Piperacillin–Tazobactum Plus Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime Plus Amikacin as Empirical Therapy for Fever in Neutropenic Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Infections are one of the main cause of death in cancer patients particularly when granulocytopenia is present. A number of drugs have been used for the treatment of neutropenic patients with fever. Most published literature has shown piperacillin–tazobactum in combination with amikacin to be significantly more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin in empirical treatment of febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia. In view of the reported literature we have tried this combination in our febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies at PGIMS Rohtak. It was an open randomized trial. Patients were divided into two groups of 20 each. In the first group (group A) piperacillin–tazobactum (4 + 0.5 g 6 hourly) with single daily dose of amikacin 20 mg/kg was given. In the second group (group B) ceftazidime 40 mg/kg every 8 hourly with single daily dose of amikacin 20 mg/kg was given. The most common site of infection was blood followed by urinary tract, respiratory tract and oral cavity. 13 (65%) patients in group A and 12 (60%) patient in group B showed clinical success. In our study however in our patients a better response was seen in patients with piperacillin–tazobactum + amikacin (65% vs. 60%). So it is recommended that piperacillin–tazobactum + amikacin should be given in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.     

A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND--Neutropenic patients with cancer are traditionally treated with empiric antibiotic combinations when they become febrile. The availability of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ceftazidime and imipenem has made it possible to initiate therapy with a single agent (monotherapy). The objectives of this trial were to compare ceftazidime and imipenem as single agents for the therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients and to ascertain whether the addition of an aminoglycoside (amikacin) to either of these agents would provide an advantage. METHODS--A prospective clinical trial was conducted in which eligible neutropenic patients with cancer were randomized to one of four treatment arms: ceftazidime alone; imipenem alone; ceftazidime plus amikacin; and imipenem plus amikacin. Efficacy analysis was done for 750 assessable episodes. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was also performed to examine the unique contribution of various prognostic factors. RESULTS--The overall response rates were 76% with imipenem plus amikacin, 72% with imipenem, 71% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 59% with ceftazidime alone. Single-organism gram-positive infections occurred in 101 of 750 episodes. Without a change in antibiotics, the response rates were 50% with imipenem, 40% with imipenem plus amikacin, 39% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 38% with ceftazidime. Most responded to vancomycin or other antibiotics, and the mortality associated with gram-positive infections was only 5%. Regardless of the antibiotic regimen, the majority of uncomplicated gram-negative infections responded to therapy and the majority of complicated gram-negative infections failed to respond. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis showed that recovery of the neutrophil count was the most favorable prognostic factor in a patient's response to infection, whereas the presence of gram-positive infection, acute leukemia, pulmonary or enteric infection, and therapy with ceftazidime were unfavorable factors. CONCLUSIONS--Single-agent therapy with imipenem is as effective as more conventional combination antibiotic therapy for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer.     

Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empirical therapy for fever in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies

An open randomized comparative study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Cefepime (2 gm iv. 8 hr.) vs. ceftazidime (2 gm iv. every 8 hr.) in empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients. A total of 40 eligible febrile episodes were randomized to be treated with study regimen. Twenty febrile episodes were treated with cefepime and 20 were treated with ceftazidime. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, height, underlying neoplasm, number of pretherapy neutrophils, duration of neutropenia. The overall therapeutic success rate of cetepime group (60%) was comparable to that of ceftazidime group (55%). The results of this study suggest that cefepime is an effective and safe agent in empirical therapy of febrile episode in neutropenic patient and its efficacy is comparable with that of ceftazidime.     

Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients

 Infections remain the major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic cancer patients. The current study addresses the question whether monotherapy with the new broad-spectrum carbapenem meropenem exhibits efficacy comparable to that of the standard combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Seventy-one patients with hematological malignancies (55%) or solid tumors (45%), neutropenia <500/μl, and fever <38.5  °C were randomly assigned to either meropenem (1 g every 8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) intravenously. Meropenem (n=34) and ceftazidime/amikacin (n=37) were equivalent with respect to the clinical response at 72 h (62% versus 68%) (p<0.05) and at the end of unmodified therapy (59% versus 62%). Gram-positive bacteremia responded poorly in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin group (29% versus 25%), whereas all gram-negative bacteremias responded except for one in the meropenem group caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All patients survived to 72 h. One patient in each group died of gram-positive sepsis resistant to study medication. No significant side effects occurred in any regimen. This study suggests that meropenem monotherapy might be as effective as combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Received: 13 June 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 5 December 1997     

