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 clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile, granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients.

The increasing prevalence of bacteremia caused by gram-positive bacteria in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients prompted us to evaluate, in a prospective randomized trial, the role of teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic, when it was added to amikacin plus ceftazidime, as an empiric therapy of fever in these patients. Of 47 evaluable episodes, 22 were treated with the teicoplanin regimen and 25 were treated with the combination of amikacin and ceftazidime. The overall response to therapy of patients treated with teicoplanin was slightly better (82% improvement) than that obtained with amikacin plus ceftazidime (52%). The response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias was 80% (4 of 5) to the regimen that included teicoplanin; 25% (1 of 4) of the patients treated with amikacin plus ceftazidime responded to treatment; and for patients with gram-negative bacteremias, the response rates were, respectively, 100% (4 of 4) and 70% (7 of 10). The better results obtained with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin treatment were most evident in patients with profound (less than 100/mm3) and persistent neutropenia (83 versus 30% improvement). Furthermore, a good response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias (seven of eight; 87% improvement) was achieved in a small group of bone marrow transplant patients who were all treated with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin. No severe side effects were documented in any patient. Teicoplanin, as a drug administered as a single daily dose, seems to be a safe and useful anti-gram-positive agent when used in combination with amikacin-ceftazidime as an empiric therapy of febrile episodes in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients.     

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 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     

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.     

头孢吡肟或头孢他啶联合阿米卡星治疗白血病化疗后粒细胞缺乏合并感染的疗效比较

目的:比较头孢吡肟或头孢他啶联合阿米卡星在治疗白血病化疗后粒细胞缺乏合并感染中的疗效。方法:回顾分析我科近年收治的白血病患者化疗后粒细胞缺乏合并重症感染者共117例,比较临床经验抗感染治疗方案头孢他啶+阿米卡星与头孢吡肟+阿米卡星的疗效。结果:头孢吡肟+阿米卡星组痊愈率为51.61%,有效率为64.52%;头孢他啶+阿米卡星组痊愈率为49.02%,有效率为62.75%。经统计学分析,两组患者的临床疗效差异无显著性。结论:头孢吡肟+阿米卡星与头孢他啶+阿米卡星在治疗白血病化疗后粒细胞缺乏合并重症感染时疗效相似。     

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     

Single-drug versus combination empirical therapy for gram-negative bacillary infections in febrile cancer patients with and without granulocytopenia.

Empirical therapy with cefoperazone was compared with cefoperazone plus amikacin in granulocytopenic and nongranulocytopenic febrile patients. In nonneutropenic patients the overall response rate to cefoperazone was 88%; 10 of 12 gram-negative bacteremic patients were cured. Cefoperazone plus amikacin resulted in an 88% overall response rate and cured 14 of 15 patients with bacteremia. In neutropenic patients the overall response rate was 77% with cefoperazone alone and 73% with cefoperazone plus amikacin; the cure rates for gram-negative bacteremias were 8 of 11 and 6 of 12 patients, respectively. Our findings support the concept of single-drug empirical therapy with cefoperazone in febrile cancer patients, whether granulocytopenic or not, especially when gram-negative bacteremias are predominantly caused by Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. The issue of Pseudomonas spp. and other more resistant pathogens needs further assessment with a larger number of patients.     

Comparison of the bactericidal activities of ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin alone and in combination with ceftazidime and piperacillin against clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

On the basis of MIC data, ciprofloxacin exhibits superior activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa than the other currently available fluoroquinolones do. Despite the antipseudomonal advantage noted for ciprofloxacin monotherapy, it is unknown whether this advantage is maintained when the fluoroquinolones are used in combination with antipseudomonal beta-lactams such as ceftazidime and piperacillin. Twelve healthy volunteers were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, steady-state, six-way cross-over, comparative trial. All subjects received the following regimens: (i) 400 mg of ofloxacin given intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h (q12h), (ii) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h, (iii) 400 mg of ofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 1 g of ceftazidime given i.v. every 8 h (q8h), (iv) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 1 g of ceftazidime given i.v. q8h, (v) 400 mg of ofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 4 g of piperacillin given i.v. q8h, and (vi) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 4 g of piperacillin given i.v. q8h. Serum bactericidal titers with subsequent calculation of the area under the bactericidal curve were determined against three clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa. As monotherapy, ciprofloxacin demonstrated superior antipseudomonal activity than ofloxacin did; however, combination of these agents with ceftazidime yielded remarkably similar and statistically comparable activity profiles. In contrast, ciprofloxacin-piperacillin retained a bactericidal advantage over ofloxacin-piperacillin. Although ciprofloxacin exhibits superior antipseudomonal activity when used as monotherapy, combination of ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin with ceftazidime yielded equivalent activity profiles against susceptible strains of P. aeruginosa.     

