the development of resistance. The optimal duration of preemptive therapy is not established, but is usually recommended to be at least 6 months after discontinuation of chemotherapy, to avoid viral reactivation and the development of hepatitis [95, 98].
Patients infected with HCV may receive chemotherapy or HCT without major complications except for a higher risk for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome; the risk for such patients is the development of late cirrhosis, several years after HCT [99]. Patients with HCV should be assessed for the evidence of chronic liver disease. Patients with cirrhosis who are selected for receipt of HCT should not receive conventional conditioning regimens. Although oral ribavirin may clear HCV viremia, its routine use as prophylaxis is not recommended.
Respiratory Viruses
The respiratory viruses Adenovirus, Influenzae, Parainfluenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Rhinovirus, Coronavirus, and Metapneumovirus may cause infections in patients with hematological malignancies. Most of these infections appear to be self-limited, although progression to severe lower respiratory infection may occur [100–103]. The main strategy for prophylaxis of infections by respiratory viruses is to prevent exposure of patients with hematological malignancies to individuals with symptoms of respiratory infections.
Vaccination of household contacts and HCWs for Influenza is recommended during each Influenza season [3]. In addition, patients receiving chemotherapy should also receive the vaccine, considering that they may be able to respond vaccination and the intervention is safe [104]. However, considering that the response to vaccination may be suboptimal, chemoprophylaxis with neuraminidase inhibitors during a community outbreak has been recommended [3].
Regarding RSV, parainfluenza virus, and adenovirus, while highly immunosuppressive patients may be at risk for severe pneumonia, no formal prophylaxis is available and approved. Therefore prevention of severe disease is best approached by early diagnosis and therapy.
Other Pathogens
Mycobacteria
The incidence of tuberculosis in patients with hematological malignancies is low, even in highly endemic regions. In a study from Spain, the incidence of tuberculosis was significantly higher than the general population among allogeneic but not autologous HCT recipients [105]. In another study, 917 patients with hematological malignancies from Brazil were retrospectively reviewed for a diagnosis of tuberculosis. The prevalence was 2.6% only; risk factors were an underlying disease associated with significant impairment in CMI (e.g., receipt of fludarabine and corticosteroids) and malnutrition [106]. The problem is that most patients who develop tuberculosis have not had clearly identified risk factors.
Patients should avoid contact with persons with active tuberculosis, as well as environments that may potentially have patients with tuberculosis, such as health care facilities and shelters for the homeless. There are no studies testing antimicrobial prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Recently published guidelines for infection prophylaxis in HCT recipients recommend the use of isoniazid (5–10 mg/kg, maximum, 300 mg/day) with pyridoxine 25 mg daily for >9 months and until immunosuppression dosages are substantially reduced in patients with past history of tuberculosis or exposure to someone with active tuberculosis, patients with positive tuberculin test or interferon-gamma release assays without a history of BCG vaccination [3].
Pneumocystis jirovecii
Reactivation of latent infection is the most common mechanism of pneumonia by Pneumocystis jirovecii among immunocompromised patients. Patients at high risk for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) are those with chronic T-cell immunodeficiency, particularly: children with acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), HCT recipients, and patients receiving purine analogues, monoclonal antibodies, or corticosteroids for long periods [107, 108].
The most effective drug for prophylaxis is TMP-SMX. Accepted dosages include one double-strength tablet (trimethoprim 160 mg + sulfamethoxazole 800 mg) bid 2 days a week, one double-strength tablet (daily or 3 times a week), and 1 single-strength tablet (trimethoprim 80 mg + sulfamethoxazole 400 mg) daily. The time of initiation and the duration of prophylaxis should be individualized according to the underlying disease and type of treatment. For example, in ALL patients, prophylaxis is usually started at the end of the induction period and discontinued 3 months after completion of maintenance therapy; in HCT recipients it should be started after engraftment and continued as long as immunosuppressive therapy is ongoing, extensive GVHD is present and CD4 count is <200 cells/mm3. Alternative agents include: aerosolized pentamidine (given with Respirgard II nebulizer 300 mg every month after an initial loading dose given every other week), atovaquone suspension (1500 mg/day), and dapsone (50 mg bid or 100 mg/day) [3, 109].