Ceftazidime as first-line therapy for fever in acute leukaemia

Fifty patients with acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia were treated by random allocation with either ceftazidime alone or a combination of piperacillin, netilmicin and cefotaxime for 65 febrile neutropenic episodes. Nineteen of 33 patient episodes (58%) responded to ceftazidime alone compared with 21 of 32 episodes (66%) treated with the combination. There was one infective death in a patient given the combination; rates of documented superinfection were low. The treatment groups appeared identical in terms of patient demography, underlying disease and other risk factors, though patients with a clinical site of infection responded more slowly than those without. Bacteraemia per se did not appear to influence outcome. Bactericidal serum concentrations greater than or equal to 8 X the minimum bactericidal concentration were predictive of a rapid response (within 4 days) to antibiotics. Furthermore, serum from patients treated with ceftazidime maintained adequate cidal activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa for longer than that obtained from patients treated with the three-drug combination. Ceftazidime was shown to be a safe and effective alternative to the three-drug combination for the initial management of febrile neutropenic episodes in leukaemic patients.     

Ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin in febrile neutropenic children

Summary Although the effectiveness of antibiotic monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients remains unproven, ceftazidime has been shown previously to be effective monotherapy for the empiric treatment of selective patients. The efficacy and safety of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin was evaluated in the treatment of febrile children (range 8 months to 18 years) with neutropenia secondary to cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Of the evaluable 89 patients, 45 received ceftazidime and 44 received ceftazidime plus tobramycin for 5 to 10 days. At the end of therapy, 30 (67%) of the 45 ceftazidime-treated patients were clinically cured compared with 38 (86%) of 44 combination-treated patients. Thirteen (29%) of the patients treated with ceftazidime failed to respond clinically to treatment, versus four (9%) of the patients treated with ceftazidime/tobramycin (p=0.046). This study suggests that ceftazidime as monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children may be inferior to combination therapy for optimal clinical response in these patients.

---

Ceftazidim im Vergleich zu Ceftazidim plus Tobramycin bei neutropenischen Kindern mit Fieber

Zusammenfassung Ceftazidim hat sich in Monotherapie bei ausgewählten Patienten in der empirischen Behandlung von febriler Neutropenie als wirksam erwiesen, dennoch muß die Effizienz einer Antibiotika-Monotherapie bei neutropenischen Patienten mit Fieber nach wie vor als unbewiesen angesehen werden. Bei neutropenischen Kindern im Alter von 8 Monaten bis 18 Jahren, die eine Krebs-Chemotherapie durchmachten, wurde wegen Fieber eine Behandlung mit Ceftazidim allein oder in Kombination mit Tobramycin durchgeführt. Die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit dieser beiden Therapieformen wurde verglichen. Von den 89 auswertbaren Patienten erhielten 45 Ceftazidim allein und 44 in Kombination mit Tobramycin. Die Behandlungsdauer lag zwischen 5 und 10 Tagen. Am Ende der Behandlung waren 30 der 45 mit Ceftazidim allein behandelten Patienten (67%) geheilt, in der mit Ceftazidim plus Tobramycin behandelten Gruppe 38 von 44 (86%). 13 der mit Ceftazidim behandelten Patienten (29%) sprachen klinisch nicht auf die Therapie an, in der Ceftazidim/Tobramycin-Gruppe waren 4 Therapieversager (9%) festzustellen (p=0,046). Aus dieser Studie läßt sich ableiten, daß Ceftazidim bei Kindern mit Neutropenie und Fieber in Monotherapie nicht in gleichem Ausmaß optimale Therapieergebnisse erzielen kann wie die Kombination Ceftazidim plus Tobramycin.

