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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

An open, randomized, multicentre study comparing the use of low-dose ceftazidime or cefotaxime, both in combination with netilmicin, in febrile neutropenic patients. German Multicentre Study Group.

To reduce drug acquisition costs, the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of low-dose ceftazidime i.v. (1 g tid) was compared with cefotaxime i.v. (2 g tid). Both regimens were combined with netilmicin i.v. (2 mg/kg bodyweight tid), in an open, randomized, multicentre trial in febrile neutropenic patients. The addition of antibiotics for gram-positive coverage was part of the protocol; alteration in the antibiotics for gram-negative cover or premature discontinuation of the study antibiotics were judged as failure. One hundred and eighty six patients were randomized by nine German centres, the patients matched for age, underlying diseases and duration of neutropenia (median duration 14 days) in both treatment arms. Infections were documented microbiologically in 29% of the patients, clinically in 16% and suspected (fever of unknown origin) in 102/186 patients (55%). The 82 pathogens isolated were predominantly gram-positive bacteria. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate without modification at the final evaluation was 58% in the ceftazidime group and 34% in the cefotaxime group (P < 0.01). The success rates with modification were 84% and 64%, respectively. The failure rate in a highly immunosuppressed subgroup of the patients (bone marrow transplant recipients) was higher for cefotaxime (53%) than for the ceftazidime arm (14%) (P < 0.001). Response rates were significantly higher in the ceftazidime group for patients with microbiologically documented and possible infections. No major bacterial superinfections occurred in the low-dose treatment arm. The tolerability was good for both regimens. Low-dose ceftazidime combined with netilmicin proved to be superior to recommended doses of cefotaxime/netilmicin in febrile neutropenic patients.     

Procalcitonin – a sensitive inflammation marker of febrile episodes in neutropenic children with cancer

Objective Sensitive parameters of inflammations, are rare or of limited validity in neutropenic patients. Procalcitonin (PCT) proven to be a sensitive inflammatory marker in nonneutropenic patients was evaluated for its diagnostic relevance in febrile episodes of neutropenic patients with cancer Methods Plasma levels of PCT were determined by an immunoluminometric assay in children with febrile neutropenic episodes (n=376) starting at the date of admission until the resolution of fever and were correlated with serum levels of the C-reactive protein (CrP). Febrile episodes were classified as fever of unknown origin (FUO), microbiologically or clinically documented infections and were also differentiated according to the site of the infection (unknown, bacteremia, respiratory, soft tissue, gastrointestinal and urinary tract infection). Results Independently from the aetiology and the site of infection the PCT peak value occurred mostly on the second hospital day and decreased rapidly in cases of successful antibiotic therapy and with the resolution of fever to the normal range (0.1–0.5 μg/l). The highest PCT peak levels at the onset of fever and during the febrile course were observed in patients with gramnegative bacteremia (n=22, median 12.1 μg/l, range 0.4–568.2 μg/l). There was a positive correlation between PCT peak levels and CrP peak levels (r=0.48, p=0.001) which mostly were observed 24 h later than for PCT. Conclusions PCT is a sensitive and specific parameter in the diagnostic and in the sequential assessment of febrile neutropenic episodes, especially in gramnegative infections. Its diagnostic accuracy in neutropenic patients is clearly higher than that of CrP.     

Procalcitonin - a sensitive inflammation marker of febrile episodes in neutropenic children with cancer

Objective: Sensitive parameters of inflammations are rare or of limited validity in neutropenic patients. Procalcitonin (PCT) proven to be a sensitive inflammatory marker in nonneutropenic patients was evaluated for its diagnostic relevance in febrile episodes of neutropenic patients with cancer.¶Methods: Plasma levels of PCT were determined by an immunoluminometric assay in children with febrile neutropenic episodes (n = 376) starting at the date of admission until the resolution of fever and were correlated with serum levels of the C-reactive protein (CrP). Febrile episodes were classified as fever of unknown origin (FUO), microbiologically or clinically documented infections and were also differentiated according to the site of the infection (unknown, bacteremia, respiratory, soft tissue, gastrointestinal and urinary tract infection).¶Results: Independently from the aetiology and the site of infection the PCT peak value occurred mostly on the second hospital day and decreased rapidly in cases of successful antibiotic therapy and with the resolution of fever to the normal range (0.1-0.5 wg/l). The highest PCT peak levels at the onset of fever and during the febrile course were observed in patients with gramnegative bacteremia (n = 22, median 12.1 wg/l, range 0.4-568.2 wg/l). There was a positive correlation between PCT peak levels and CrP peak levels (r = 0.48, p = 0.001) which mostly were observed 24 h later than for PCT.¶Conclusions: PCT is a sensitive and specific parameter in the diagnostic and in the sequential assessment of febrile neutropenic episodes, especially in gramnegative infections. Its diagnostic accuracy in neutropenic patients is clearly higher than that of CrP.     

