Amikacin plus piperacillin versus ceftazidime as initial therapy in granulocytopenic patients with presumed bacteremia

69 febrile granulocytopenic episodes without an initial focus of infection were assessed for empiric treatment either with high-dose amikacin plus piperacillin or ceftazidime. 90% of patients in each group survived the granulocytopenic episode; 15 (44 +/- 17%) episodes treated with the combination and 23 (66 +/- 16%) given ceftazidime responded without any modification of initial therapy and half defervesced within 72 h. Persistent fever was the most frequent reason for altering treatment which was done empirically in 90% of cases, but two-thirds of patients required further treatment modification. An infectious focus mainly involving the lung developed during granulocytopenia in 21 patients (30%), of which 17 occurred during antimicrobial therapy. Only 1 infection was shown to be due to bacteria, while 7 were due to fungi. Amikacin levels were similar to those expected following a normal dose (mean peak of 34.7 and mean trough of 12.6 mg/l). Therapy with the combination resulted in a higher serum creatinine (p less than 0.001) and a lower potassium level (p less than 0.001) in comparison with monotherapy. Potassium supplementation was required in 45 +/- 17% of patients given the combination compared with only 4 +/- 7% of those treated with ceftazidime. While both regimens appeared to be equally effective as initial therapy, the need for modification was high in both patient groups. Monotherapy being both simpler to administer and less toxic seems therefore to be the logical choice although the period of empiric therapy must be fully exploited in order to improve diagnosis and therefore antimicrobial management.     

A prospective controlled investigation of prophylactic trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in hospitalized granulocytopenic patients.

Oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMZ) therapy was investigated in the prophylaxis of infections in granulocytopenia. Hospitalized granulocytopenic patients were allocated at random to receive TMP/SMZ (group 1) or to a control group (group 2). The percentage of febrile granulocytopenic days was significantly reduced in group 1, 19 per cent compared to 39 per cent in group 2 (P less than 0.01). In group 1, there were no bacteremias in 59 episodes of granulocytopenia (909 days). In group 2, there were nine bacteremias in 52 episodes of granulocytopenia (796 days)(P = 0.001). Disseminated candidiasis developed in two patients in each group. Candida occurred in similar numbers in surveillance cultures in both groups; Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were slightly decreased, and Enterobacteriaceae resistant to TMP slightly increased in group 1. This study suggest that oral prophylactic TMP/SMZ therapy is an effective, well tolerated, easily administered alternative to "gut sterilization" with nonabsorbable antibiotics.     

Ceftazidime plus amikacin versus ceftazidime plus vancomycin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic children with cancer

Two antibiotic regimens, ceftazidime plus amikacin and ceftazidime plus vancomycin, were compared in a prospective, randomized clinical trial as empiric therapy in febrile granulocytopenic children with cancer. The rate of response was similar in the two groups (66% vs. 77%). The prevalence of secondary gram-negative bacteremia was higher--but not significantly higher--in the group receiving vancomycin. Adverse reactions also occurred more often in the latter group (35% vs. 4%). Mortality did not differ significantly in the two groups. Adjustment for independent predictors of response to treatment by means of multivariate analysis confirmed the lack of any remarkable difference between the responses to the two regimens. We conclude that the use of vancomycin instead of amikacin in combination with ceftazidime does not significantly improve the outcome of treatment of fever and infection in granulocytopenic children with cancer and that the use of vancomycin is associated with an increased frequency of both secondary infections due to gram-negative bacteria and adverse reactions.     

Approaching the controversies in antibacterial management of cancer patients

The principles for management of infectious complications in cancer patients are continuing to evolve. The critical element includes the prompt institution of broad-spectrum antibiotic(s) empirically when granulocytopenic patients become febrile and continuation and modification of the regimen in patients with persistent fever and granulocytopenia. The view is presented that antibiotics provide systemic prophylaxis as well as therapy in persistently granulocytopenic patients and that they should be continued until all signs of infection have cleared or the granulocyte count has recovered. Such aggressive therapy, supplemented by continued evaluation and monitoring of the patient, can significantly reduce infection-relation morbidity and mortality.     