     

A randomized study of teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin plus piperacillin for the empirical treatment of fever in neutropenic patients

S ummary We compared the combination of teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin with gentamicin plus piperacillin for the empirical treatment of fever in 80 neutropenic patients. A favourable clinical response rate was achieved in 28/38 (74%) patients receiving teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin and in 17/ 35 (49%) of those receiving gentamicin plus piperacillin (P = 0.05). Microbiologically documented infections accounted for 55% of febrile events. When these episodes were analysed separately, response to teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin remained unchanged at 74% whereas only 35% patients responded to gentamicin and piperacilin (P=0.034). Gram-positive organisms accounted for 78% bacterial isolates with Staphylococcus epidermidis the most common pathogen. Ten out of 12 (83%) Staph. Epidermidis infections resolved when treated with teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin as compared with a response rate of only two out of eight (75%) with gentamicin and piperacillin (P = 0.032). The combination of teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin was associated with no severe drug-related adverse events: by contrast, two patients receiving gentamicin plus piperacilin were withdrawn owing to adverse drug reactions, one with acute renal failure and one following a severe allergic reaction to piperacillin. We conclude that teicoplanin with ciprofloxacin is more effective than gentamicin plus piperacillin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. The high incidence of Gram-positive infection in our unit probably justifies the use of a specific anti-Gram-positive agent in the first-line antibiotic regimen.     

Ceftazidime monotherapy for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis.

Whether ceftazidime monotherapy is equal in efficacy to combination regimens (Comb) for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients was tested using meta-analysis. Published studies and abstracts of ceftazidime trials were identified, their quality assessed, the efficacy data abstracted and pooled, and effects of patient and study characteristics examined. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of failure of ceftazidime for febrile episodes was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-2.03; n = 1077) and for bacteremic episodes was 0.72 (CI, 0.33-1.58; n = 248; OR less than 1.0 favors ceftazidime). Results were not significantly affected by type of antibiotic in Comb, age, neutropenia (less than 500/mm3), study quality, or combining abstracts. Results indicate that Comb does not offer a significant advantage over ceftazidime. A subgroup of profoundly neutropenic (less than 100/mm3) patients could not be assessed, raising the possibility that in this important subgroup monotherapy and Comb may not be equivalent. Use of ceftazidime empirically may require modification based on microbiologic results and clinical course.     

A randomized comparative trial of three aminoglycosides--comparison of continuous infusions of gentamicin, amikacin and sisomicin combined with carbenicillin in the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients with malignancies.

Continuous infusions of gentamicin, amikacin or sisomicin combined with carbenicillin were compared in a randomized study in the treatment of 572 febrile episodes in 281 patients with cancer. The three treatments (C+A, C+A and C+S) were equally effective with no significant differences in response rate overall (67%, 68%, 67%) or in any infection, except septicemia where C+G had a significantly lower response rate than the other two groups. Pneumonia, the most common infection, had the lowest response rate for all three groups (45-50%). Klebsiella spp. were the most common pathogens and showed a lower response rate than other gram-negative bacilli (P = 0.003). Patients with persistent severe neutropenia had a response rate of 56%. Azotemia was significantly less common in patients with documented infection treated with C+A than in the C+S group. Combinations of carbenicillin plus an aminoglycoside antibiotic are effective for the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients.     

肿瘤患者粒细胞缺乏症并感染的经验性抗生素治疗回顾性分析

目的　总结肿瘤患者粒细胞缺乏症并感染的经验性抗生素治疗的临床经验。方法　回顾性分析 119例肿瘤患者 2 4 8例次的临床资料 ,观察头孢哌酮 (CFP)、氧哌嗪青霉素 (PPC)、头孢他定 (CTZ)、亚胺培南 (IMP)与丁胺卡那霉素 (AMK)分别组成BA、PA、CA、TA方案的疗效及副作用。结果　BA、PA、CA、TA方案分别治疗 10 3、87、35和 2 3例次 ,治疗的中位时间为 7～ 8d ,有效率分别为 6 3%、4 8%、6 8%和 74 % ,PA方案明显为低 (P <0 0 5 )。治疗无效者调整治疗 :改用CA或TA方案加减去甲万古霉素 (NVC)及抗真菌治疗 ;总有效率分别为 88%、83%、86 %和 91%。最常见副作用为胃肠功能紊乱 ,腹泻为 12 % ,皮疹和肝转氨酶轻度升高分别为 4 % ;2例NVC和AMK治疗者出现明显的听力下降和肾脏毒性。结论　BA、CA、TA方案具有相似的疗效 ,可作为一线经验性治疗方案。经验性治疗无效者 ,应改用具有更高抗菌活性的方案或尽早采用NCV和 (或 )抗霉菌治疗     

