Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients

Between July 1993 and September 1996, 107 consecutive febrile episodes in 83 neutropenic cancer patients with a median age of 41 years were randomized to treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 8 h i.v. or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h plus amikacin 15 mg/kg i.v. per day. In the case of fever >38° C 48 h after initiation of the antibiotic therapy, vancomycin 500 mg every 6 h i.v. was added. The study population was at serious risk of a poor outcome, since 67% of the patients had leukemia or lymphoma, 19% of the febrile events occurred after autologous bone marrow or blood stem cell transplantation, the median total duration of neutropenia was 16 days, and the median neutrophil count at study inclusion was 0.09 × 10⁹/l. The two patient groups were comparable in terms of risk factors. Bacteremia was found in 37%, other microscopically documented infections in 16%, and clinically documented infections in 26% of the febrile episodes. Most (96) febrile episodes were evaluable for response. No significant difference was found between piperacillin/ tazobactam and ceftazidime plus amikacin in terms of success rate (81% versus 83%), empirical addition of vancomycin (42% versus 38%), median time to fever defervescence (3.3 versus 2.9 days) or median duration of antibiotic therapy (7.2 versus 7.4 days). No patient died from the infection. Both antibiotic regimens were well tolerated, the study treatment being stopped only in 1 patient because of toxicity (cutaneous allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam). On the basis of the 107 febrile events encountered, we conclude that piperacillin/tazobactam is a safe and effective monotherapy. To define the definitive value of piperacillin/ tazobactam as a monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients a large randomized trial is warranted.     

Randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus cephalothin in empiric treatment of febrile episodes in severely neutropenic patients.

In a prospective randomized study, ceftazidime monotherapy was compared with a combination of ceftazidime plus cephalothin in 102 febrile neutropenic patients. Thirty bacteriologically documented infections, of which 23 were bacteremias, in 48 clinically assessable patients were treated with ceftazidime alone. Twenty-four bacteriologically proven infections, of which 18 were bacteremias, in 42 clinically assessable patients were treated with a combination of ceftazidime and cephalothin. The clinical response rates in assessable patients were 77% for ceftazidime monotherapy and 88% for the combination. The bacteriological clearance rate was 70% for ceftazidime monotherapy and 79% for the combination. Efficacy against gram-negative pathogens appeared to be excellent, with 93% clearance for ceftazidime monotherapy and 100% clearance for the combination. The bacteriological clearance of gram-positive infections was only 60% for both regimens, with failures mainly due to Streptococcus faecalis and Streptococcus sanguis, which are primarily resistant to both ceftazidime and cephalothin. After addition of vancomycin to those infections which did not respond to empiric therapy, bacteriological clearance rates of 94% (ceftazidime plus vancomycin) and 90% (ceftazidime and cephalothin plus vancomycin) were achieved. Three superinfections were registered in the ceftazidime group and two were seen in the combination group. Other adverse effects of ceftazidime were minimal and were not enhanced by combination with cephalothin. It is concluded that ceftazidime is an effective drug for the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients, especially if one is prepared to modify therapy if resistant gram-positive strains or mycotic infections are encountered. Neither the clinical nor bacteriological cure rates could be substantially improved by adding cephalothin to ceftazidime in initial empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.     

Piperacillin-tazobactam is more effective than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a randomized comparison

GOALS: Efficacy and costs of empirical antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients are important issues. Several strategies have been reported to be similarly effective: monotherapy with cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem or duotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic or ceftriaxone in combination with an aminoglycoside. Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is promising, but its role in this setting still has to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 212 consecutive febrile episodes in 130 neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies randomized to receive either piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 8 h; group A) or ceftriaxone (2 g once daily plus gentamicin 5 mg/kg once daily; group B), 183 episodes (98 group A, 85 group B) were evaluable for response. RESULTS: Defervescence within 72 h without modification of the antibiotic therapy was achieved in 56/98 episodes (57.1%) in group A and in 30/85 (35.3%) in group B (P=0.0047). If fever persisted, teicoplanin plus gentamicin (group A) or teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin (group B) were added. All patients still febrile then received meropenem, teicoplanin and amphotericin B. With these modifications of antibiotic therapy, 89.8% of patients in group A had responded at 21 days but only 71.8% in group B (P=0.005). The mean total antibiotic drug cost in group A was only 39.4% of that in group B (euro 445 versus euro 1129; P=0.010). CONCLUSION: Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is significantly more effective and cost-efficient than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin as first-line therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies.     

A randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus flucloxacillin in the empiric treatment of febrile episodes in severely neutropenic patients.

In a prospective, randomized study, ceftazidime monotherapy was compared with a combination of ceftazidime and flucloxacillin in 100 febrile neutropenic patients. Thirty-four bacteriologically documented infections, of which 26 were bacteremias, in 51 patients were treated with ceftazidime alone. Thirty-four bacteriologically proven infections, of which 29 were bacteremias, in 49 patients were treated with a combination of ceftazidime and flucloxacillin. The clinical response rate for ceftazidime monotherapy was 80%; the bacteriological cure rate was 90%. Efficacy against gram-negative pathogens appeared to be excellent, achieving a 100% cure rate. The clinical response and bacteriological cure rates for the combination were 76 and 86%, respectively. Three superinfections were registered in the ceftazidime group, and four, involving six pathogens, were registered in the combination group. Other side effects of ceftazidime were minimal. It is concluded that ceftazidime is an effective drug for the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. It offers the opportunity to avoid the aminoglycosides in first-line treatment. It may be appropriate to combine ceftazidime with cephalothin or vancomycin or to modify therapy if resistant gram-positive strains are encountered.     

Ceftazidime versus imipenem-cilastatin as initial monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

One hundred febrile episodes in 89 neutropenic patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy were randomized to be treated with either ceftazidime or imipenem as initial monotherapy. The clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients were comparable. The response of the fever in patients who received imipenem was significantly better than that in those who received ceftazidime (77 versus 56%, respectively; P = 0.04), especially in those with microbiologically documented infection (81 versus 33%, respectively; P = 0.02). The in vitro susceptibilities and the clinical responses suggested that, with the possible exception of Pseudomonas spp., imipenem was more effective than ceftazidime in treating neutropenic infections caused by both gram-positive and -negative organisms. An additional 23 and 21% of the patients in the ceftazidime and imipenem groups, respectively, responded to the addition of cloxacillin and amikacin following failure of monotherapy. The majority of the treatment failures, relapses, and superinfections were related to resistant infective organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. or disseminated fungal infections.     

Comparison of two antibiotic regimens (piperacillin plus amikacin versus ceftazidime plus amikacin) as empiric therapy for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

A total of 170 febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer were randomly assigned to be treated with piperacillin-amikacin or ceftazidime-amikacin. The overall response rates were similar in both groups (68 and 65%, respectively). Response rates for clinically or microbiologically documented episodes were 54.5% for piperacillin-amikacin and 58.8% for ceftazidime-amikacin. Response rates for gram-negative bacillary infections were 65 and 73%, respectively. There was also no difference for gram-positive infections (31 and 50%, respectively). The toxicities were also comparable and consisted of skin rashes, hypokalemia, and diarrhea. Vancomycin was added if the fever persisted 72 h after the beginning of therapy; it increased the response rates to 94% when used with piperacillin-amikacin and 92% when used with ceftazidime plus amikacin. Our results suggest that the combinations show similar global efficacies in the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin as empiric therapy for fever in severely neutropenic patients

The objective of this trial was to evaluate the potential advantages of the combination of piperacillin and tazobactam in the control of fever in neutropenic patients. In this single-center study, patients who experienced a total of 247 febrile episodes were prospectively randomized to receive either our standard regimen, ceftazidime 3 g/day (1 g t.i.d.) plus tobramycin 3 mg/kg per day (1.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), or piperacillin 12 g/day plus tazobactam 1.5 g/day (4 g+0.5 g t.i.d.) plus tobramycin 3 mg/kg per day (1.5 mg/kg b.i.d.). Vancomycin was added in all cases of persistent fever in the ceftazidime arm, but only when there was microbiologically documented resistance in the piperacillin/tazobactam arm. All 247 episodes were evaluable by "intent-to-treat" analysis. The two populations were well matched in terms of age, gender, underlying disease, chemotherapy received, oral decontamination, clinical and bacterial documentation, and severity and duration of neutropenia. Initial antibacterial therapy was successful (apyrexia at 72 h, without antibiotic change) more frequently (P=0.008) with the regimen containing piperacillin/tazobactam (54.4%) than with the one including ceftazidime (37.6%). Fewer (P=0.02) major infectious events (infectious death or delay in treatment of underlying disease due to infection) were observed during piperacillin/ tazobactam treatment (2.6%) than with the ceftazidime regimen (11.3%), despite a lower frequency of glycopeptide addition when piperacillin/tazobactam was used (54.4% versus 77.4%) according to the rules adopted. This trial confirmed the efficacy of the piperacillin/tazobactam combination for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. This antibiotic combination permitted a dramatic decrease in empiric glycopeptide antibiotic administration in such patients. Electronic publication: 12 January 1999     

