Results of Levofloxacin Prophylaxis Timing in Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective...

Background Despite preventive measures and varying antibiotic recommendations, bacterial infections continue to pose a significant threat to individuals undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Levofloxacin prophylaxis is commonly used, but the optimal timing for initiation is debated. This study aims to assess infection outcomes based on timing of levofloxacin prophylaxis (initiation at the first day of conditioning vs. after infusion of stem cells) in autologous and allogeneic HSCT patients. Methods We compared infectious episodes, responsible pathogens, and clinical outcomes based on the implementation of levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients receiving autologous or allogeneic HSCT procedures. This retrospective single-center study involved a review of the medical records of autologous and allogeneic HSCT patients treated at our adult stem cell transplantation unit between 2018 and 2020. The study included 23 patients who underwent autologous HSCT and 12 patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT. We compared the demographic data, febrile neutropenia, proven bacterial infections, and 30-day survival among the autologous and allogeneic transplant groups, including those who received oral levofloxacin 500 mg/day prophylaxis. Results Positive blood cultures (26.1% vs. 75%; p = 0.011), mean neutrophil engraftment (10.6±1.2 vs. 14.8±1.3; p<0.001), and mean platelet engraftment (11.2±1.1 vs. 15.4±3.2; p = 0.004) were all lower in autologous transplant patients versus their allogeneic counterparts. When each type of HSCT was evaluated within the same type, there were no observed differences in infection frequency, infection type, or 30-day mortality between the patient groups with different levofloxacin initiation times. Conclusion Healthcare professionals should choose the most appropriate timing for initiating levofloxacin prophylaxis based on individual patient factors and clinical circumstances while considering the cost-effectiveness implications. Further research with a larger sample size and prospective design is needed to support our findings.