Using teicoplanin for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies

S ummary The cumulative experience with teicoplanin in treating febrile neutropenic patients included in three different comparative clinical trials conducted at a single institution during a 3-year period, is presented. 1 52 febrile episodes in 129 neutropenic patients were treated with iv. teicoplanin (6 mg/kg/d) combined with amikacin (15 mg/kg/d) plus ceftazidime (90 mg/kg/d). The study population comprised 75 patients with acute leukaemia and 77 marrow recipients: 53(% (81/152) had a central venous catheter in place and 68%) (103/152) had severe neutropenia (< 100/mm³) at the beginning of the febrile episode.
The overall response rate of the evaluiable febrile episodes was excellent: 88% (107/122) improved. Bacteraemias due to Gram-positive cocci accounted for 75% of the total (42/56) and pathogens in the blood isolates were mostly staphylo-cocci (coagulase-negative 14, coagulase-positive 13) and streptococci (131. The response rate of Gram-positive bacteraemias was good: 88% (37/42) improved and 75% (9/12) of Gram-positive bacteraemias having teicoplanin as the only antibiotic with in vitro activity against the infective strains were cured. Death due to infection accounted for 7% of total febrile episodes (11/152). Side effects were documented in 14(%, of the episodes. In a setting of high prevalence of Grampositive infections caused by strains with a high rate of resistance to aminoglycoside and betalactam antibiotics, there may be an advantage in including teicoplanin in the initial empiric antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenic cancer patients.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial

Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Owing to inclusion criteria, it was possible for the same patient to be randomized several times. A total of 219 individual patients were admitted to a prospective randomized clinical study: 24 patients were included twice. Patients (23.5%) remained afebrile. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (n = 74 patients, group I) or piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 87 patients, group II). Response to first-line antibiotic treatment was seen in 55% (group I) and 53% (group II). After the addition of vancomycin, a further 19% (group I) and 24% (group II) of the patients became afebrile. Causes of fever were: microbiologically documented infection in 36 and 34 patients of group I and II; Clostridium difficile in eight and 12 patients of group I and II, and fever of unknown origin in 30 and 41 patients of group I and II. One patient died in each group. Single-agent therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam is as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever and is well tolerated. Direct and indirect costs of both treatment regimes are equivalent.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime or imipenem/cilastatin versus ceftriaxone+aminoglycoside in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients in Germany

Summary A three-pronged cost-effectivess analysis of the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients was conducted. It included a review of 37 randomized, controlled studies in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980–1996). Clinical outcomes as well as costs of treatment with imipenem/cilastatin, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone+aminoglycoside were compared. Primary therapy and modification, respectively, were successful in 62 and 27% of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin, in 56 and 31% with ceftazidime and in 41 and 13% with ceftriaxone+aminoglycoside. From the perspective of a 1,800-bed teaching hospital, the average overall cost per successfully treated patient was DM 7,475 with imipenem/cilastatin, DM 7,810 with ceftazidime and DM 8,963 with ceftriaxone+netilmicin (DM 1=USD 0.56; 7/97). The costs for the German national economy were imipenem/cilastatin DM 23,828, ceftazidime DM 24,985 and ceftriaxone+netilmicin DM 29,838.     

Ceftazidime as initial therapy in febrile patients with acute leukemia during induction chemotherapy. Leukemia Group of Middle Sweden.

We studied the efficacy of ceftazidime as initial monotherapy in 82 adult patients with acute leukemia who developed 123 febrile episodes during induction chemotherapy. 88% of the patients survived their febrile episode(s), whereas 10% died of infection. When assessed at 72 h after initiation of treatment (early evaluation), 43/123 episodes (35%) had been successfully treated with ceftazidime. These 43 favourable responses were seen in 15/47 (32%) microbiologically documented infections, 20/46 (43%) clinically defined infections, and 8/30 (27%) fever of unknown origin (FUO). At the resolution of fever (late evaluation) 115 episodes were evaluable, and 48% had responded successfully to ceftazidime. Successful treatment was most frequently observed in FUO, 18/29 (62%). In contrast, only 19/44 (43%) microbiologically documented infections and 18/42 (43%) clinically defined infections were cured during ceftazidime treatment. In bacteremia the response rate was only 8/26 (31%). Thus, this study shows that although ceftazidime can be safely used for initial empirical monotherapy in neutropenic leukemia patients, the need for therapy modification is high and few patients with serious infections are cured with ceftazidime alone.     