Toxoplasmosis
Seropositive patients are at risk of reactivation of toxoplasmosis following HCT. When the recipient and donor are seronegative, special precautions should be taken to avoid primary infection. Those precautions include eating only well-cooked meats (>66°C), well-washed vegetables, cooked eggs, pasteurized milk, sterile water, handwashing after outdoor activities or after handling raw meat or vegetables, using gloves for contact with soil or gardening, avoiding contact with cat litter, and having someone change litter box daily and soak it in boiling water for 5 min.
Reactivation of toxoplasmosis is highest among recipients of T-cell depleted allogeneic PSCT/BMT (5–15%) and is otherwise rare among other allogeneic recipients (<1%). The potential toxicities of effective agents preclude routine prophylaxis against toxoplasmosis. However, preemptive therapy of high-risk patients (positive serology prior to transplantation, T-cell depleted allogeneic transplants) with PCR-based tests is recommended. Primary prophylaxis may be considered in patients with history of ocular toxoplasmosis. Effective prophylaxis includes TMP-SMX, one double-strength tablet daily or 3 times a week, or 1 single-strength tablet daily, Clindamycin 300–450 mg thrice daily plus pyrimethamine 25–75 mg/day plus leucovorin 10–25 mg, pyrimethamine-sulfadoxine (Fansidar) 1 tablet (25 mg pyrimethamine/500 mg sulfadoxine)/20 kg weight on day 1 with folinic acid, 50 mg/20 kg on day 2, then daily following engraftment, atovaquone (750–1500 mg/day), and dapsone 50 mg/day plus pyrimethamine 50 mg/week plus folinic acid 25 mg/week. Fansidar is associated with significant toxicities [110].
Other Parasites
Strongyloides stercoralis may cause a fatal disseminated syndrome with intestinal larval invasion and bacterial superinfection. Patients at high risk are those with T-cell immunodeficiency [111]. Patients at risk should avoid contact with outhouses and cutaneous exposure to soil or other surfaces that might be contaminated with human feces. In addition, patients with unexplained eosinophilia, or those who live in, have resided, or traveled to endemic areas should be screened with either stool examinations (≥3 stool examinations), or an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [112]. Patients whose screening is positive should receive empiric treatment with ivermectin (200 μg/kg/day for 2 days, repeat after 2 weeks) [113].
Immune Reconstitution
Passive Immunization (IV Immunoglobulin, IVIG)
Intravenous immunoglobulins may benefit patients with CLL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloma who have severe hypogammaglobulinemia (serum IgG levels <500 mg/dL) and recurrent and/or severe infections despite appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis and immunizations [38–40]. Doses of IVIG of 250 mg/kg every 4 weeks were shown to be as effective as 500 mg/kg every 4 weeks. However, the role of IVIG in the prevention of infections among patients with hematological malignancies is not clear and is unlikely to be superior to that of antibiotic prophylaxis (see Antibacterial Prophylaxis above). Therefore, IVIG should probably be given to patients with hypogammaglobulinemia and recurrent bacterial infections despite prophylactic antibiotics [114].
Among HCT recipients, the major benefit of IVIG is the reduction of acute GVHD in allogeneic HCT. The administration of IVIG for the prevention of infections among these patients with severe hypogammaglobulinemia (serum Ig G < 400 mg/dL) is commonly practiced but is of unproven value.
Active Immunization
The immunization of patients with hematological malignancies undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy has three goals: (a) maintaining the appropriate adult immunization schedule; (b) restoring the immunity that could have been lost after the immunosuppressive treatment; and (c) protecting the patient from the receipt of live vaccines. A suggested schedule for immunization in HCT is shown in Table 49.5.
Colony-Stimulating Factors (CSF)
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to reduce the incidence of fever, and duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization in some studies. However, a significant reduction of culture-proven infections or mortality has not been shown. The best cost-effective prophylactic use of G-CSF is in settings when the risk of febrile neutropenia is >20% [115–117].