Gentamicin and low dose piperacillin in febrile neutropenic patients

One hundred and twenty-seven febrile neutropenic patients were randomized to receive empirical antibiotic therapy with intravenous gentamicin and 12 g/day or 8 g/day piperacillin. Despite a high incidence of Hickman catheter infections by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, there was an overall response in 56% of patients and no difference in the numbers responding to each antibiotic regimen. In addition, the duration of fever was not significantly different in the two groups of patients. The majority of the unresponsive patients responded to the addition of further antibiotics and there were only two infection related deaths. The results suggest that high dose antibiotics are not essential for the initial empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.     

Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program.

The efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin and vancomycin in the initial empirical antibiotic regimen in febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were compared in a prospective, randomized, unblinded, multicenter trial in the setting of 29 hematologic units in tertiary-care or university hospitals. A total of 635 consecutive febrile patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive intravenously amikacin plus ceftazidime plus either teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg of body weight once daily or vancomycin at 1 g twice daily. An efficacy analysis was done for 527 evaluable patients: 275 treated with teicoplanin and 252 treated with vancomycin. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 78% of patients who received teicoplanin and 75% of those who were randomized to vancomycin (difference, 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 4%; P = 0.33). A total of 102 patients presented with primary, single-agent, gram-positive bacteremia. Coagulase-negative staphylococci accounted for 42%, Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 27%, and streptococci accounted for 21% of all gram-positive blood isolates. The overall responses to therapy of gram-positive bacteremias were 92 and 87% for teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 5%; CI, -17 to 6%; P = 0.22). Side effects, mainly represented by skin rash, occurred in 3.2 and 8% of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -4.8%; CI, 0.7 to 8%; P = 0.03); the rate of nephrotoxicity was 1.4 and 0.8% for the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively (difference, 0.6%; CI, -2 to 1%; P = 0.68). Further infections were caused by gram-positive organisms in two patients (0.7%) treated with teicoplanin and one patient (0.4%) who received vancomycin (difference, 0.3%; CI, -0.9 to 1.0%; P = 0.53). Overall mortalities were 8.5 and 11% for teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -2.5%; CI, - 2 to 7%; P = 0.43); death was caused by primary gram-positive infections in three patients (1%) in each treatment group. When used for initial empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile, neutropenic patients, teicoplanin was at least as efficacious as vancomycin, but it was associated with fewer side effects.     

Ceftazidime in combination with glycopeptide antibiotic is an effective first-line therapy for patients undergoing high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support

 It was the objective of this study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of an empirical antibiotic therapy consisting in ceftazidime and a glycopeptide antibiotic. All patients enrolled in the study had hematological malignancies and underwent high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. In this retrospective study, 183 of 207 patients who had received a PBSC-supported high-dose therapy were evaluable. Any patients who had fever higher than 38.5  °C received ceftazidime in combination with vancomycin (105 patients) or teicoplanin (69 patients). In 80 of 174 patients with fever (45%) the fever resolved within 72 h as a result of the treatment with ceftazidime and the glycopeptide antibiotic. In nonresponding patients, the changes included the replacement of ceftazidime by imipenem/cilastin (94 patients) and the addition of erythromycin (12 patients) or metronidazole (3 patients). Amphotericin B was administered in 29 patients. Following hematological reconstitution, the fever and clinical signs, including radiographic findings, resolved in 20 primarily nonresponding patients. In blood cultures, a significantly higher incidence of gram-positive than of gram-negative bacteria was observed (26 vs 7). The toxicity of the first-line antibiotic therapy was limited to allergic skin reactions in 12 patients. Ceftazidime in combination with a glycopeptide antibiotic provides an effective and safe first-line therapy for patients with neutropenic fever following PBSC-supported high-dose therapy.     