Prospective comparative trial of short course (four day) and continuous tobramycin in combination with cefoperazone or mezlocillin in febrile, granulocytopenic patients

In a prospective, randomized trial of 195 febrile episodes in granulocytopenic patients short course aminoglycoside treatment (initial tobramycin and cefoperazone followed by tobramycin discontinuation at day four of therapy) was compared with two regimens (tobramycin plus cefoperazone and tobramycin plus mezlocillin) in which both drugs were continued for up to 26 days. All regimens were successful as empirical therapy with comparable response rates of just over seventy per cent. Fifty-three per cent of the initial episodes of fever were related to documented infections which responded less well (P = 0.007) than unexplained fever. Patients with bacteraemia, pneumonia or Gram-positive aerobic or Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections responded poorly to all regimens. The recovery from granulocytopenia was the most important determinant of successful response. Aminoglycoside discontinuation followed by cefoperazone monotherapy after day four was statistically as effective as the combination regimens. Short course tobramycin therapy eliminated the nephrotoxicity seen in the combination limbs. The use of cefoperazone was not associated with an increased incidence of hypoprothrombinemia; however, the only three bleeding episodes occurred in patients given cefoperazone but not vitamin K. Short course aminoglycoside therapy will reduce cost and nephrotoxicity when compared with prolonged combination therapy and should be further explored in this setting, with use of different agents and comparison with monotherapy.     

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.     

Monotherapy with intravenous followed by oral high-dose ciprofloxacin versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as initial empiric therapy for granulocytopenic patients with fever

The aim of the present study was to obtain clinical experience with the use of high-dose ciprofloxacin as monotherapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenia episodes (granulocyte count, <500/mm(3)) compared to a standard regimen and to clarify whether ciprofloxacin administration may be switched to the oral route. In a prospective randomized study ciprofloxacin was given at 400 mg three times a day (t.i.d.) for at least 72 h followed by oral administration at 750 mg twice a day (b.i.d). That regimen was compared with ceftazidime given intravenously at 2 g t.i.d. plus amikacin given intravenously at 500 mg b.i.d. The frequency of successful clinical response without modification at the end of therapy was almost identical for ciprofloxacin (50% [62 of 124 patients]) compared with that for ceftazidime plus amikacin (50.8% [62 of 122 patients]) in an intent-to-treat analysis; the frequencies were 48.3% (57 of 118 patients) versus 49.6% (56 of 113 patients), respectively, in a per-protocol analysis (P values for one-sided equivalence, 0.0485 and 0.0516, respectively; delta = 10%), with no significant differences among patients with bacteremia and other microbiologically or clinically documented infections and fever of unknown origin. For 82 (66.1%) patients, it was possible to switch from parenteral ciprofloxacin to the oral ciprofloxacin, and the response was successful for 61 (74.4%) patients. The efficacies of the regimens against streptococcal bacteremias were 16.6% (one of six patients) for the ciprofloxacin group and 33.3% (one of three patients) for the combination group (it was not statistically significant), with one breakthrough streptococcal bacteremia observed among the ciprofloxacin-treated patients. Adverse events were mostly self-limited and were observed in 27 (20.6%) ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 26 (19.7%) patients who were receiving the combination. This study demonstrates that high-dose ciprofloxacin given intravenously for at least 3 days and then by the oral route is therapeutically equivalent to the routine regimen of intraveneous ceftazidime plus amikacin even in febrile patients with severe neutropenia (polymorphonuclear leukocyte count, <100 mm(3)). However, it is very important that before an empirical therapy is chosen each hospital determine bacteriologic predominance and perform resistance surveillance.     

急性白血病患者粒细胞缺乏时发热的经验治疗

目的：研究急性白血病患者粒细胞缺乏出现发热时，使用第三代头孢菌素头孢他啶加阿米卡星、碳青霉烯类抗生素亚胺培南或美罗培南治疗的临床疗效的比较。方法：应用回顾性分析方法，观察了106例急性白血病患者在造血干细胞移植预处理或化疗后粒细胞缺乏期出现发热时，对3种治疗方案的反应。结果：碳青霉烯类抗生素亚胺培南或美罗培南单药治疗中性粒细胞缺乏时严重感染的疗效较第三代头孢菌素头孢他啶加阿米卡星好。而美罗培南的不良反应较亚胺培南少。结论：碳青霉烯类抗生素是经验治疗中性粒细胞缺乏时发热的首选药物之一。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Vancomycin is not an essential component of the initial empiric treatment regimen for febrile neutropenic patients receiving ceftazidime: a randomized prospective study.

The use of vancomycin as part of the initial antibiotic therapy of febrile neutropenic patients has become a controversial issue. Some studies support its incorporation in the initial regimen, and others suggest that vancomycin can be added later. We examined this issue in a prospective, randomized trial. We randomized 127 febrile neutropenic patients to receive either ceftazidime alone or ceftazidime plus vancomycin as the initial empiric antibiotic treatment. We added vancomycin to the ceftazidime arm of the study when fever persisted after 96 h of monotherapy, when new fever occurred after this time, or when a moderately ceftazidime-resistant gram-positive bacterium was isolated. Each of these regimens had similar initial response rates, similar durations of initial fever, similar frequencies of new fever during therapy, similar microbiological cure rates, similar superinfection rates, and similar survival rates. We observed more renal and cutaneous toxicities in patients receiving vancomycin and ceftazidime as initial therapy. We conclude that ceftazidime is appropriate as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients and that the addition of vancomycin is appropriate when fever persists after 4 days of monotherapy or when fever recurs following an initial response.