Abstract
The prophylactic or pre-emptive approach should help to restrict use of antibiotics and lead to better management of infection. It is clear that if effective pre-emptive therapy is available (be it as prophylaxis), the empiric additions of other agents should be taken into account and tailored accordingly. On the other hand, prophylaxis carries the risk of resistance emergence, and subsequent microbiological investigations and empiric therapy should be selected taking that risk into account. We definitely need more studies integrating both pre-emptive therapy (also called prophylaxis) and empiric therapy for febrile episodes. Both interventions are to be seen as a continuous action rather than as two consecutive steps in the approach of the neutropenic patient. Finally, all neutropenic patients are not identical, and thus, they do not require identical approaches. It might well be that prophylaxis is needed only in some subsets of the neutropenic population and not in others.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.