Granulocyte Transfusions
Prophylactic GM-CSF or G-CSF elicited granulocyte transfusions remains investigational and may be considered in patients with a history of a neutropenia-related invasive mold infection (such as aspergillosis or fusariosis) who are expected to be neutropenic for ≥14 days [118].
Summary
Infection is a frequent complication and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. In general, the higher is the risk for a certain infection, the more beneficial is likely to be prophylaxis. Likewise, the shorter is the period at risk (and therefore the predicted duration of prophylaxis), the higher is the possibility that prophylaxis will work. The decision of giving prophylaxis should take into account its potential benefits, but also side effects, costs, induction of resistance, and the potential for drug interactions with antineoplastic h48 drugs. Risk assessment is a key element in defining prophylactic strategies.
References
Bryan JL, Cohran J, Larson EL. Hand washing: a ritual revisited. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 1995;7:617–25.
Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet. 2000;356:1307–12.
Tomblyn M, Chiller T, Einsele H, et al. Guidelines for preventing infectious complications among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a global perspective. Biol Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;44:453–5.
Jeanes A, Green J. Nail art: a review of current infection control issues. J Hosp Infect. 2001;49:139–42.
Hemsworth S, Pizer B. Pet ownership in immunocompromised children--a review of the literature and survey of existing guidelines. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2006;10:117–27.
Sehulster L, Chinn RY. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the healthcare infection control practices advisory committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52:1–42.
Rhame FS. Prevention of nosocomial aspergillosis. J Hosp Infect. 1991;18(Suppl A):466–72.
Noble WC, Clayton YM. Fungi in the air of hospital wards. J Gen Microbiol. 1963;32:397–402.
Bouza E, Pelaez T, Perez-Molina J, et al. Demolition of a hospital building by controlled explosion: the impact on filamentous fungal load in internal and external air. J Hosp Infect. 2002;52:234–42.
Cheng SM, Streifel AJ. Infection control considerations during construction activities: land excavation and demolition. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:321–8.
Engelhart S, Hanfland J, Glasmacher A, Krizek L, Schmidt-Wolf IG, Exner M. Impact of portable air filtration units on exposure of haematology-oncology patients to airborne aspergillus fumigatus spores under field conditions. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54:300–4.
Loo VG, Bertrand C, Dixon C, et al. Control of construction-associated nosocomial aspergillosis in an antiquated hematology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:360–4.
Anaissie EJ, Stratton SL, Dignani MC, et al. Pathogenic molds (including aspergillus species) in hospital water distribution systems: a 3-year prospective study and clinical implications for patients with hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2003;101:2542–6.
Gardner A, Mattiuzzi G, Faderl S, et al. Randomized comparison of cooked and noncooked diets in patients undergoing remission induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5684–8.
van Dalen EC, Mank A, Leclercq E, et al. Low bacterial diet versus control diet to prevent infection in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy causing episodes of neutropenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD006247.
Levin AS. Nosocomial legionellosis: prevention and management. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2009;7:57–68.
Kotsanas D, Brett J, Kidd TJ, Stuart RL, Korman TM. Disinfection of Burkholderia cepacia complex from non-touch taps in a neonatal nursery. J Perinat Med. 2008;36:235–9.
Aumeran C, Paillard C, Robin F, et al. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and pseudomonas putida outbreak associated with contaminated water outlets in an oncohaematology paediatric unit. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65:47–53.
Trautmann M, Lepper PM, Haller M. Ecology of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa in the intensive care unit and the evolving role of water outlets as a reservoir of the organism. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33:S41–9.
Hayette MP, Christiaens G, Mutsers J, et al. Filamentous fungi recovered from the water distribution system of a Belgian university hospital. Med Mycol. 2010;48:969–74.
Warris A, Voss A, Abrahamsen TG, Verweij PE. Contamination of hospital water with aspergillus fumigatus and other molds. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1159–60.
Anaissie EJ, Stratton SL, Dignani MC, et al. Pathogenic aspergillus species recovered from a hospital water system: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:780–9.
