European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 53-63

First online:

Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

  • H. ImranAffiliated withDivision of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of South Alabama Email author 
  • , I. M. TleyjehAffiliated withDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, King Fahd Medical City
  • , C. A. S. ArndtAffiliated withDivision of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  • , L. M. BaddourAffiliated withDivision of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  • , P. J. ErwinAffiliated withMayo Medical Libraries, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  • , C. TsigrelisAffiliated withDivision of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
  • , N. KabbaraAffiliated withHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, Hematology Department, Hôpital Saint Louis
  • , V. M. MontoriAffiliated withKnowledge and Encounter Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


A recent meta-analysis, which included non-placebo open-labeled trials, showed that fluoroquinolone prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients, whereas two recent large trials failed to show a similar benefit. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic patients. We searched several databases for relevant trials in any language. We used random effects models for pooling dichotomous data and assessed the between-study inconsistency with I 2. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the included trials. A total of 2,721 patients were randomized in eight eligible trials. Compared to the placebo, there was a statistically non-significant but consistent decrease in mortality with fluoroquinolone prophylaxis (4.5% vs. 3.9%, relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54, 1.08, p = 0.13, I 2 = 0%). Significant inconsistency, however, accompanied the pooled analysis of febrile episode (39% vs. 31%, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55, 1.03, p = 0.08, I 2 = 96.5%). To an extent, this inconsistency was explained in the subgroup analyses by the type of patient population studied and the type of fluoroquinolone used (p for interaction ≤0.01 for both). The RR of febrile episodes for two trials of outpatients with solid tumors, including lymphomas, was RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.14, 0.80) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.33, 1.10) for two trials using levofloxacin prophylaxis. The RR in one of the two trials that used levofloxacin significantly favored the intervention, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70, 0.83). Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis reduces the risk of febrile episodes in neutropenic outpatients with solid tumors, including lymphomas, and is associated with a statistically non-significant, yet clinically important, decrease in mortality in all neutropenic patients. Prophylaxis with levofloxacin may reduce febrile episodes in neutropenic hematology patients and stem cell transplant recipients.