Piperacillin plus amikacin vs. piperacillin plus amikacin plus teicoplanin for empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis.

A prospective, randomized trial was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of two antibiotic regimens, differing in the agent included with activity against gram-positive bacteria, for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies (group 1, piperacillin plus amikacin; group 2, piperacillin plus amikacin plus teicoplanin). After 72 hours of therapy, patients in group 1 who were still febrile were administered teicoplanin and those in group 2 were administered amphotericin B. A total of 158 evaluable episodes were observed within 8 months. The success rate was 50.6% in group 1 and 60% in group 2. The response rate among patients who did not respond to the original regimen increased to 86.7% with the addition of teicoplanin (group 1) and to 90% with the addition of amphotericin B (group 2). There were 86 unexplained febrile episodes and 56 documented episodes of bacteremia (34 caused by gram-positive organisms). Our results indicate that teicoplanin is safe, well tolerated, and effective for the treatment of documented episodes of gram-positive bacteremia and as an empirical agent. The inclusion of teicoplanin in the initial empirical regimen appears unnecessary if a combination of antibiotics active against gram-positive organisms is used, unless infections are due to oxacillin-resistant staphylococci.     

Oral cefixime is similar to continued intravenous antibiotics in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic children with cancer.

Empiric oral antibiotic therapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients has been suggested as a means to decrease hospitalization, but the safety of this approach has not been adequately studied in children. We compared continued iv antibiotic therapy with switching treatment to orally administered cefixime in a group of selected febrile neutropenic children for whom blood cultures were sterile after 48 h of incubation. Two hundred episodes of febrile neutropenia were studied (156 patients), and 100 episodes were randomized to receive each treatment. Failure to respond to therapy was defined by documented or suspected bacterial infection, recurrent fever, or discontinuation of assigned therapy for any reason before neutropenia resolved. Rates of treatment failure were similar in the oral cefixime group (28%) and in the iv antibiotic group (27%; P=1.0). Results support the safety of oral cefixime therapy for low-risk febrile neutropenic children, a therapeutic approach that would facilitate earlier outpatient management and decrease the costs of treatment.     

A Prospective, Randomized Multicenter Trial of the Empirical Addition of Antifungal Therapy for Febrile Neutropenic Cancer Patients: Results of the Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy (PEG) Multicenter Trial II

Abstract Background: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of empirical antifungals in combination with broad spectrum antibiotics with that of antibiotics alone in high risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients not responding to initial antibacterial therapy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted at 22 cancer centers in Germany. Patients with fever of unknown origin were randomized to either piperacillin (Pip) plus an aminoglycoside (AMG) (arm A) or a third generation cephalosporin (Ceph) plus AMG (arm B). Patients not responding after 4–6 days were randomized to either imipenem (Imi) plus glycopeptide (GLP) (arm C), or Imi/GLP plus amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB) plus 5-flucytosine (5-FC) (arm D), or Imi/GLP plus fluconazole (Fluco) (arm E). A successful outcome was defined as resolution of fever. Results: In arm A, 192 of 373 patients (51.5%) responded as compared to 176 of 344 patients (51.2%) in arm B. The response rates of 155 patients randomized for further empirical treatment were 55.6%, 77.8% and 62.5% in arm C, D and E, respectively. The difference between arm C and D was of borderline statistical significance (p = 0.06) after correction for multiple testing. Conclusion: In neutropenic cancer patients with persistent fever the combination of antibiotics with AmB/5-FC is superior to salvage antibacterial therapy alone. There is no difference in efficacy between Pip and third generation Ceph given as initial empirical therapy in combination with an AMG.     

