Introduction: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially severe entity, particularly in hemato-oncologic patients who have higher incidence of colonization with multidrug-resistant bacteria. Discrepancies among guidelines contribute to divergence in antimicrobial practices. Our objective was to assess the variation of practices in antimicrobial therapy in high-risk FN among Portuguese hematologists. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study through the implementation of an online survey, open to all clinical hematologists in the country. To characterize practice patterns regarding critical elements in FN management, three clinical vignettes were designed to describe typical situations where narrow-spectrum empiric antibiotics (vignette 1), short-course therapy (vignette 2) and de-escalation (vignette 3) could be performed. The remaining questions characterized clinical experience, department size, and differentiation and decision-making process regarding FN antibiotic therapy. Results: The survey yielded 31 responses from 11 hospitals across four regions. All respondents opted for empiric narrow-spectrum antibiotics, 22.6% opted for short-course therapy (mostly senior specialists from larger settings) and 35.5% for de-escalation (mostly young specialists). Availability of an FN protocol seemed to favor both approaches. These findings should be complemented by qualitative assessments of barriers to best practices and should support the need for interventions to improve antibiotic use in febrile neutropenia.

Objective: Knowledge of the role of hospital conditions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission should inform strategies for the prevention of nosocomial spread of this pathogen and of similarly transmitted viruses. This study aimed to identify risk factors for nosocomial acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We ran a nested case-control study with incidence density sampling among adult patients hospitalized for >7 days (August–December 2020). Patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 after the 7th day of hospitalization were defined as cases and matched with controls (1:4) by date of admission, hospitalization duration until index date, and type of department. Individual and contextual characteristics were gathered, including admission characteristics and exposures during the risk period. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) separately for probable (diagnosed on day 8–13) and definitive (diagnosed after day 14) nosocomial sets. Results: We identified 65 cases (31 probable; 34 definitive) and 219 controls. No individual characteristic was related to nosocomial acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. Contextual risk factors for nosocomial acquisition were staying in a non-refurbished room (probable nosocomial: OR = 3.6, 1.18–10.87), contact with roommates with newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 (probable nosocomial: OR = 9.9, 2.11–46.55; definitive nosocomial: OR = 3.4, 1.09–10.30), and contact with roommates with a first positive test 21–90 days before the beginning of contact (probable nosocomial: OR = 10.7, 1.97–57.7). Conclusions: Hospital conditions and contact with recently infected patients modulated nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. These results alert us to the importance of the physical context and of agile screening procedures to shorten contact with patients with recent infection.