Low-dose continuous-infusion ceftazidime monotherapy in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients

 One hundred and thirty-five cancer patients admitted with low-risk neutropenic fever received a low-dose schedule of ceftazidime as infusional monotherapy over a total of 180 episodes. Ceftazidime was administered as a 1-g bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 2 g per day. In this patient population the ceftazidime was both practical and well tolerated. Sixty-eight percent of patients responded with clinical improvement and complete resolution of fever within 48 h. Overall, 95% of patients responded, although 18% subsequently required antibiotic modification for persistent fever. Only 5% of episodes were considered failures due to clinical deterioration, and over the study period there was only 1 fatality due to respiratory failure. The median duration of hospitalisation was only 4 days (2–20). In conclusion, monotherapy with low-dose infusional ceftazidime appears safe and highly effective in this low-risk population of neutropenic patients and may reduce antibiotic costs appreciably. Published online: 7 March 2000     

Meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenia of paediatric patients with cancer

This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenia in paediatric cancer patients. In a prospective randomized study, 172 evaluable febrile episodes in the meropenem arm and 170 episodes in the ceftazidime arm were analysed for the clinical and microbiological response dependent on the kind of infection. About half the episodes were classified as fever of unknown origin (FUO) and the remainder as microbiologically or clinically documented infections. The most frequently documented infections in both arms were bacteraemias (22.1 versus 26.5%), predominantly caused by Gram-positive organisms (57.9 versus 71.1%). The success rate of the initial monotherapy differed significantly between the two arms and was 55.8% in the meropenem and 40.0% in the ceftazidime arm (P = 0.003). In addition, a significantly longer duration of fever and of antimicrobial therapy was observed in the ceftazidime arm than in the meropenem arm (median 5 versus 4 days, P = 0.022, and 7 versus 6 days, P = 0.009, respectively). With respect to the kind of infection, differences between the two arms were significant only in episodes classified as FUO but not in documented infections. In both arms, side effects were minimal. Despite the greater response rate for meropenem in FUO, the fact that ceftazidime has been proven to be as effective as meropenem in documented infections in the present study suggests that both drugs are useful as empirical monotherapy in febrile paediatric cancer patients.     

Domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial comparing oral versus parenteral empirical antibiotic treatment

Hospitalization and empirical broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics are the standard treatment for febrile cancer patients. Recent evidence supports the suggestion that febrile episodes in a low-risk population can be managed successfully in an outpatient setting, but the optimal drug regimen is unknown. In a prospective randomized clinical trial we compared ciprofloxacin 750 mg p.o. twice a day with ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. as a single daily dose for the empiric domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic and nonneutropenic cancer patients. A total of 173 patients, accounting for 183 febrile episodes, were enrolled in the study. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 76 of 93 (82%) febrile episodes in patients who were randomized to the oral regimen and for 68 of 90 (75%) febrile episodes in patients randomized to the i.v. regimen: this difference was not statistically significant. The success rate was similar in all subgroups of patients: neutropenic and nonneutropenic, with documented infection and with fever of unknown origin. There were 3 deaths in the group of patients treated with the parenteral regimen, and two of these were related to treatment failure. Both treatments were well tolerated, and the cost of the oral regimen was lower. This prospective study suggests that domiciliary antibiotic empiric monotherapy is feasible in febrile nonneutropenic or low-risk neutropenic outpatients in whom a bacterial infection is suspected, and that either an oral or a parenteral regimen can be used. A number of factors may influence the choice between an orally and an i.v.-administered antibiotic, but owing to the easier administration and lower cost, the oral regimen seems to be preferable. Published online: 5 March 1999     

Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients.

In a prospective randomized study, 120 febrile, granulocytopenic patients received as initial therapy ceftazidime with or without teicoplanin. At the onset of fever, patients had no obvious infectious focus. For 103 assessable episodes, initial bacteremias were detected in 18 of 51 patients (35%) given ceftazidime and 20 of 52 patients (38%) given the combination; 13 and 17 bacteremias caused by gram-positive bacteria occurred in these groups, respectively. There was no difference in terms of the final response (25 of 51 patients [49%] treated with ceftazidime alone versus 33 of 52 patients [63%] given the combination), and the morbidity was comparable for both treatment groups. The duration of fever and of total antibiotic therapy were similar in both groups. Initial therapy was modified in 26 patients (51%) treated with ceftazidime, with 20 surviving the infection, and in 19 patients (37%) treated with the combination, with 15 surviving. Persistent fever was the main reason for changing treatment, and no patient died of a gram-positive infection. Subsequent infective events occurred in 16 patients (31%) given ceftazidime and in 25 patients (48%) given the combination. Lung infiltrates developed in 12 and 13 patients, respectively, but more new infections occurred in the combination group. Allergic skin reactions were also more frequent in this group. Thus, while teicoplanin provides simple, reliable, and safe treatment of patients with presumed gram-positive infections, it is not useful when given empirically to this patient population, and treatment may result in more infective complications and adverse events.     

