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     

Efficacy and tolerability of piperacillin/tazobactam versus ceftazidime in association with amikacin for treating nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients: a prospective randomized multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and bacteriological efficacy as well as tolerability of two regimens of broad-spectrum antibiotics (ceftazidime versus piperacillin/tazobactam) combined with amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients. DESIGN: Open label, prospective, multicenter, and randomized phase III clinical trial. SETTING: Medical or surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of nine acute-care teaching hospitals in Spain. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty-four ICU patients with nosocomial pneumonia and requiring mechanical ventilation were included. They were randomized to receive amikacin (15 mg/day divided into two doses) combined with either piperacillin (4 g every 6 h) and tazobactam (0.5 g every 6 h) (n = 88) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) (n = 36). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The causative pathogen was determined in 60.2% of patients in the group of amikacin plus piperacillin/tazobactam and in 76.9% in the group of amikacin plus ceftazidime. A total of 94 bacterial organisms were isolated among which gram-negative bacilli predominated, Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the most frequent. Clinical response at the end of antibiotic therapy was considered satisfactory (cure and/or improvement) in 63.9% of patients in the amikacin plus piperacillin/tazobactam group and in 61.5% in the amikacin plus ceftazidime (odds ratio 1.1; 95% confidence interval 0.44-2.75). Eradication or presumptive eradication rates for each pathogen and for either gram-negative or gram-positive bacteria were similar in both antibiotic combinations (odds ratio 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.39-3.66). A total of 21 adverse effects (23.9%) occurred in the amikacin plus piperacillin and tazobactam group and six (16.7%) in the amikacin plus ceftazidime group, thrombocytosis, renal dysfunction, and hepatic cytolysis being the most common. The efficacy and tolerability of the two therapeutic regimens were similar not only in the whole study population, but also in the subset of P. aeruginosa-related pneumonia (odds ratio 1; 95% confidence interval 0.08-13.37). CONCLUSIONS: Amikacin associated with either ceftazidime or piperacillin and tazobactam has shown comparable efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of ICU patients with nosocomial pneumonia.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Antimicrobial susceptibility of blood culture isolates of viridans streptococci: relationship to a change in empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenia

This study investigated the antibiotic susceptibilities of 67 isolates of viridans streptococci from 61 cases of bacteraemia in immunocompromised paediatric patients with malignancy. The majority of patients (87%) had received prior courses of empirical antibiotic therapy, which consisted of ceftazidime plus amikacin during period 1 and piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin during period 2. Susceptibility to vancomycin and quinupristin/dalfopristin was 100%. Susceptibility to beta-lactam antibiotics varied. For period 1, the geometric mean MICs of all beta-lactams tested against blood culture isolates (n = 31) exceeded those against isolates (n = 36) collected from blood after the change in empirical therapy (by 3.3-fold for ceftazidime, 2.8-fold for piperacillin/tazobactam and 1.6-fold for penicillin). The selection of a beta-lactam antibiotic for empirical therapy must be made with care, as repeated courses of certain agents may be more likely to select for viridans streptococci with diminished susceptibility.     

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.     

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.     

Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime, alone or in combination with piperacillin or tobramycin, in the sera of cancer patients.

We administered 2 g of ceftazidime intravenously every 8 h to cancer patients for the empiric therapy of febrile episodes. Ceftazidime was administered as monotherapy for patients with granulocyte counts in excess of 1,000/microliter. Febrile, neutropenic patients were randomized to also receive either piperacillin or tobramycin. The pharmacokinetic profile of ceftazidime during a steady-state dosing interval was ascertained in 21 patients. No differences were seen between groups for any of the pharmacokinetic parameters examined. As expected, the observed half-life was longer, the serum clearance was smaller, and the volumes of distribution were larger than in previously reported studies of volunteers. Serum concentrations remained above the MIC for inhibition of 90% of strains of the most common bacteremic pathogens seen in our cancer center for the entire 8-h dosing interval.     

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.     

Prospective randomized evaluation of ciprofloxacin versus piperacillin plus amikacin for empiric antibiotic therapy of febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients with lymphomas and solid tumors. The European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group.