Anaissie EJ, Kuchar RT, Rex JH, et al. Fusariosis associated with pathogenic fusarium species colonization of a hospital water system: a new paradigm for the epidemiology of opportunistic mold infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1871–8.
O’Donnell K, Sutton DA, Rinaldi MG, et al. Genetic diversity of human pathogenic members of the fusarium oxysporum complex inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data and amplified fragment length polymorphism analyses: evidence for the recent dispersion of a geographically widespread clonal lineage and nosocomial origin. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:5109–20.
Nucci M, Akiti T, Barreiros G, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of Exophiala jeanselmei fungemia associated with contamination of hospital water. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1475–80.
Chen YS, Lin YE, Liu YC, et al. Efficacy of point-of-entry copper--silver ionisation system in eradicating legionella pneumophila in a tropical tertiary care hospital: implications for hospitals contaminated with legionella in both hot and cold water. J Hosp Infect. 2008;68:152–8.
Anaissie EJ, Stratton SL, Dignani MC, et al. Cleaning patient shower facilities: a novel approach to reducing patient exposure to aerosolized aspergillus species and other opportunistic molds. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:E86–8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding routine poliovirus vaccination. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58:829–30.
Joshi VK. Dental treatment planning and management for the mouth cancer patient. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:475–9.
O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51:1–29.
Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:979–95.
Gafter-Gvili A, Paul M, Fraser A, Leibovici L. Effect of quinolone prophylaxis in afebrile neutropenic patients on microbial resistance: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:5–22.
Bochud PY, Eggiman P, Calandra T, Van MG, Saghafi L, Francioli P. Bacteremia due to viridans streptococcus in neutropenic patients with cancer: clinical spectrum and risk factors. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;18:25–31.
Prabhu RM, Piper KE, Litzow MR, Steckelberg JM, Patel R. Emergence of quinolone resistance among viridans group streptococci isolated from the oropharynx of neutropenic peripheral blood stem cell transplant patients receiving quinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;24:832–8.
Marron A, Carratala J, Gonzalez-Barca E, Fernandez-Sevilla A, Alcaide F, Gudiol F. Serious complications of bacteremia caused by Viridans streptococci in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:1126–30.
Broun ER, Wheat JL, Kneebone PH, Sundblad K, Hromas RA, Tricot G. Randomized trial of the addition of gram-positive prophylaxis to standard antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38:576–9.
Arns da CC, Weisdorf D, Shu XO, Defor T, Pastor JD III, Johnson JR. Early gram-positive bacteremia in BMT recipients: impact of three different approaches to antimicrobial prophylaxis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21:173–80.
Chapel H, Dicato M, Gamm H, et al. Immunoglobulin replacement in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a comparison of two dose regimes. Br J Haematol. 1994;88:209–12.
Chapel HM, Lee M, Hargreaves R, Pamphilon DH, Prentice AG. Randomised trial of intravenous immunoglobulin as prophylaxis against infection in plateau-phase multiple myeloma. The UK Group for Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in multiple myeloma. Lancet. 1994;343:1059–63.
Petersen FB, Bowden RA, Thornquist M, et al. The effect of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin on the incidence of septicemia in marrow transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1987;2:141–7.
Raanani P, Gafter-Gvili A, Paul M, Ben-Bassat I, Leibovici L, Shpilberg O. Immunoglobulin prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:770–81.
Oken MM, Pomeroy C, Weisdorf D, Bennett JM. Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of early infection in multiple myeloma. Am J Med. 1996;100:624–8.
Goodman JL, Winston DJ, Greenfield RA, et al. A controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent fungal infections in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:845–51.
Slavin MA, Osborne B, Adams R, et al. Efficacy and safety of fluconazole prophylaxis for fungal infections after marrow transplantation--a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Infect Dis. 1995;171:1545–52.
Marr KA, Seidel K, Slavin MA, et al. Prolonged fluconazole prophylaxis is associated with persistent protection against candidiasis-related death in allogeneic marrow transplant recipients: long-term follow-up of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Blood. 2000;96:2055–61.
