A comparative study of imipenem versus piperacillin plus gentamicin in the initial management of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.

Three-hundred and twelve episodes of fever in 234 neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies were treated empirically with either imipenem or a combination of piperacillin and gentamicin. There were no significant differences in the percentages of patients responding to therapy at either 72 h (59% and 56% of assessable episodes in the imipenem and combination groups respectively) or at the end of treatment (55% and 53% of assessable episodes in the imipenem and combination groups respectively). Patients in the piperacillin plus gentamicin group experienced significantly more renal tubular damage whereas those who received imipenem suffered more nausea or vomiting. We conclude that imipenem monotherapy represents an acceptable alternative to piperacillin plus gentamicin as empirical therapy of the febrile neutropenic patient.     

Open randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

An open-label randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime versus piperacillin plus gentamicin (P+G) given intravenously for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with underlying malignancy was conducted at two oncology centers. Over a 30-month period 111 patients were enrolled and 99 patients were found to be suitable for evaluation. At the 72-h time of evaluation, cefepime monotherapy and P+G combination therapy produced comparable clinical response rates (78% for both). P+G and cefepime produced comparable response rates in microbiologically documented (78 versus 71%), clinically documented (100 versus 100%), and possible (75 versus 79%) infections. The P+G and cefepime treatments achieved comparable microbiological eradication of gram-negative (100 versus 71%) (P = 0.09) and gram-positive (44 versus 70%) (P = 0.37) organisms. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of superinfection between the groups; however, more superinfections of fungal origin were noted in the P+G group. Cefepime was demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with malignancies, and its lack of nephrotoxicity compared to P+G was noteworthy. Cefepime appears to be a candidate for monotherapy in febrile neutropenic cancer 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.     

Piperacillin, beta-lactam inhibitor plus gentamicin as empirical therapy of a sequential regimen in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients

The beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations are a good choice for empirical antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients, because their antibacterial spectra include both gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens. This trial was initiated to assess the efficacy and safety of piperacillin with the beta-lactam inhibitors sulbactam (PSG group) or tazobactam (PTG group) and gentamicin as initial therapy in febrile neutropenia of pediatric patients. In a prospective study, 239 episodes of fever and neutropenia were analyzed for the clinical and microbiological response dependent on infection etiology and treatment group: 66.5% of episodes were classified as fever of unknown origin (FUO) and 33.5%, as microbiologically or clinically documented infections; 19.2% of all episodes were due to bacteremia, predominantly caused by gram-positive organisms (69.6%). The response to the initial therapy was 55.2% overall and 65.4% in episodes of FUO with a significant higher success rate in the PSG group than in the PTG group (70.1% vs. 52.4%, P=0.039), and 35.0% in documented infections. In episodes with documented infection longer duration of fever and antimicrobial therapy was recorded than for FUO episodes. Four patients died of causes related to infection. Fever relapse occurred in 26 episodes (11.1%), predominantly in patients who were still neutropenic. Toxic side effects were minimal. The initial therapy of piperacillin with sulbactam or tazobactam in combination with gentamicin is well tolerated, and its efficacy is comparable to that of other combination therapies or of monotherapy with beta-lactam antibiotics in pediatric neutropenic cancer patients.     

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.     

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     

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.     

哌拉西林-他唑巴坦在恶性血液病粒细胞缺乏伴发热经验性治疗中的应用

目的观察哌拉西林-他唑巴坦在恶性血液病化疗后粒细胞缺乏合并感染经验性治疗的效果和不良反应。方法回顾性分析本院收治血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗后粒缺合并感染146例，其中68例接受哌拉西林-他唑巴坦4．5g，每8小时1次；78例接受亚胺培南-西司他丁0．5g，每6小时1次，两组均联合依替米星。结果哌拉西林-他唑巴坦组有效率为75．0％，细菌清除率为73．3％；亚胺培南-西司他丁组的有效率为80．8％，细菌清除率为72．2％，P值均〉0．05。两组不良反应均较低且轻微，但与亚胺培南-西司他丁组相比，哌拉西林-他唑巴坦组胃肠道不良反应更少见（5．9％和17．9％，P（O．05），二重感染发生率低（13．2％和26．9％，P〈（）．05）。结论哌拉西林-他唑巴坦的疗效与亚胺培南-西司他丁相似，二重感染较少发生，可以作为恶性血液病化疗后感染的一线经验性治疗。     

Once-daily versus multiple-daily gentamicin in empirical antibiotic therapy of febrile neutropenia following intensive chemotherapy