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.     

贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂与贝那普利单药治疗轻中度高血压的多中心随机双盲平行对照研究

目的 评价贝那普利/氨氯地平复方片剂与贝那普利片单药治疗轻、中度高血压患者的有效性和安全性.方法 本研究为多中心、随机、双盲、平行对照研究.356例原发性高血压患者经2周洗脱期后,再给予4周贝那普利片10 mg单药治疗,220例平均坐位舒张压(SeDBP)仍≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)的患者随机分为贝那普利(10 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)固定剂量复方片剂组(复方制剂组,1片/d,n=113)和贝那普利片单药组(单药治疗组,20 mg/d,n=107),治疗4周末两组诊室SeDBP≥90 mmHg者剂量加倍.SeDBP＜90 mm Hg者续服原剂量,共随机双盲治疗8周.以总有效率和SeDBP下降差值作为主要疗效指标.其中74例患者(复方片剂组38例,单药组36例)完成了24 h动态血压监测,并作为降压疗效的评价指标.结果 随机、双盲治疗8周末,复方片剂组SeDBP下降值为(11.7±6.8)mm Hg、达目的 血压占65.7%、总有效率为88.5%;单药治疗组SeDBP下降值为(7.7±6.9)mm Hg、达目的 血压占35.5%、总有效率为65.5%.两组组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.001).24 h动态血压监测结果,复方制剂组和单药组的舒张压/收缩压(DBP/SBP)的谷/峰比率(T/P)分别为83.1%/76.0%和85.8%/79.5%(P＜0.05).复方制剂组与单药治疗组的不良反应发生率分别为16.8%和35.5%(P＜0.01).结论 贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂治疗原发性高血压患者的降压疗效明显优于贝那普利单药治疗,且有良好的耐受性.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Methods In a multicenter, randomized,double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP)remained ≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg = 0. 133 kPa)were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg(BZ10/AML5)fixed-dose combination therapy group(once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group(daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP≥90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks , and the patients with SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients(the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36)completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis. Results The randomized, doubleblind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment(a SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline)were(11.7 ± 6.8)mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group,respectively, and were(7.7 ±6. 9)mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively.There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs(P ＜ 0. 001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure(SBP)and diastolic blood pressure(DBP)values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine(10 mg/5 mg)and benazepril(20 mg)alone were 83. 1%/76. 0% and 85.8%/79. 5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16. 8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group(P ＜ 0. 001). Conclusions The combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.     

Piperacillin or ticarcillin plus amikacin: A double-blind prospective comparison of empiric antibiotic therapy for febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients

Piperacillin plus amikacin was compared in a prospective randomized double-blind trial with our standard regimen of ticarcillin plus amikacin as empiric therapy of fever in patients with granulocytopenia. Profound persistent granulocytopenia (fewer than 100/μl polymorphonuclear leukocytes without a rise during therapy) was present in 60 percent of the patient trials in both treatment groups. Of 38 microbiologically and clinically documented infections treated with piperacillin plus amikacin, 22 (58 percent) showed improvement. Of 34 microbiologically and clinically documented infections treated with ticarcillin plus amikacin, 19 (56 percent) showed improvement. There was no difference in response between groups according to the site of infection or infecting pathogen. Toxicity was minimal, with an equivalent incidence of immediate reactions, nephrotoxicity and superinfection. Patients receiving ticarcillin plus amikacin became colonized with more resistant gram-negative bacilli (17) than did those receiving piperacillin plus amikacin (3). Despite the monosodium structure of piperacillin, hypokalemia was not reduced for patients who received piperacillin plus amikacin. Although piperacillin has a wider in vitro antibacterial spectrum than ticarcillin, the clinical efficacy and toxicity of the combination of piperacillin plus amikacin were similar to those of ticarcillin plus amikacin as empiric therapy.     