Bow EJ, Laverdiere M, Lussier N, Rotstein C, Cheang MS, Ioannou S. Antifungal prophylaxis for severely neutropenic chemotherapy recipients: a meta analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials. Cancer. 2002;94:3230–46.
Vardakas KZ, Michalopoulos A, Falagas ME. Fluconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Br J Haematol. 2005;131:22–8.
Wingard JR, Carter SL, Walsh TJ, et al. Randomized double-blind trial of fluconazole versus voriconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection (IFI) after allo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Blood. 2010;116(24):5111–8.
Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:348–59.
van Burik JA, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1407–16.
Segal BH. Aspergillosis. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1870–84.
Marr KA, Carter RA, Boeckh M, Martin P, Corey L. Invasive aspergillosis in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: changes in epidemiology and risk factors. Blood. 2002;100:4358–66.
Gil L, Kozlowska-Skrzypczak M, Mol A, Poplawski D, Styczynski J, Komarnicki M. Increased risk for invasive aspergillosis in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases after autologous hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43:121–6.
Lewis RE, Kontoyiannis DP. Invasive aspergillosis in glucocorticoid-treated patients. Med Mycol. 2009;47(Suppl 1):S271–81.
Nedel WL, Kontoyiannis DP, Pasqualotto AC. Aspergillosis in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2009;26:175–83.
Nucci M, Nouer SA, Grazziutti M, Kumar NS, Barlogie B, Anaissie E. Probable invasive aspergillosis without Prespecified radiologic findings: proposal for inclusion of a new category of aspergillosis and implications for studying novel therapies. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:1273–80.
Glasmacher A, Cornely O, Ullmann AJ, et al. An open-label randomized trial comparing itraconazole oral solution with fluconazole oral solution for primary prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy and profound neutropenia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:317–25.
Glasmacher A, Prentice A, Gorschluter M, et al. Itraconazole prevents invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients treated for hematologic malignancies: evidence from a meta-analysis of 3,597 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4615–26.
Marr KA, Crippa F, Leisenring W, et al. Itraconazole versus fluconazole for prevention of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants. Blood. 2004;103:1527–33.
Winston DJ, Maziarz RT, Chandrasekar PH, et al. Intravenous and oral itraconazole versus intravenous and oral fluconazole for long-term antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients. A multicenter, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:705–13.
Ullmann AJ, Lipton JH, Vesole DH, et al. Posaconazole or fluconazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:335–47.
Marks DI, Pagliuca A, Kibbler CC, et al. Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Br J Haematol. 2011;155:318–27.
Lewis RE, Prince RA, Chi J, Kontoyiannis DP. Itraconazole preexposure attenuates the efficacy of subsequent amphotericin B therapy in a murine model of acute invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:3208–14.
Nucci M, Anaissie E. How we treat invasive fungal diseases in patients with acute leukemia: the importance of an individualized approach. Blood. 2014;124:3858–69.
Offner F, Cordonnier C, Ljungman P, et al. Impact of previous aspergillosis on the outcome of bone marrow transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26:1098–103.
Cordonnier C, Maury S, Pautas C, et al. Secondary antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole to adhere to scheduled treatment in leukemic patients and stem cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33:943–8.
de Fabritiis P, Spagnoli A, Di BP, et al. Efficacy of caspofungin as secondary prophylaxis in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation with prior pulmonary and/or systemic fungal infection. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;40:245–9.
Sipsas NV, Kontoyiannis DP. Clinical issues regarding relapsing aspergillosis and the efficacy of secondary antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:1584–91.
Allinson K, Kolve H, Gumbinger HG, Vormoor HJ, Ehlert K, Groll AH. Secondary antifungal prophylaxis in paediatric allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell recipients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61:734–42.
Cordonnier C, Rovira M, Maertens J, et al. Voriconazole for secondary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: results of the VOSIFI study. Haematologica. 2010;95:1762–8.