The clinical efficacy and toxicity of once-daily compared with multiple-daily gentamicin dosing, in combination with azlocillin, were studied retrospectively in febrile neutropenic episodes following intensive chemotherapy. Fifty-two episodes were studied in 28 patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Reasons for initiation of antibiotic therapy, dose, duration of treatment, organism isolation rates, response, cost comparison and toxicity were studied in the two treatment groups. The main indication for initiation of antibiotic therapy was neutropenic fever without a documented infection (80.8% of episodes). The response rate to once-daily gentamicin dosing and azlocillin was three times higher than to multiple-daily gentamicin dosing and azlocillin (P = 0.0112). The incidence of toxicity was low overall and was slightly but not significantly higher in the once-daily group. In this clinical context once-daily gentamicin at a dose of 7 mg/kg/day is more effective than a multiple-daily dosing regimen but may be more toxic.     

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.     

Ceftriaxone plus amikacin in neutropenic patients: a report on 100 cases.

100 febrile patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (less than 0.5 x 10(9)/l) were empirically treated by ceftriaxone (2 g daily in adults, 50 mg/kg daily in children, as a once daily injection) and amikacin (15-20 mg/kg daily). The mean age was 41 years (range 8-72). 51 patients had acute leukemia, 29 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 12 Hodgkin's disease, 8 other disorders. 23 febrile episodes were bacteriologically documented (gram-positive: 13 patients; gram-negative: 8 patients; Candida: 2 patients) including 13 cases of bacteremia; 10 were clinically documented, and 67 remained of undetermined origin. Apyrexia was obtained in 39 patients by ceftriaxone plus amikacin alone (success), in 36 patients after the addition of vancomycin and/or amphotericin B (improvement), whereas in the remaining 25 patients it was necessary to substitute the study drug. The failure rate was correlated to the duration of neutropenia: 0/13 when neutropenia less than 6 days; 3/41 (7%) when 6-10 days; 22/46 (48%) when greater than 10 days. Only 2/20 (10%) of patients with neutropenia greater than 20 days were treated with ceftriaxone plus amikacin alone. 9 of the 23 bacteriologically documented episodes were successes (including 6 of the 11 cases due to Staphylococcus), 7 were improvements and 7 were failures (including the 3 cases due to Pseudomonas). No side effects were seen. Ceftriaxone plus amikacin is an effective firstline antibiotic combination in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.     

Piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin versus ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Gram-positive bacteria have become the predominant infecting organisms in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Empiric antibiotic regimens used in febrile neutropenic patients often include an extended-spectrum cephalosporin, but the response to therapy in gram-positive coccal bacteremia has been unsatisfactory. Thus, new antibiotics with better activity against gram-positive bacteria should be tested. The objective of this prospective randomized controlled study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerance of piperacillintazobactam plus amikacin with that of ceftazidime plus amikacin, the standard regimen of the International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, in the empiric treatment of febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients. A total of 858 episodes were eligible for this study, and 706 episodes were assessable for efficacy. The antibiotic treatment was successful in 210 (61%) of 342 episodes in the piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin group compared with 196 (54%) of 364 episodes treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (P = 0.05). The time to defervescence was significantly shorter (P = 0.01) and the time to failure was significantly longer (P = 0.02) in the piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin group. A significant difference in response to bacteremic infections between the two patient groups was found: piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin was successful in 40 of 80 episodes (50%), and ceftazidime plus amikacin was successful in 35 of 101 episodes (35%) (P = 0.05). A multivariate analysis showed that the probability of failure was significantly greater with ceftazidime plus amikacin than with piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin (P = 0.02). This trial suggests that piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin is more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empiric treatment of fever and bacteremia in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Although cutaneous reaction was more frequently associated with piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin than with ceftazidime-amikacin, this unwanted effect was relatively mild and its incidence was comparable to that of other penicillin compounds.     

Randomized prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters.

In 72 episodes of suspected or proven Hickman-catheter-associated infection occurring in 59 patients with various hematological disorders, patients were assigned to treatment with either vancomycin or teicoplanin in a randomized nonblinded prospective study. Of 60 episodes evaluable for response, 28 were treated with vancomycin and 32 were treated with teicoplanin. Sixteen infective episodes were microbiologically documented in the vancomycin group, and twenty-one were microbiologically documented in the teicoplanin group. Microbiologically and clinically documented infections treated with vancomycin had an 80% response rate, compared with a 69% response rate for those treated with teicoplanin (P = 0.316). Adverse events occurred in nine (25%) of the episodes in the vancomycin group, compared with three (8%) in the teicoplanin group (P = 0.044). Teicoplanin may provide an effective alternative to vancomycin in the treatment of Hickman-catheter-associated infection in patients with hematological malignancies.     