Granulocytopenia in hospitalized patients: I. Prognostic factors and etiology of fever

The clinical course of 126 hospitalized patients during 192 episodes of granulocytopenia and fever was studied. Fever was a regular accompaniment of granulocytopenia, occurring in 94 per cent of granulocytopenic episodes. The mean duration of granulocytopenia (less than 1,000/mm3) was 18 days, with fever (temperature greater than 38 degrees C) being present during 44 per cent of those days. Fever was present during 69 per cent of days with a granulocyte count less than 10/mm3. A presumed infection was present in 86 of 128 febrile granulocytopenic episodes in adults and in 19 of 64 febrile granulocytopenic episodes in children. A fungal infection was found in 11 patients; a viral infection in 23 patients. Bacteremia occurred during 44 granulocytopenic episodes with 16.8 bacteremias/1,000 days of granulocytopenia in adults and 12.7 bacteremias/1,000 days in children. The mortality was 33 per cent per granulocytopenic episode in adults and only 8 per cent per episode in children.     

Nebulized amphotericin B as prophylaxis against invasive aspergillosis in granulocytopenic patients

The efficacy of inhaled amphotericin B in prevention of invasive aspergillosis in patients with granulocytopenia (granulocytes less than 0.5 X 10(9)/l for greater than 10 days) was investigated over a 12-month period. Amphotericin B prophylaxis was administered twice daily for the period of granulocytopenia to 34 patients who were at risk during 144 episodes of granulocytopenia. The cohort at risk was compared with historical controls. In the 2 years prior to institution of prophylaxis, 14 patients (11.4% of those at risk) developed invasive aspergillosis. All cases occurred whilst the patients were nursed on the open wards. Aspergillosis did not develop in 25 granulocytopenic patients nursed in single rooms with HEPA filtration. Since institution of prophylaxis, there have been no cases of invasive aspergillosis. These data suggest that nebulized amphotericin B may be useful in preventing invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in granulocytopenic patients, especially those nursed on the open wards, and warrants further investigation.     

Infectious complications in patients undergoing marrow transplantation: a prospective randomized study of the additional effect of decontamination and laminar air flow isolation among patients receiving prophylactic systemic antibiotics

99 patients with hematological malignancies underwent allogeneic marrow transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors and were randomized to receive one of two forms of infection prophylaxis while granulocytopenic: (1) prophylactic systemic antibiotics in a conventional hospital room (PSA, 50 patients) or (2) decontamination, isolation in a laminar air flow room and the administration of prophylactic systemic antibiotics (LAF + PSA, 49 patients). Only 1 patient (3%) in the LAF + PSA group acquired septicemia while granulocytopenic compared to 11 (24%) patients in the PSA group (p less than 0.005). Three patients (6%) in the LAF + PSA group acquired major localized infections compared to 9 (18%) in the PSA group (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in days in hospital post transplant, days of granulocytopenia, days of fever, incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease, interstitial pneumonitis or overall survival. We conclude that the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics added to decontamination and laminar air flow isolation of patients undergoing marrow transplantation significantly reduces the incidence of septicemia in the granulocytopenic period.     

Empiric therapy for infections in granulocytopenic cancer patients: continuous infusion of amikacin plus cephalothin.

