The use of ciprofloxacin and fluconazole in Italian neonatal intensive care units: a nationwide survey

BMC Pediatrics

Bonati Maurizio²  Manzoni Paolo¹  Sequi Marco²  Chiara Pandolfini² 

[1] Neonatology and Hospital Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Regina Margherita – Sant’Anna, Turin, Italy;Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Department of Public Health “Mario Negri” Pharmacological Research Institute, Milan, Italy

关键词: Practice guidelines as topic;    Fluconazole;    Ciprofloxacin;    Italy;    Neonatal;    Intensive care units;    Health care surveys;   

Others  :  1170579
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-13-5

 received in 2012-05-03, accepted in 2012-12-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Treatment and prophylaxis of sepsis in very low birth weight neonates is a matter of concern and research is being undertaken with the aim to give rise to shared approaches based on solid evidence. As part of a European initiative, a survey was set up to describe the use of two drugs in this area. The Italian national practices concerning neonatal sepsis, as well as calls for related guidance, are described.

Methods

A standardized and previously tested questionnaire was submitted online to all Italian level III NICUs. A 5-point Likert scale was used to analyze attitudinal replies. Categorical variables were compared by χ2 analysis and 2-tailed P-values are reported.

Results

Data was provided by 38 Italian NICUs (36% of the country’s level III centers), 53% of which have 1–10 cases of bacterial sepsis monthly and 90% a prevalence of <1% fungal infections. Ciprofloxacin and fluconazole treatment for neonatal sepsis are scantly used in Italian NICUs (13% and 45%, respectively). Major concerns are related to the safety of ciprofloxacin and the efficacy of fluconazole. On the contrary, prophylaxis of fungal infections is a routine approach in many Italian NICUs. The use of both ciprofloxacin and fluconazole is characterized by a large inter-NICU variability in dose and scheme of use. The lack of adequate, shared evidence is a common consideration made by the survey participants.