Febrile neutropenia in allogeneic and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation and conventional chemotherapy for malignancies

The risk and outcome of infection in febrile neutropenic patients is mainly determined by the duration of neutropenia, the underlying disease or the treatment. This study was undertaken to compare infections and the outcome after conventional chemotherapy (CCT), allogeneic PBSC transplantation (alloPBSCT) or autologous PBSC transplantation (autoPBSCT), during the period of neutropenia, in a single center. A total of 145 patients (50 in CCT group, 50 in alloPBSCT and 45 in autoPBSCT) were evaluated. In the alloPBSCT group, 86% of the patients (43/50), in the autoPBSCT group 93% of the patients (42/45) and in the CCT group 92% (46/50) of the patients had at least one febrile episode during their neutropenic period (P > 0.05). Microbiologically and/or clinically documented infection rates were 50% (25/50), 42% (19/45) and 48% (24/50) respectively. Gram-positive pathogens, mostly coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequent cause of bacteremias in all groups. The frequency of CNS infections was significantly higher in the alloPBSCT and autoPBSCT groups compared to the CCT group (P < 0. 008 and P < 0.04, respectively). Catheter infections were frequent in the PBSCT groups and pulmonary infections were more frequent in the CCT group (P < 0.05). The CCT group needed longer antibiotic usage compared to the alloPBSCT group (P < 0.006). The duration of neutropenia and the type of treatment given, does not affect the rate of febrile episodes, but affects the type of infections in febrile neutropenic patients.     

A multi-centre prospective study of febrile neutropenia in Norway: microbiological findings and antimicrobial susceptibility

The urgent need to treat presumptive bacterial or fungal infections in neutropenic patients has meant that initial therapy is empiric and based on the pathogens most likely to be responsible, and drug resistance. The traditional empirical treatment in Norway has been penicillin G and an aminoglycoside, and this combination has been criticized over recent y. We wished to analyse the microbiological spectrum and susceptibility patterns of pathogens causing bacteraemia in febrile neutropenic patients. This was a prospective multicentre study. During the study period of 2 y, a total of 282 episodes of fever involving 243 neutropenic patients was observed. In 34% of episodes bacteraemia was documented. Overall, 40% of the episodes were caused by Gram-positive organisms, 41% by Gram-negative organisms and 19% were polymicrobial. The most frequently isolated bacteria were Escherichia coli (25.6%), a- and non-haemolytic streptococci (15.6%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (12.4%) and Klebsiella spp. (7.4%). None of the Gram-negative isolates was resistant to gentamicin, meropenem, ceftazidime or ciprofloxacin. Only 5 coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates were resistant to both penicillin G and aminoglycoside. The overall mortality rate was 7%, and 1.2% due to confirmed bacteraemic infection.     

Predictive factors of septic shock and mortality in neutropenic patients

Neutropenia is a major risk factor for developing a serious infection. Bacteremia still causes significant mortality among neutropenic patients with cancer. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for septic shock and for mortality in neutropenic patients with leukemia and bacteremia. Consecutive samples from 20 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and bacteremia were studied during a 1 year period (January-December 2003). All patients received empirical antibiotic therapies for febrile episodes using ceftazidime plus amikacin. About 110 neutropenic febrile episodes were noted: clinically documented 14.54%, microbiologically documented 16.36% and fever of unknown origin 69.09%. Gram-negative organism caused eight febrile episodes: Pseudomonas (5), Klebsiella (3). Gram-positive organism caused 10 episodes: Staphylococcus (6), Streptococci (2), Enterococci (2). Pulmonary infection accounted for 25% of clinically documented infections. About 14 of the 110 febrile episodes were associated with septic shock causing mortality in 7 patients. In a univariate analysis variables associated with septic shock were: pulmonary infection (OR = 17, p = 0.001), serum bicarbonate < 17 mmol/l (OR = 68, p < 0.001) and serum lactate >3 mmol/l (OR = 62, p < 0.001). Variables associated with mortality were: pulmonary infection (OR = 83, p < 0.001) and serum bicarbonate < 17 mmol/l (OR = 61, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis two variables were associated with septic shock: pulmonary infection (OR = 5, p = 0.043) and serum lactate >3 mmol/l (OR = 10, p = 0.003). An elevated serum lactate (>3 mmol/l) and low serum bicarbonate ( < 17 mmol/l) at the onset of bacteremia are useful biomarkers in predicting septic shock and mortality in neutropenic patients.