A combination of amikacin sulfate given by continuous infusion (800 mg/sq m/24 hr) plus cephalothin sodium (2 g every four hours) was used as initial empiric therapy for the treatment of 65 evaluable febrile (greater than 38.5 degrees C) episodes in 54 granulcoytopenic (neutrophils, less than 1,000/microliter) adult cancer patients. Carbenicillin disodium (5 g every four hours) was substituted for cephalothin in patients with Pseudomonas infections and in patients in whom the initial regimen was unsuccessful. Thirty-two of the 38(84%) identifiable infections responded to therapy, including all of the eight septicemias and eight of 11 pneumonias. Three additional infections responded to the substitution of carbenicillin for cephalothin, for a total response rate of 92% (35/38). Nephrotoxicity occurred in five patients (7.1%), most commonly in patients over 60 years of age. Ototoxicity, highly correlated with a duration of greater than 19 days and a total dosage of greater than 25 g of amikacin sulfate, occurred in four patients (5.6%). Amikacin given by continuous infusion plus cephalothin is a safe and efficacious empiric therapy for infections in granulocytopenic cancer patients.     

Options and limitations of teicoplanin in febrile granulocytopenic patients

S ummary During the years 1985–89 three studies on the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in the treatment of febrile granulocytopenic patients suffering from haematological malignancies were assessed. In the first prospective study, teicoplanin at a dose of 400 mg/d was added to the initial empiric therapy of 65 febrile granulocytopenic episodes. When teicoplanin was given because of proven or presumed Gram-positive infection, 67% of cases were treated successfully. Patients with skin and soft-tissue infections achieved a 78% response rate. The second study on 120 patients was designed as a prospective randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of ceftazidime with and without teicoplanin. Response was achieved in 25/51 (49%) cases from the ceftazidime and in 33/52 cases (63%) from the combination groups. Seven of 18 (39%) cases with initial bacteraemia in the monotherapy group compared with 10/20 (50%) cases in the combination group responded to the empiric regimen. A retrospective analysis was carried out on the efficacy of teicoplanin in 125 cases of proven Gram-positive Hickman line-associated bacteraemia. Teicoplanin proved to be effective in eradicating 80% of the Staphylococcus epidermidis. 72% of the Staph. aureus , 90% of the 'viridans' streptococci and 67% of the enterococci. Removal of the catheter was required in 13% of cases in order to control the infection, and only one patient died of a catheter-related septicaemia caused by Staph. aureus . The total success rate leaving the catheter in situ was 78%, and 92% if cases with catheter removal were included. Serum levels of teicoplanin were predictable giving a peak and trough concentration on the fourth day of 30.4 ± 5.0 mg/l and 9.8 ± 1.7 mg/l. Hearing loss of 20 dB at 8000 Hz was noted in one case and transient liver or kidney disturbances attributable to the drug were observed in 4% of cases.     

Hepatitis B immune globulin preparations and use in liver transplantation

Hepatitis B immune globulin remains a central component of prophylaxis in HBV-infected patients undergoing liver transplantation. HBIG monotherapy given at a high dosage and indefinitely can prevent recurrence in 65% to 80% of patients. Because treatment failures occur and combination therapy using HBIG plus a nucleoside analog is more uniformly effective, the current standard of care is combination HBIG plus a nucleoside analog. These combination protocols have reduced the rate of virologic breakthrough to 10% or less. Several questions remain. The optimal dose and duration of HBIG use is unclear. Moreover, the development of resistance to lamivudine (and other nucleoside analogs) before transplantation increases the risk for virologic breakthrough post-transplantation. For patients with pre-transplant evidence of active HBV replication caused by the presence of nucleoside analog resistance, HBIG may be the main or only form of prophylaxis. For these patients, HBIG doses sufficient to maintain anti-HBs titers comparable to the days of HBIG monotherapy seem warranted. New HBIG formulations have made anti-HBs therapy more safe and tolerable to patients but the cost of the drug remains significant. The cost factor is particularly important in developing countries or countries with more limited resources for management of liver transplant recipients. Thus, there remains a need to develop and test new forms of anti-HBs therapy, so that effective but less expensive forms of immunoprophylaxis can be made available.     