Empiric therapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients is mandatory, but whether monotherapy is a safe alternative and whether fluoroquinolones are useful agents for this indication are still controversial issues. The use of monotherapy with intravenous ciprofloxacin (200 to 300 mg every 12 h) was evaluated against combined therapy with piperacillin plus amikacin in febrile granulocytopenic patients with solid tumor or lymphoma. The study was discontinued prematurely because patients treated with ciprofloxacin had a significantly lower overall success rate than patients treated with piperacillin plus amikacin (31 of 48 patients [65%] versus 48 of 53 patients [91%], P = 0.002). Patients with gram-positive coccal bacteremia had a particularly poor outcome: therapy failed for six of eight patients (75%) treated with ciprofloxacin, while therapy failed for none of four patients treated with piperacillin plus amikacin. Death from primary infection during initially randomized protocol therapy occurred in 7 of 48 patients (14.5%) treated with ciprofloxacin and in 3 of 53 (6%) treated with piperacillin plus amikacin. This study does not support the use of this dose of intravenous ciprofloxacin as empiric monotherapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin for the treatment of patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infection. Piperacillin/tazobactam Nosocomial Pneumonia Study Group

An open-label, randomized, comparative, multi-centre study was conducted at 25 centres in the USA and Canada to compare the safety and efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin with ceftazidime plus tobramycin in patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Piperacillin/tazobactam (3 g/375 mg) every 4 h or ceftazidime (2 g) every 8 h were administered i.v. for a minimum of 5 days. Tobramycin (5 mg/kg/day) given in divided doses every 8 h was administered to all patients. Patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from respiratory secretions at baseline were to continue tobramycin for the duration of the study. Tobramycin could be discontinued in other patients after the baseline culture results were known. A total of 300 patients was randomized, 155 into the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 145 into the ceftazidime group. Of these, 136 patients (78 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 58 in the ceftazidime group) were considered clinically evaluable. Both groups were comparable for age, sex, duration of treatment and other demographic features. The clinical success rate in evaluable patients was significantly greater (P = 0.006) in the piperacillin/tazobactam treatment group (58/78; 74%) than in the ceftazidime group (29/58; 50%). Eradication of the baseline pathogen was significantly greater (P = 0.003) in the piperacillin/tazobactam group (66%) than in the ceftazidime group (38%). The clinical and bacteriological responses of those patients with nosocomial pneumonia were similar to the overall results. Twelve (7.7%) piperacillin/tazobactam-treated patients and 24 (17%) ceftazidime-treated patients died during the study (P = 0.03). Seven of the 24 deaths in the ceftazidime treatment group but only one of the 12 deaths in the piperacillin/tazobactam treatment group were directly related to failure to control infection. The majority of adverse events were thought by the investigator to be attributable to the patients' underlying disease and not drug related. In this study, piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin was shown to be more effective and as safe as ceftazidime plus tobramycin in the treatment of patients with nosocomial LRTI.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of community-acquired and nosocomial respiratory tract infections: A review

Investigators assessed the efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam therapy in a study of patients with community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and a study of patients with nosocomial, severe lower respiratory tract infections. Piperacillin 4 g/tazobactam 500 mg was given intravenously every 8 h to 193 hospitalized lower respiratory tract infection patients for a minimum of 5 days. There was a favorable response rate of 97% and eradication of the causative pathogen was documented or presumed in 93% of patients. There was a low incidence of adverse experiences and the combination was well tolerated. Seventy-one intensive care patients with severe lung disease received 4 g piperacillin/500 mg tazobactam intravenously every 6 h; afterward they were given amikacin 7.5 mg/kg every 12 h. Minimum duration of treatment was 5 days. Therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin was well-tolerated, produced a 74% favorable clinical response rate, and eradicated the responsible pathogen in 70% of patients.     

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.     

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.     

Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: Early, empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is the established practice for febrile neutropenia. Several beta-lactams are accepted for monotherapy. We asked whether patients' outcomes are influenced by the chosen beta-lactam. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams administered as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenia, with or without vancomycin. The search included The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs databases, bibliography, conference proceedings, trial registries and FDA new drug approvals. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment and extracted the data. Trials assessing the same beta-lactam were pooled using the fixed effect model. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The primary outcome assessed was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-three trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. Cefepime was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 30 days than other beta-lactams (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.94, 3123 participants). Carbapenems were associated with fewer treatment modifications, including addition of glycopeptides, than ceftazidime or other comparators. Adverse events were significantly more frequent with carbapenems, specifically pseudomembranous colitis (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.24-3.04, 2025 participants). All-cause mortality was unaltered. Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared only with cefepime and carbapenems, in six trials. No significant differences were demonstrated with paucity of data for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cefepime for febrile neutropenia is associated with increased mortality and should be carefully considered pending further analysis. Empirical use of carbapenems entails fewer treatment modifications, but an increased rate of pseudomembranous colitis. Ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem appear to be suitable agents for monotherapy.