A randomized trial of roxithromycin in patients with acute leukemia and bone marrow transplant recipients receiving fluoroquinolone prophylaxis.

Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in patients with profound neutropenia may be useful for preventing gram-negative bacterial infection, but it is ineffective against gram-positive bacterial infections in the bloodstream, particularly those caused by streptococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci, which appear to have emerged as significant causes of morbidity, decreased treatment efficacy, and the increased costs of empiric antimicrobial therapy. In a prospective, randomized, open trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral roxithromycin (150 mg twice daily) as additional antibacterial prophylaxis in 131 adult patients with acute leukemia and bone marrow transplant recipients receiving oral ofloxacin. In comparison with patients given ofloxacin alone, fewer patients receiving ofloxacin plus roxithromycin developed bacteremia caused by viridans group streptococci (incidence, 9 versus 0%; P = 0.03), while the incidence of bacteremia caused by other organisms, the incidence of febrile episodes from any cause, the risk of infection-associated complications (including prolonged or secondary fever, pneumonia, septic shock, need for mechanical ventilation, and/or infection-related death), and antimicrobial usage for therapy were comparable between both groups. Adverse events possibly related to the study drugs were slightly more common among the patients receiving the combination treatment (P = 0.05). Although effective for the prevention of streptococcal bacteremia, the addition of roxithromycin to a fluoroquinolone should not be used routinely as a prophylactic regimen in patients with profound neutropenia, but it might be considered and may be useful for cancer patients with a particularly high risk of streptococcal infection and related complications.     

Amikacin and Cephalothin: Empiric Regimen for Granulocytopenic Cancer Patients

Amikacin (15 mg/kg per day) was used in combination with cephalothin (7 g/m(2) per day) as an empiric regimen for de novo febrile (>101 degrees F [38.3 degrees C]) episodes in 93 granulocytopenic (<1,000/mm(3)) cancer patients. Both drugs were given intravenously in four equal doses every 6 h. The response rate for all documented infections was 83%, including 11 of 17 (65%) bacteremias. Escherichia coli (14 cases) was the most common pathogen, whereas Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2 cases) caused fewer infections. Mean amikacin serum levels were 8.7 mug/ml at 1 h and 2.2 mug/ml at 5 h. Failure of bone marrow recovery in association with a bacteremia was a bad prognostic sign (only two of eight improving). Ototoxicity occurred in two (2%) patients, whereas presumed antibiotic-induced nephrotoxicity developed in six (7%) patients. Surveillance cultures (nose, gums axilla, and rectum) of all hospitalized patients revealed no significant change in the incidence of amikacin resistance. The combination of amikacin and cephalothin in this dose and schedule was safe and efficacious in these granulocytopenic patients.     

Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program.

The efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin and vancomycin in the initial empirical antibiotic regimen in febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were compared in a prospective, randomized, unblinded, multicenter trial in the setting of 29 hematologic units in tertiary-care or university hospitals. A total of 635 consecutive febrile patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive intravenously amikacin plus ceftazidime plus either teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg of body weight once daily or vancomycin at 1 g twice daily. An efficacy analysis was done for 527 evaluable patients: 275 treated with teicoplanin and 252 treated with vancomycin. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 78% of patients who received teicoplanin and 75% of those who were randomized to vancomycin (difference, 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 4%; P = 0.33). A total of 102 patients presented with primary, single-agent, gram-positive bacteremia. Coagulase-negative staphylococci accounted for 42%, Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 27%, and streptococci accounted for 21% of all gram-positive blood isolates. The overall responses to therapy of gram-positive bacteremias were 92 and 87% for teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 5%; CI, -17 to 6%; P = 0.22). Side effects, mainly represented by skin rash, occurred in 3.2 and 8% of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -4.8%; CI, 0.7 to 8%; P = 0.03); the rate of nephrotoxicity was 1.4 and 0.8% for the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively (difference, 0.6%; CI, -2 to 1%; P = 0.68). Further infections were caused by gram-positive organisms in two patients (0.7%) treated with teicoplanin and one patient (0.4%) who received vancomycin (difference, 0.3%; CI, -0.9 to 1.0%; P = 0.53). Overall mortalities were 8.5 and 11% for teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -2.5%; CI, - 2 to 7%; P = 0.43); death was caused by primary gram-positive infections in three patients (1%) in each treatment group. When used for initial empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile, neutropenic patients, teicoplanin was at least as efficacious as vancomycin, but it was associated with fewer side effects.     