干扰素α与阿德福韦酯不同联合方法治疗HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎的疗效

目的 观察IFNα联合阿德福韦酯(ADV)治疗HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)的临床疗效,探讨理想的联合治疗方案.方法 2005年1月至2009年6月纳入河北医科大学第三医院HBeAg阳性CHB患者156例.56例患者HBV DNA≥1×107拷贝/mL、或纤维化分期≥S3、或既往单药治疗失败(复发)者,予以初始IFNα联合ADV治疗;52例未达上述指标患者接受初始IFNα单药治疗.24周时依据患者HBV DNA、HBeAg、HBsAg变化调整治疗方案:16例取得早期应答的初始IFNα联合ADV治疗组患者调整为IFNα单药维持治疗,其余患者与初始IFNα单药治疗组未达到早期应答者共同接受IFNα联合ADV治疗.另选48例作为标准治疗组,接受全程IFNα单药治疗.48周时复评全部患者HBV DNA、HBeAg、HBsAg定量,并决定是否延长疗程.最终于72周评估患者疗效、安全性、耐药复发等,数据行卡方检验.结果 治疗24周,初始IFNα联合ADV治疗组早期应答率达28.6%,其中HBV DNA阴转率、ALT复常率(53.6%,62.5%)与初始IFNα单药治疗组(32.7%,x2=4.78;40.4%,x2=5.21)、标准治疗组(27.1%,x2=5.28;37.5%,x2=6.46)比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05),且HBeAg阴转率较标准治疗组更高(39.3%比18.8%,x2=7.48,P<0.05).48周时,初始IFNα联合ADV治疗组16例取得早期应答者停用ADV后,5例HBeAg复阳,3例病毒学反弹;HBV DNA阴转率为73.2%,HBeAg转换率为41.1%,HBsAg清除率为12.5%.其中96例接受不同联合方法治疗的患者HBV DNA阴转率、HBeAg转换率、HBsAg清除率分别为65.6%、33.3%和8.3%.72周时不同联合方法治疗组患者整体复发率与标准治疗组相当,HBsAg清除率上升2.7%.结论 IFNa联合ADV抗病毒治疗对提高应答率优势明显.结合患者基线特征、治疗反应,制订不同联合方案,不失为当前CHB抗病毒优化治疗理想策略之一.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the efficacy of interferon α(IFNα)and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV)combination therapy in HBeAg positive chronic hepatitis B(CHB)patients and to explore the optimized strategy for individualized treatment.Methods A total of 156 HBeAg positive CHB patients were enrolled in the study from January 2005 to June 2009 in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University.Fifty-six CHB patients with hepatitis B virus(HBV)DNA≥1 X 107copy/mLand/or liver fibrosis stage≥S3,or previous monotherapy failure(relapse)were treated with initial IFNα and ADV combination therapy.Fifty-two patients who didn't meet any of the above baseline characteristics received initial IFNα monotherapy.The remaining 48 patients treated with IFNα monotherapy for full treatment duration were considered as control.At week 24 of treatment,the treatment regimens were adjusted according to quantitative changes of HBV DNA,HBeAg and HBsAg:16 patients who achieved early response in group of initial IFNα and ADV combination therapy subsequently received IFNα monotherapy,the other patients in group of initial combination therapy together with patients who did not achieved early response in group of initial IFNα monotherapy subsequently received IFNα and ADV combination treatment.The HBV DNA levels,HBeAg and HBsAg titers were detected at the end of 48 weeks of treatment to determine the treatment duration.The treatment efficacy,safety,drug resistance and relapse rates were finally evaluated at week 72.All data were analyzed using chi square test.Results At week 24,the early response rate in group of initial combination therapy was 28.6%,and the HBV DNA negative rate and alanine aminotransferase(ALT)normalization rate were significantly higher than those in groups of initial IFNα monotherapy and control(53.6%vs 32.7%vs 27.1%and 62.5%vs 40.4%vs 37.5%,respectively,P<0.05);in addition,HBeAg loss rate was higher than control group(39.3%vs 18.8%,x2=7.48;P<0.05).At week 48,five of 16 patients who achieved early response developed HBeAg reversion and three cases accompanied with virological breakthrough in group of initial combination therapy after switching to IFNα monotherapy,while the rates of HBV DNA negative,HBeAg seroconversion and HBsAg clearance were 73.2%,41.1%and 12.5%,respectively.The HBV DNA negative rate,HBeAg seroconversion rate and HBsAg clearance rate in 96 patients Who had received different combination treatment regimens were 65.6%,33.3%and 8.3%,respectively.At week 72,the relapse rate in individualized treatment group was comparable to those in control group,while HBsAg clearance rate increased 2.7%in individualized treatment group.Conclusions IFNα and ADV combination treatment could improve early biochemical and virological responses.Individualized treatment strategy based on baseline characteristics and treatment responses may be helpful for optimizing antiviral treatment in CHB patients.     