Grigull L, Beilken A, Schmid H, et al. Secondary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections with combination antifungal therapy and G-CSF-mobilized granulocyte transfusions in three children with hematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14:783–6.
Dignani MC, Anaissie EJ, Hester JP, et al. Treatment of neutropenia-related fungal infections with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-elicited white blood cell transfusions: a pilot study. Leukemia. 1997;11:1621–30.
Winston DJ, Ho WG, Champlin RE. Cytomegalovirus infections after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Rev Infect Dis. 1990;12(Suppl 7):S776–92.
Nguyen Q, Champlin R, Giralt S, et al. Late cytomegalovirus pneumonia in adult allogeneic blood and marrow transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28:618–23.
Meijer E, Boland GJ, Verdonck LF. Prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003;16:647–57.
Lilleri D, Gerna G, Furione M, et al. Use of a DNAemia cut-off for monitoring human cytomegalovirus infection reduces the number of preemptively treated children and young adults receiving hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation compared with qualitative pp65 antigenemia. Blood. 2007;110:2757–60.
Gerna G, Lilleri D, Baldanti F, et al. Human cytomegalovirus immediate-early mRNAemia versus pp65 antigenemia for guiding pre-emptive therapy in children and young adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a prospective, randomized, open-label trial. Blood. 2003;101:5053–60.
Ng AP, Worth L, Chen L, et al. Cytomegalovirus DNAemia and disease: incidence, natural history and management in settings other than allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Haematologica. 2005;90:1672–9.
Morrison VA. Infectious complications in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: pathogenesis, spectrum of infection, and approaches to prophylaxis. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2009;9:365–70.
Nucci M, Anaissie E. Infections in patients with multiple myeloma in the era of high-dose therapy and novel agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1211–25.
Lee MY, Chiou TJ, Hsiao LT, et al. Rituximab therapy increased post-transplant cytomegalovirus complications in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Ann Hematol. 2008;87:285–9.
Goodrich JM, Bowden RA, Fisher L, Keller C, Schoch G, Meyers JD. Ganciclovir prophylaxis to prevent cytomegalovirus disease after allogeneic marrow transplant. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:173–8.
Marty FM, Winston DJ, Rowley SD, et al. CMX001 to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in hematopoietic-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1227–36.
Chemaly RF, Ullmann AJ, Stoelben S, et al. Letermovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in hematopoietic-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1781–9.
Marty FM, Ljungman P, Papanicolaou GA, et al. Maribavir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of allogeneic stem-cell transplants: a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:284–92.
Khan SA, Wingard JR. Infection and mucosal injury in cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001:31–6.
Partridge DG, McKendrick MW. The treatment of varicella-zoster virus infection and its complications. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10:797–812.
Weinstock DM, Boeckh M, Boulad F, et al. Postexposure prophylaxis against varicella-zoster virus infection among recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplant: unresolved issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:603–8.
Erard V, Guthrie KA, Varley C, et al. One-year acyclovir prophylaxis for preventing varicella-zoster virus disease after hematopoietic cell transplantation: no evidence of rebound varicella-zoster virus disease after drug discontinuation. Blood. 2007;110:3071–7.
Omar H, Hagglund H, Gustafsson-Jernberg A, et al. Targeted monitoring of patients at high risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease by quantitative Epstein-Barr virus polymerase chain reaction. Transpl Infect Dis. 2009;11:393–9.
Meerbach A, Wutzler P, Hafer R, Zintl F, Gruhn B. Monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus load after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for early intervention in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. J Med Virol. 2008;80:441–54.
Kawatani T, Suou T, Tajima F, et al. Incidence of hepatitis virus infection and severe liver dysfunction in patients receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. Eur J Haematol. 2001;67:45–50.
Hoofnagle JH, Dusheiko GM, Schafer DF, et al. Reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection by cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:447–9.
Yeo W, Chan PK, Zhong S, et al. Frequency of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy: a prospective study of 626 patients with identification of risk factors. J Med Virol. 2000;62:299–307.