Lack of ability of ciprofloxacin-rifampin prophylaxis to decrease infection-related morbidity in neutropenic patients given cytotoxic therapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplants.

We compared ciprofloxacin alone with ciprofloxacin plus rifampin (C + R) as a prophylactic antibacterial regimen for 40 patients with solid tumors treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation support. No differences were found between groups in the time elapsed to the onset of fever, incidence of febrile episodes, amphotericin B use, and length of hospital stay. However, C + R combination prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of gram-positive bacteremia (five versus zero episodes) but was associated with a higher incidence of drug-related side effects.     

Bactericidal activity of ceftazidime in serum compared with that of ticarcillin combined with amikacin

We compared the bactericidal activity of serum attained 1 and 6 h after the termination of infusions of either ceftazidime (2 g) or ticarcillin plus amikacin (5 g and 7.5 mg/kg, respectively) in 6 volunteers against a panel of the most common pathogens found in the blood of febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients. Ceftazidime consistently produced significantly higher serum bactericidal titers at both 1 and 6 h against all species of gram-negative bacilli. Its performance against Pseudomonas aeruginosa was especially impressive. The geometric mean titer against this organism was 1:41 at 1 h, contrasted with 1:12 for ticarcillin plus amikacin (P = 0.025). However, for Staphylococcus aureus, the geometric mean serum bactericidal titer of ceftazidime was 1:3.6 at 1 h and undetectable at 6 h. Ceftazidime shows promise as single-agent therapy for serious gram-negative bacillary infections. Whether this promise is fulfilled and whether the observed antistaphylococcal activity is adequate for empiric therapy in infected granulocytopenic patients need further investigation.     

Ciprofloxacin versus vancomycin in the therapy of experimental methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis.

We compared the efficacy of ciprofloxacin with that of vancomycin by using the rabbit model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Endocarditis was treated with ciprofloxacin (25 mg/kg [body weight] intravenously every 8 h) or vancomycin (17.5 mg/kg intravenously every 6 h) for 3 days. Vancomycin and ciprofloxacin were equally efficacious in clearing bacteremia. Both reduced vegetation bacterial counts by 5 log10 CFU/g and renal and splenic bacterial counts by more than 3 log10 CFU/g as compared with untreated control rabbits after 26 h of infection (P less than 0.001). Both antimicrobial agents were able to eradicate the infectious process in an equivalent proportion of animals. No methicillin-resistant S. aureus that was recovered from ciprofloxacin-treated rabbits developed resistance to ciprofloxacin during therapy. Peak concentrations of ciprofloxacin in the sera of rabbits with endocarditis were significantly higher than those predicted by single-dose studies in uninfected rabbits. This finding was likely due to changes in the pharmacokinetics of the drug with multiple dosing and in infected versus uninfected rabbits. This study demonstrated that intravenously administered ciprofloxacin is as efficacious as vancomycin is in an in vivo model of a serious systemic methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection.     

Prospective randomized comparison of three antibiotic regimens for empirical therapy of suspected bacteremic infection in febrile granulocytopenic patients.

The standard regimen used by members of the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic cancer patients has been treatment with ticarcillin plus amikacin. A three-arm prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to determine whether the extended-spectrum antipseudomonal penicillin azlocillin or the extended-spectrum cephalosporin cefotaxime had more or less efficacy than the beta-lactam in the ticarcillin-plus-amikacin regimen. A total of 742 patients from 22 institutions were evaluated. Single gram-negative rod bacteremias accounted for 83 episodes, and it was among these patients that the prognosis was least satisfactory, leading to a more intensive evaluation of this patient group. In these patients the azlocillin-plus-amikacin regimen resulted in a 66% response rate, compared with a 37% response rate for patients who received cefotaxime plus amikacin (P = 0.080) and a 47% response rate for patients who received ticarcillin plus amikacin (P = 0.207). The patients with gram-negative rod bacteremias and persistently profound granulocytopenia had substantially poorer response rates (37%) than the patients with rising granulocyte counts (73%; P = 0.004). A logistic regression analysis indicated that the following factors also affected infection resolution: beta-lactam utilization in the regimen (azlocillin was better than ticarcillin or cefotaxime), resolution of profound granulocytopenia (less than 100 cells per microliter) during therapy, and susceptibility to the beta-lactam antibiotic.     

Domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial comparing oral versus parenteral empirical antibiotic treatment

Hospitalization and empirical broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics are the standard treatment for febrile cancer patients. Recent evidence supports the suggestion that febrile episodes in a low-risk population can be managed successfully in an outpatient setting, but the optimal drug regimen is unknown. In a prospective randomized clinical trial we compared ciprofloxacin 750 mg p.o. twice a day with ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. as a single daily dose for the empiric domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic and nonneutropenic cancer patients. A total of 173 patients, accounting for 183 febrile episodes, were enrolled in the study. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 76 of 93 (82%) febrile episodes in patients who were randomized to the oral regimen and for 68 of 90 (75%) febrile episodes in patients randomized to the i.v. regimen: this difference was not statistically significant. The success rate was similar in all subgroups of patients: neutropenic and nonneutropenic, with documented infection and with fever of unknown origin. There were 3 deaths in the group of patients treated with the parenteral regimen, and two of these were related to treatment failure. Both treatments were well tolerated, and the cost of the oral regimen was lower. This prospective study suggests that domiciliary antibiotic empiric monotherapy is feasible in febrile nonneutropenic or low-risk neutropenic outpatients in whom a bacterial infection is suspected, and that either an oral or a parenteral regimen can be used. A number of factors may influence the choice between an orally and an i.v.-administered antibiotic, but owing to the easier administration and lower cost, the oral regimen seems to be preferable. Published online: 5 March 1999     

Prospective study of empiric monotherapy with ceftazidime for low-risk grade IV febrile neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy in cancer patients

PURPOSE: It was the aim of this study to evaluate the results of a prospective study in a single medical center using ceftazidime monotherapy in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced grade IV febrile neutropenia and a low risk for gram-negative bacteremia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients were admitted with low-risk grade IV febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy for solid tumors. The median patient age was 57 years (range 18-74). Sixteen patients (42%) developed febrile neutropenia after the first cycle of current chemotherapy line, 9 patients (24%) received 2-3 cycles and 13 patients (34%) received more than 3 chemotherapy cycles before manifesting febrile neutropenia. Five patients were treated with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor commenced 24 h after completion of the chemotherapy cycle. Empiric monotherapy with intravenous ceftazidime was started on admission and administered 2 g every 8 h. RESULTS: The mean polymorphic nuclear cell count on admission was 231 cells/mm(3). Ceftazidime therapy was well tolerated. Twenty-five (66%) patients responded with clinical improvement and complete resolution of fever within 48 h after initiation of ceftazidime therapy. Thirty-two (84%) patients were afebrile after 72 h of therapy. Thirty-three patients (87%) remained on unmodified ceftazidime therapy throughout their hospitalization. Five patients (13%) subsequently required modification of the treatment regimen for various reasons. Mean duration of fever and neutropenia were 2 (1-10) days and 4 (1-11) days, respectively. None of the patients discontinued therapy because of adverse effects. No positive blood cultures were obtained. No events of septic shock were observed. Mean duration of hospitalization was 6 days (range 3-12). CONCLUSION: In our series, monotherapy with intravenous ceftazidime appears safe and effective in cancer patients with low-risk grade IV febrile neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy and may appreciably reduce antibiotics costs.     

Efficacy of ceftazidime and aztreonam alone or in combination with amikacin in experimental left-sided Pseudomonas aeruginosa endocarditis.

The in vivo efficacies of ceftazidime, aztreonam, and the combinations of ceftazidime with amikacin and aztreonam with amikacin were studied in the rabbit left-sided endocarditis model by using two strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, one multisusceptible and one multiresistant, in a total of 156 animals. Antibiotics were given intramuscularly for 10 days, as follows: amikacin, 7 mg/kg of body weight every 8 h, and ceftazidime and aztreonam, 50 mg/kg every 8 h. All regimens except amikacin alone significantly reduced the number of CFU per gram of vegetation (P < or = 0.008), but only for the multisusceptible strain for which sterile vegetations were obtained in 20, 25, 21, 75, and 53% of the groups treated with amikacin, ceftazidime, aztreonam, and the combination groups ceftazidime-amikacin and aztreonam-amikacin, respectively (ceftazidime plus amikacin versus controls, P = 0.001). Regarding the decrease in the numbers of colonies in vegetations, (i) all regimens significantly reduced the number of CFU per gram of vegetation (P < 0.001), (ii) results with ceftazidime-amikacin compared with those with monotherapy were significantly different (P < or = 0.007), and (iii) results with aztreonam-amikacin, although better than those with monotherapy, were marginally not statistically significant. At 1 h postdose, mean amikacin, aztreonam, and ceftazidime levels in serum were 35 +/- 19.4, 89.6 +/- 8.16, and 92.61 +/- 11.52 micrograms/ml, respectively. It was concluded that the combination of ceftazidime, and possibly aztreonam, with amikacin given at high doses and short intervals could have a place in the therapy of patients with left-sided endocarditis caused by P. aeruginosa.     

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.