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     

An approach to intensive antileukemia therapy in patients with previous invasive aspergillosis

PURPOSE: In an attempt to decrease the risk for reactivation of life-threatening invasive aspergillosis (IA) during subsequent myelosuppression in patients with previously diagnosed IA who were receiving antileukemic treatment, we evaluated the role of intensive antifungal therapy with amphotericin B and 5-fluorocytosine administered prophylactically throughout the antileukemic regimen and induced granulocytopenia to prevent IA reactivation without compromising the intensive chemotherapy. PATIENTS and METHODS: During a 30-month period, 10 patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and primary IA developing during initial antileukemia induction therapy and severe granulocytopenia (less than 100/mm3) underwent 14 subsequent courses of intensive marrow aplasia-producing chemotherapy during early complete remission or at leukemia relapse. All patients had evidence of ongoing IA healing by lung computerized tomography (CT) prior to reinstitution of intensive chemotherapy. Nine patients receiving 13 chemotherapy courses also received aggressive prophylactic anti-IA therapy with amphotericin B (1.0 mg/kg/day) and 5-fluorocytosine beginning at least 48 hours prior to antileukemia therapy institution and continued until the time of granulocyte recovery. RESULTS: All nine patients receiving aggressive antifungal therapy survived without clinical evidence of IA reactivation. Transient radiographic evidence of IA reactivation during granulocytopenia was detected by lung CT during two of the 13 chemotherapy courses. In contrast, the patient who did not receive anti-IA prophylaxis had both clinical and radiographic evidence of IA reactivation during severe granulocytopenia and died. Anti-IA prophylaxis was achieved without irreversible nephrotoxicity, prolonged marrow suppression, alteration of antileukemia treatment, or negative impact on clinical outcome relative to acute leukemia. CONCLUSION: This approach of antifungal prophylaxis in adults with acute leukemia and documented primary IA occurring during initial induction chemotherapy has been successful in preventing clinically significant IA reactivation during subsequent granulocytopenic courses, and allows for administration of additional intensive antileukemia therapy.     

Options and limitations of teicoplanin in febrile granulocytopenic patients

Summary During the years 1985–89 three studies on the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in the treatment of febrile granulocytopenic patients suffering from haematological malignancies were assessed. In the first prospective study, teicoplanin at a dose of 400 mg/d was added to the initial empiric therapy of 65 febrile granulocytopenic episodes. When teicoplanin was given because of proven or presumed Gram-positive infection, 67% of cases were treated successfully. Patients with skin and soft-tissue infections achieved a 78% response rate. The second study on 120 patients was designed as a prospective randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of ceftazidime with and without teicoplanin. Response was achieved in 25/51 (49%) cases from the ceftazidime and in 33/52 cases (63%) from the combination groups. Seven of 18 (39%) cases with initial bacteraemia in the monotherapy group compared with 10/20 (50%) cases in the combination group responded to the empiric regimen. A retrospective analysis was carried out on the efficacy of teicoplanin in 125 cases of proven Gram-positive Hickman line-associated bacteraemia. Teicoplanin proved to be effective in eradicating 80% of the Staphylococcus epidermidis. 72% of the Staph. aureus, 90% of the ‘viridans’ streptococci and 67% of the enterococci. Removal of the catheter was required in 13% of cases in order to control the infection, and only one patient died of a catheter-related septicaemia caused by Staph. aureus. The total success rate leaving the catheter in situ was 78%, and 92% if cases with catheter removal were included. Serum levels of teicoplanin were predictable giving a peak and trough concentration on the fourth day of 30.4 ± 5.0 mg/l and 9.8 ± 1.7 mg/l. Hearing loss of 20 dB at 8000 Hz was noted in one case and transient liver or kidney disturbances attributable to the drug were observed in 4% of cases.     