A comparative study of cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.

An open-label, randomized comparative study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime (2.0 g q. 8 h) and ceftazidime (2.0 g q. 8 h) in the empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients. A total of 45 eligible febrile episodes were randomized (1:1) to be treated with the study regimen. Nineteen febrile episodes treated with cefepime and 22 febrile episodes treated with ceftazidime were evaluable for efficacy. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, height, weight, underlying neoplasm, number of pretherapy neutrophil, duration of neutropenia and types of infections. The overall therapeutic success rate of the cefepime group (53%) was comparable to the ceftazidime group (50%). It did not differ significantly (95% confidence interval: -0.28 to 0. 34, p = 0.85). Eighty-eight percent of pathogens in each group were bacteriologically eradicated. The safety profile was similar in both groups. No patients in either group discontinued the therapy because of adverse events. None (0%) of the cefepime patients and 2 (9%) of the ceftazidime patients died of infection. The results of this study suggest that cefepime is an effective and safe agent in the empiric therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.     

Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric therapy during the management of fever in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized study of cefepime 2 g every eight hours and ceftazidime 2 g every eight hours was performed in 276 adult neutropenic (absolute neutrophil count < 500/mm3) cancer patients with fever. RESULTS: Median duration of neutropenia was five days. Sixty-one percent (n = 188) of the patients were evaluable. Treatment was successful in 57% (58/101) of cefepime-treated patients and 60% (52/87) of ceftazidime-treated patients (95% CI -18 to 12; p = 0.77). Bacteremic clearance occurred in 71% (12/17) of cefepime-treated patients and 40% (6/15) of ceftazidime-treated patients (p = 0.3). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime appears to be as effective as ceftazidime in the initial treatment of febrile episodes in adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-associated neutropenia of modest duration.     

A comparison of double beta-lactam combinations with netilmicin/ureidopenicillin regimens in the empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients

In a randomized trial ceftazidime plus piperacillin or azlocillin, and netilmicin plus piperacillin or azlocillin were used as initial empirical therapy in 202 febrile neutropenic episodes. Netilmicin plus azlocillin was the most effective combination with a clinical response rate of 81% in clinically and microbiologically documented infections compared with 63% for ceftazidime plus piperacillin. All of the episodes of Gram-negative bacteraemia treated with azlocillin responded compared with 43% of those treated with piperacillin. Gram-positive organisms accounted for 52% of all bacteriologically documented infections and 40% of the febrile episodes were treated with vancomycin for presumptive or documented Gram-positive infection. Patients treated with netilmicin had significantly more nephrotoxicity than those given the double beta-lactam combinations (14.8% vs 3.5%; P less than 0.05). However, this difference was not shown in those patients who did not receive concurrent vancomycin or amphotericin. The double beta-lactam combinations were associated with more hypokalaemia (58.2% vs. 37.7%; P less than 0.05) and more colonization with yeasts (24% vs. 10.4%; P less than 0.05) but there was no evidence that their use was associated with prolongation of neutropenia. These results indicate that ceftazidime plus a ureidopenicillin would be adequate empirical therapy in situations where the concomitant use of nephrotoxic agents precludes the use of aminoglycoside containing combinations.     

