Reply to Caldwell Et Al.

Michael J Satlin,Liang Chen,Claire Douglass,Michael Hovan,Emily Davidson,Rosemary Soave,Marisa La Spina,Alexandra Gomez-Arteaga,Koen van Besien,Sebastian Mayer,Adrienne Phillips,Jing Mei Hsu,Rianna Malherbe,Catherine B Small,Stephen G Jenkins,Lars F Westblade,Barry N Kreiswirth,Thomas J Walsh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab1001
2022-01-01
Abstract:To the Editor—Despite the benefits observed in randomized trials, the role of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic patients warrants reassessment because of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance and increased recognition of adverse effects from fluoroquinolones [1–5]. Thus, we read with interest the observational study from Caldwell et al of the impact of ending ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) at their center [6]. They compared 30 patients who developed Escherichia coli bacteremia despite receiving ciprofloxacin prophylaxis to 29 patients who developed E coli bacteremia after discontinuation of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. They found that 73% of E coli bloodstream infections were ciprofloxacin resistant in patients who received ciprofloxacin prophylaxis, compared with only 28% in patients who did not receive ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the 2 groups. The authors conclude that these data support discontinuation of universal fluoroquinolone...
What problem does this paper attempt to address?