Candida and Aspergillus infections in immunocompromised patients: an overview

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in granulocytopenic patients. With the increasing use of aggressive chemotherapy causing prolonged granulocytopenia in patients with cancer, the risk of disseminated fungal infection has increased. Although Candida and Aspergillus species are known to be the most common fungal pathogens responsible for disseminated infection, diagnosis of such infection may be difficult. The use of empiric amphotericin B for presumed disseminated candida infection may reduce morbidity caused by this fungal pathogen; moreover, amphotericin B remains the agent of choice for established candida infection, although fluconazole shows promise. The addition of flucytosine may enhance the efficacy of amphotericin B against Candida. Aspergillus infection is more difficult to treat. Early recognition of invasive aspergillosis and use of high-dose amphotericin B (1.0-1.5 mg/[kg.d]) alone or in combination with flucytosine may reduce associated mortality. More active, less toxic antifungal agents are needed to improve the efficacy of treatment and prophylaxis of disseminated fungal infection.     

Comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime in combination with amikacin in the empirical treatment of high-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

A total of 208 adult patients with cancer and febrile neutropenia from 5 medical institutions were randomized to receive either cefepime (2 g b.i.d.) or ceftazidime (2 g t.i.d.) in combination with amikacin (15 mg/kg/o.d.). Ninety-seven patients in the ceftazidime (CEZ) group and 98 in the cefepime group (CEF) were evaluable for efficacy. In 68 patients (35%), infection could be documented. The average duration of antibiotic therapy was 11 and 12 d and response rates to the empirical regimen were 36 and 30% for the CEZ and CEF groups, respectively (p > 0.05). The average time of defervescence in responders was 3 d for both groups. Modification of the initial regimen with antivirals and/or azole antifungals raised the number of responders to 44% and 35%, respectively (p > 0.05). Vancomycin was additionally given to 29 patients in the CEZ group and to 27 patients in the CEF group. Twenty-six patients in each group received empirical amphotericin B. Mild, reversible study drug-related side-effects were observed in 12 patients (12%) in the CEZ group and 13 patients (13%) in the CEF group (p > 0.05). Cefepime in combination with amikacin seems to be as effective, safe and tolerable as ceftazidime + amikacin in patients with high-risk neutropenia and fever.     

Empiric therapy with amphotericin B in febrile granulocytopenic patients

The early diagnosis of invasive fungal infection in granulocytopenic patients remains unreliable. Granulocytopenic patients who are persistently or recurrently febrile despite therapy with appropriate antibacterial agents are at high risk for the development of such infection. Two randomized clinical trials demonstrated that the empiric administration of amphotericin B to persistently or recurrently febrile granulocytopenic patients decreased the frequency, morbidity, and mortality of invasive fungal infection; these effects were especially marked in profoundly granulocytopenic patients who were not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Current studies continue to indicate that prompt empiric administration of amphotericin B to persistently or recurrently febrile granulocytopenic patients ensures earlier treatment of deep mycoses. The roles of newer antifungal triazole compounds and of liposomal and lipid complexes of amphotericin B in empiric antifungal therapy must be investigated further in thoughtfully designed, randomized clinical trials.