Conclusions

Common approaches are needed to standardize and update a national drug strategy for the prevention and treatment of sepsis in very low birth weight newborns. This can be achieved through collaborative initiatives aimed at setting up guidelines, based on available data, and multicenter trials to produce new evidence that will address the knowledge gaps.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pandolfini et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kilbride HW, Powers R, Wirtschafter DD, et al.: Evaluation and development of potentially better practices to prevent neonatal nosocomial bacteremia. Pediatr 2003, 111:e504-e518.
• [2]Schwab F, Geffers C, Barwolff S, et al.: Reducing neonatal nosocomial bloodstream infections through participation in a national surveillance system. J Hosp Infect 2007, 65:319-325.
• [3]Toltzis P, Walsh M: Recently tested strategies to reduce nosocomial infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2010, 8:235-242.
• [4]Muller-Pebody B, Johnson AP, Heath PT, et al.: Empirical treatment of neonatal sepsis: are the current guidelines adequate? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011, 96:F4-F8.
• [5]Fanos V, Cuzzolin L, Atzei A, et al.: Antibiotics and antifungals in neonatal intensive care units: a review. J Chemother 2007, 19:5-20.
• [6]Kuppala VS, Meinzen-Derr J, Morrow AL, et al.: Prolonged initial empirical antibiotic treatment is associated with adverse outcomes in premature infants. J Pediatr 2011, 159:720-725.
• [7]Russell AB, Sharland M, Heath PT: Improving antibiotic prescribing in neonatal units: time to act. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2012 2010, 97:F141-F146. Epub 2010 Oct 30
• [8]Smith PB, Benjamin DK Jr: Choosing the right empirical antibiotics for neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011, 96:F2-F3.
• [9]Clark RH, Bloom BT, Spitzer AR, et al.: Empiric use of ampicillin and cefotaxime, compared with ampicillin and gentamicin, for neonates at risk for sepsis is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death. Pediatr 2006, 117:67-74.
• [10]Clerihew L, Austin N, McGuire W: Prophylactic systemic antifungal agents to prevent mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, (4):CD003850.
• [11]Clerihew L, McGuire W: Systemic antifungal drugs for invasive fungal infection in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, (1):CD003953.
• [12]Pappas PG, Rex JH, Sobel JD, et al.: Guidelines for treatment of candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2004, 38:161-189.
• [13]Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48:503-535.
• [14]Sweet DG, Carnielli V, Greisen G, et al.: European consensus guidelines on the management of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants - 2010 update. Neonatology 2010, 97:402-417.
• [15]Auriti C, Ronchetti MP, Pezzotti P, et al.: Determinants of nosocomial infection in 6 neonatal intensive care units: an Italian multicenter prospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010, 31:926-933.
• [16]Berardi A, Lugli L, Baronciani D, et al.: Group B streptococcal infections in a northern region of Italy. Pediatr 2007, 120:e487-e493.
• [17]Manzoni P, Stolfi I, Pugni L, et al.: A multicenter, randomized trial of prophylactic fluconazole in preterm neonates. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:2483-2495.
• [18]Jacqz-Aigrain E: Drug policy in Europe Research and funding in neonates: current challenges, future perspectives, new opportunities. Early Hum Dev 2011, 87(Suppl 1):S27-S30.
• [19]EMEA: Updated priority list (revised) for studies into off-patent paediatric medicinal products. London: Doc. Ref. EMEA/197972/2007; 2007. http://www.ema.europa.eu webcite (Accessed 28 November 2012)
• [20]Kaguelidou F, Pandolfini C, Manzoni P, et al.: European survey on the use of prophylactic fluconazole in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Eur J Pediatr 2011, 171:439-445.
• [21]Pandolfini C, Kaguelidou F, Sequi M, et al.: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012. online first
• [22]Burwell LA, Kaufman D, Blakely J, et al.: Antifungal prophylaxis to prevent neonatal candidiasis: a survey of perinatal physician practices. Pediatr 2006, 118:e1019-e1026.
• [23]O'Grady MJ, Dempsey EM: Antifungal prophylaxis for the prevention of neonatal candidiasis? Acta Paediatr 2008, 97:430-433.
• [24]Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain RCoPaCH. London: British National Formulary for Children; 2011. http://www.medicinescomplete.com/> webcite (Accessed on [18 May 2012]
• [25]Ministero della Salute: Certificato di assistenza al parto (CeDAP). Rome, Italy: Analisi dell'evento nascita - Anno 2008; 2011.
• [26]Kaufman DA, Cuff AL, Wamstad JB, et al.: Fluconazole prophylaxis in extremely low birth weight infants and neurodevelopmental outcomes and quality of life at 8 to 10 years of age. J Pediatr 2011, 158:759-765.
• [27]Manzoni P, Leonessa M, Galletto P, et al.: Routine use of fluconazole prophylaxis in a neonatal intensive care unit does not select natively fluconazole-resistant Candida subspecies. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008, 27:731-737.
• [28]Austin N, Darlow BA, McGuire W: Prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents to prevent invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, (4):CD003478.
• [29]Benjamin DK Jr, Stoll BJ, Gantz MG, et al.: Neonatal candidiasis: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Pediatr 2010, 126:e865-e873.
• [30]Clerihew L, Lamagni TL, Brocklehurst P, et al.: Invasive fungal infection in very low birthweight infants: national prospective surveillance study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006, 91:F188-F192.
• [31]Leibovitz E: Strategies for the prevention of neonatal candidiasis. Pediatr Neonatol 2012, 53:83-89.
• [32]Manzoni P, Jacqz-Aigrain E, Rizzollo S, et al.: Antifungal prophylaxis in neonates. Early Hum Dev 2011, 87(Suppl 1):S59-S60.
• [33]Aziz K, McMillan DD, Andrews W, et al.: Variations in rates of nosocomial infection among Canadian neonatal intensive care units may be practice-related. BMC Pediatr 2005, 5:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Kaufman DA, Manzoni P: Strategies to prevent invasive candidal infection in extremely preterm infants. Clin Perinatol 2010, 37:611-628.
• [35]Makhoul IR, Bental Y, Weisbrod M, et al.: Candidal versus bacterial late-onset sepsis in very low birthweight infants in Israel: a national survey. J Hosp Infect 2007, 65:237-243.
• [36]McCrossan BA, McHenry E, O'Neill F, et al.: Selective fluconazole prophylaxis in high-risk babies to reduce invasive fungal infection. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007, 92:F454-F458.
• [37]Kaufman D, Boyle R, Hazen KC, et al.: Twice weekly fluconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive Candida infection in high-risk infants of <1000 grams birth weight. J Pediatr 2005, 147:172-179.
• [38]Chirico G, Iacono G, Morali L, et al.: Management of 22 25 weeks gestational age infants. The neonatological experience of Brescia. Ital J Gynaecol Obstet 2008, 20:195-199.
• [39]Pignotti MS, Moratti S: Regulation of treatment of infants at the edge of viability in Italy: the role of the medical profession? J Med Ethics 2010, 36:795-797.
• [40]Bonati M, Pandolfini C, Kaguelidou F, et al.: Safety of ciprofloxacin in neonates with sepsis. Adverse Drug React Bull 2010, 265:1019-1022.
• [41]Kaguelidou F, Turner MA, Choonara I, et al.: Ciprofloxacin use in neonates: a systematic review of the literature. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011, 30:e29-e37.