Comparison of cefepime versus ceftriaxone-amikacin as empirical regimens for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in acute leukemia patients

BACKGROUND: High-intensity regimes of chemotherapy have led to longer and more severe episodes of neutropenia with a resulting increase in morbidity and mortality due to infections. Which empiric antibiotic regimen to use in these cases is still under debate. METHODS: We performed a randomized comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of cefepime versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin as the initial treatment in an escalating, empirical, antibiotic therapy regimen in febrile neutropenic patients. Both adults and children were included. All patients had less than 500 neutrophils/microl at the time of infection. Patients were randomized to receive either cefepime or ceftriaxone plus amikacin. If infection continued 72 h later, patients in both groups received vancomycin, and if infection had not disappeared 7 days after starting antibiotics, amphotericin B was started. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included in each group. Both treatment and control groups were comparable for age and sex, among other factors. There were 18 cures in the cefepime group and 17 in the ceftriaxone plus amikacin group (p = 0.9). No patient discontinued therapy because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime is a safe and very effective therapy for patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia; in addition, it is a cheaper regimen in our country, and lacks the potential toxicity of the aminoglycosides.     

Treatment of febrile neutropenia with cefepime monotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The empirical administration of a broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotic, either as monotherapy or in combination with an aminoglycoside, is an essential component of the initial management of patients with fever and severe neutropenia. Multiple antibiotics have been tested for this indication. Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin with in vitro activity against most gram-negative and many gram-positive bacteria. We have studied the use of this agent as monotherapy in this indication. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six episodes of febrile neutropenia in 98 adults with hematological malignancies were treated with cefepime monotherapy. Cefepime was given at a dose of 2 g every 8 h i.v. Most episodes (49%) were fever of unexplained origin, while a microbiologically documented and clinically documented infection occurred in 25% episodes each. Seventy-six (61%) episodes occurred after conventional chemotherapy, while 51 (41%) after a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Results: Twelve episodes (10%) were not evaluable for response. Among the 114 evaluable episodes, 69 (55% of the initial sample and 61% of those evaluable) responded to cefepime monotherapy, while therapy failed in 45 cases (36% of the initial sample and 39% of those evaluable), including 14 cases who developed breakthrough bacteremia during therapy. There were no deaths due to bacterial infection. At the end of all antibiotic therapy (final outcome) 69 episodes were cured only with monotherapy, 47 were cured with modification of therapy and 10 patients died from an unrelated cause. The only variable that appeared to correlate with response to therapy was the duration of neutropenia, which was longer among patients who failed or developed breakthrough bacteremia than among those who responded to monotherapy. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Initial empirical antibiotic therapy with cefepime as a single agent in patients with febrile neutropenia and a hematological malignancy is effective, but patients with prolonged neutropenia appear to be at higher risk for failure. However, with appropriate therapeutic changes the risk of dying from a bacterial infection is very low.     

Application of a modified bioassay for monitoring serum teicoplanin and vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients.

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic with a mode of action and spectrum of activity similar to those of vancomycin. Its efficacy and tolerability as empiric therapy and its pharmacokinetic properties in neutropenic patients are being studied in a double-blinded, randomized trial in comparison with those of vancomycin. We report here a modified agar diffusion bioassay which is suitable for monitoring levels of either teicoplanin or vancomycin in serum during combination therapy with beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, and amphotericin B. Serum samples spiked with either teicoplanin or vancomycin gave reproducible results (mean coefficient of variation, 8.8%) regardless of the presence of tobramycin, amikacin, piperacillin, ceftazidime, amphotericin B, or their combinations. Among 25 patients who received teicoplanin at a dosing schedule of 6 mg/kg every 24 h intravenously, steady state was reached after 14.2 +/- 4.0 days, and 1-h peak and trough concentrations of teicoplanin in serum at steady state were 40.8 +/- 15.0 and 12.5 +/- 3.2 mg/liter, respectively. In contrast, among 25 patients who received vancomycin at a dosing schedule of 15 mg/kg every 12 h intravenously, steady state was reached by 24 h, and the 1-h peak and trough concentrations in serum were 37.5 +/- 15.6 and 8.3 +/- 3.8 mg/liter, respectively. The elimination half-lives for teicoplanin estimated by two separate approaches agreed closely with each other: 80.5 +/- 21.5 h by an accumulation model (M. Gilbaldi and D. Perrier, Pharmacokinetics, 2nd ed., p. 121, 1982) and 87.3 +/- 19.3 h as predicted from the degree of renal function (M. Rowland, Clin. Pharmacokinetic 18:184-209, 1990). These values were 14- to 15-fold higher than that for vancomycin (5.6 +/- 1.8 h). Since considerable variability was noted in the pharmacokinetic parameters for both teicoplanin and vancomycin among the individual patients, our data further emphasized the need for frequent monitoring of these drugs during empiric therapy of the febrile neutropenic patient.