Aztreonam therapy in children with febrile neutropenia: a randomized trial of aztreonam plus flucloxacillin versus piperacillin plus gentamicin.

In a prospective, randomized trial in 100 febrile neutropenic children, aztreonam plus flucloxacillin was compared with piperacillin plus gentamicin. At the 72 h clinical assessment there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. However, in microbiologically documented infections there was a higher response rate in the piperacillin/gentamicin group (57%) than in the aztreonam/flucoxacillin group (41%). This was contributed to by the poorer Gram-positive cover of the aztreonam/flucloxacillin combination. In clinically documented infections and unexplained fevers the response rate of the two antibiotic regimens was identical. There were two deaths; one early death (in the piperacillin/gentamicin arm) and one late death. At the final assessment a successful outcome was obtained in the remaining patients. In the aztreonam/flucloxacillin group 75% of the episodes required modification compared with 59% in the piperacillin/gentamicin group.     

Cefepime plus amikacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin for initial antibiotic therapy in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia: results of an open,randomized, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for suspected infections in patients with profound neutropenia is the combination of a beta-lactam antibiotic plus an aminoglycoside. Cefepime's broad-spectrum activity makes it an option for initial empirical therapy in neutropenic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime plus amikacin compared with piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin for initial empirical treatment of fever in adult haematology patients with severe neutropenia. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, 969 patients with 984 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive iv amikacin (20 mg/kg every 24 h) combined with either cefepime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4 g/500 mg every 6 h). Clinical response was determined at 72 h and at completion of therapy. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixty-seven episodes were assessable for efficacy (432 cefepime, 435 piperacillin-tazobactam). The frequency of success without modification of the empirical therapy was nearly identical for cefepime plus amikacin (49%) compared with piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin (51%). Similar rates of success were found for microbiologically documented infection: 40% versus 39%, respectively. Antibiotic modification was necessary in 49% of cefepime and 44% of piperacillin-tazobactam patients. The overall response rate, with or without modification of the assigned treatment, was 94% in both groups. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 10% of cefepime plus amikacin versus 11% of piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin patients. Mortality due to infection occurred in a total of 10 patients (two cefepime, eight piperacillin-tazobactam). CONCLUSION: The empirical regimen of cefepime plus amikacin is equivalent to piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin in febrile adult haematology patients with severe neutropenia. Keywords: cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, amikacin, empirical antibiotic therapy, febrile neutropenia, haematological malignancy     

Ceftriaxone versus β-lactams with antipseudomonal activity for empirical, combined antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis

 The object of this work was to compare the efficacy of antibiotic combinations including ceftriaxone with that of combinations including an antipseudomonal β-lactam for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. We identified all published randomised trials comparing two antibiotic combinations differing only in the β-lactam, being ceftriaxone in one treatment group and an antipseudomonal β-lactam in the other. The quality of individual trials was formally evaluated. A meta-analysis was performed using the Peto-modified Mantel-Haenszel method for combining binary data. Primary analysis was done, for both febrile episodes and bacteraemic episodes, using failure of empirical antibiotic treatment defined as modification of the initial allocated regimen or death during treatment. Secondary analysis was done using death from any cause in the two treatment groups. Data relating to 1,537 febrile neutropenic episodes recorded in eight randomised clinical trial were pooled s. Overall, there were 256 treatment failures out of 782 febrile episodes treated with ceftriaxone-containing combinations (32.7%), and 243 out of 755 treated with antipseudomonal β-lactam regimens (32.1%). The pooled odds ratio of failure for ceftriaxone-containing combinations for febrile episodes was 1.04, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.84 to 1.29, and that for bacteraemic episodes was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.58–1.49). With regard to overall mortality, there were 54 deaths among 782 febrile episodes treated with ceftriaxone-containing combinations (6.9%) and 62 deaths among 755 febrile episodes treated with antipseudomonal β-lactam-containing regimens (8.2%). The pooled odds ratio of death for ceftriaxone regimens was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.57–1.24). Results of this meta-analysis show that in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia, antibiotic combinations containing ceftriaxone are as effective as those in which the β-lactam has specific activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, such as ureidopenicillin or ceftazidime. Published online: 5 October 1999     

Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

A prospective randomized study was conducted to determine the efficacy of imipenem-cilastatin (hereafter referred to as imipenem) (500 mg four times daily) versus combination therapy for febrile neutropenic patients receiving either no prophylaxis or ciprofloxacin for prevention of infections. Combination therapy consisted of gentamicin (80 mg every 8 h) plus either cefuroxime (1,500 mg every 8 h) or cephalothin (1,000 mg every 4 h) for suspected catheter-related infections. Ninety-four neutropenic fever episodes in 87 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall clinical rate of response to imipenem was significantly higher than that to combination therapy (91 versus 74%; P = 0.05). The difference in efficacy was most pronounced in patients with microbiologically documented infections (89 versus 53%; P = 0.025), which were predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Differences in susceptibility may have caused the better rate of response to imipenem. Two of 29 gram-positive bacteria were imipenem resistant, whereas 10 were resistant to cephalothin and cefuroxime and 12 were resistant to gentamicin. No causative gram-negative bacterium and 24 gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 61 fever episodes with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral). In contrast, nine causative gram-negative and five gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 33 episodes without prophylaxis. The difference in distribution proved to be statistically significant for gram-negative (P = 0.0001) as well as gram-positive (P = 0.025) bacteria, indicating that ciprofloxacin effectively prevented the occurrence of gram-negative bacteria and may have contributed to the relatively large number of gram-positive bacteria isolated. Empirical initial therapy with imipenem may be a valuable alternative to combination therapy for neutropenic fever episodes.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of empirical teicoplanin in febrile neutropenia with persistent fever after imipenem monotherapy

Glycopeptide antibiotics are used extensively in the empirical treatment of febrile patients with neutropenia. To come to a more rational and restricted application of these expensive drugs and to reduce the risk of emergence of resistance, we carried out a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled single-centre study to investigate whether the addition of teicoplanin improved the outcome of neutropenic patients who remained febrile after 72-96 h of imipenem monotherapy. Patients with known infections caused by imipenem-resistant microorganisms were excluded. From the 114 evaluable episodes (out of a total of 125) in 105 patients who met the eligibility criteria, 56 episodes were randomized to receive teicoplanin and 58 to placebo. At 72 h after the start of the assigned intervention, 52 (45.6%) of the patients were afebrile; at the end of the aplastic phase, 10 (8.8%) had succumbed. There was no difference between the two study arms. When febrile episodes were subdivided between microbiologically documented infections, clinically documented infections and fevers of unknown origin, again no significant differences were observed. With the exception of methicillin-resistant bacteria, Gram-positive infections seemed to respond well to imipenem monotherapy. It is concluded that the addition of teicoplanin on empirical grounds, i.e. for persistent fever only, is not necessary and that the use of glycopeptides should be restricted to well-defined clinical situations where methicillin-resistant bacteria are involved. Furthermore, it seems that many neutropenic patients respond slowly over more than 72-96 h even when they are treated with antibacterial drugs such as imipenem that are effective against the causative microorganism.     

Expanding the Options for Risk-based Therapy in Febrile Neutropenia

Fever in neutropenic cancer patients is often due to the development of an infection. The standard management of febrile neutropenic patients involves the administration of empiric, hospital-based, parenteral antibiotic therapy. Although this treatment strategy has evolved from experience in high-risk patients with hematological malignancies, in whom bacterial infection can result in substantial morbidity and mortality, it has been adopted for all patients with febrile neutropenia, largely because of the inability of clinicians to reliably distinguish between patients who are at high risk for developing such morbidity/mortality and those who are not. The development of risk-assessment models has facilitated the recognition of high-, moderate-, and low-risk subgroups among febrile neutropenic patients and allows the administration of outpatient antibiotic therapy to the moderate- and low-risk groups, with the same degree of efficacy and safety as hospital-based therapy. Monotherapy with the carbapenems (imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem), with their broad spectrum of activity and established efficacy in high-risk patients, represents realistic options for risk-based treatment of febrile neutropenic patients within and outside the hospital setting.     

Bacteremia in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND: An appropriate regimen in the empirical therapy of neutropenic fever episodes must be individualized at each institution. Hospitals have different patterns of microbial isolates and antibiotic resistance that must be taken into account. The aim of this study was to investigate isolates of bacteremia and their antibiotic susceptibility in patients with hematological malignancies. METHODS: All positive blood cultures at a medical center in Taiwan between 1999 and 2002 from patients with hematological malignancies were evaluated. Eleven kinds of antibiotics were tested for antimicrobial activities. The risk factors for mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-one episodes of bacteremia in 266 patients with hematological malignancies were recorded. Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) were still predominant and accounted for 78.2% of isolates, followed by gram-positive cocci for 20.8% of isolates, and anaerobes for 1% of isolates. Escherichia coli was the most common isolated organism accounting for 27.5% of GNB isolates. Other isolates included Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11%), and Enterobacter cloacae (10.1%). The most isolated microorganisms were susceptible to cefoperazone/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or imipenem. Age, GNB microorganism and inadequate empirical antibiotics were risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that cefoperazone/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or imipenem is an ideal empirical therapy.