Liang R. How I treat and monitor viral hepatitis B infection in patients receiving intensive immunosuppressive therapies or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2009;113:3147–53.
Yeo W, Chan TC, Leung NW, et al. Hepatitis B virus reactivation in lymphoma patients with prior resolved hepatitis B undergoing anticancer therapy with or without rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:605–11.
Tur-Kaspa R, Shaul Y, Moore DD, et al. The glucocorticoid receptor recognizes a specific nucleotide sequence in hepatitis B virus DNA causing increased activity of the HBV enhancer. Virology. 1988;167:630–3.
Saab S, Dong MH, Joseph TA, Tong MJ. Hepatitis B prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma: a decision analysis model. Hepatology. 2007;46:1049–56.
Zuckerman E, Zuckerman T, Douer D, Qian D, Levine AM. Liver dysfunction in patients infected with hepatitis C virus undergoing chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. Cancer. 1998;83:1224–30.
Anaissie EJ, Mahfouz TH, Aslan T, et al. The natural history of respiratory syncytial virus infection in cancer and transplant patients: implications for management. Blood. 2004;103:1611–7.
Machado CM, Boas LS, Mendes AV, et al. Low mortality rates related to respiratory virus infections after bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31:695–700.
Martino R, Ramila E, Rabella N, et al. Respiratory virus infections in adults with hematologic malignancies: a prospective study. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:1–8.
Peck AJ, Englund JA, Kuypers J, et al. Respiratory virus infection among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: evidence for asymptomatic parainfluenza virus infection. Blood. 2007;110:1681–8.
Pollyea DA, Brown JM, Horning SJ. Utility of influenza vaccination for oncology patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2481–90.
De la Camara R, Martino R, Granados E, et al. Tuberculosis after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: incidence, clinical characteristics and outcome. Spanish group on infectious complications in hematopoietic transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000;26:291–8.
Silva FA, Matos JO, de Q Mello FC, Nucci M. Risk factors for and attributable mortality from tuberculosis in patients with hematologic malignances. Haematologica. 2005;90:1110–5.
Pagano L, Caira M, Fianchi L. Pulmonary fungal infection with yeasts and pneumocystis in patients with hematological malignancy. Ann Med. 2005;37:259–69.
Cordonnier C, Cesaro S, Maschmeyer G, et al. Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia: still a concern in patients with haematological malignancies and stem cell transplant recipients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:2379–85.
Maertens J, Cesaro S, Maschmeyer G, et al. ECIL guidelines for preventing pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in patients with haematological malignancies and stem cell transplant recipients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:2397–404.
Foot AB, Garin YJ, Ribaud P, Devergie A, Derouin F, Gluckman E. Prophylaxis of toxoplasmosis infection with pyrimethamine/sulfadoxine (Fansidar) in bone marrow transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994;14:241–5.
Genta RM. Dysregulation of strongyloidiasis: a new hypothesis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1992;5:345–55.
Schaffel R, Nucci M, Carvalho E, et al. The value of an immunoenzymatic test (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) for the diagnosis of strongyloidiasis in patients immunosuppressed by hematologic malignancies. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001;65:346–50.
Keiser PB, Nutman TB. Strongyloides stercoralis in the immunocompromised population. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:208–17.
Dhalla F, Lucas M, Schuh A, et al. Antibody deficiency secondary to chronic lymphocytic leukemia: should patients be treated with prophylactic replacement immunoglobulin? J Clin Immunol. 2014;34:277–82.
Kelly S, Wheatley D. Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl 1):S6–10.
Wang J, An L, Chen S, et al. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after chemotherapy does not affect survival rate in acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis. Acta Haematol. 2009;121:223–6.
Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Lyman GH. Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3158–67.
Harris DJ. The resurgence of granulocyte transfusions. J Infus Nurs. 2009;32:323–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nucci, M., Anaissie, E.J. (2018). Prevention of Infections in Patients with Hematological Malignancies. In: Wiernik, P., Dutcher, J., Gertz, M. (eds) Neoplastic Diseases of the Blood. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64263-5_49
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64263-5_49
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64262-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64263-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)