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     

Comparison of cefepime versus ceftriaxone-amikacin as empirical regimens for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in acute leukemia patients

BACKGROUND: High-intensity regimes of chemotherapy have led to longer and more severe episodes of neutropenia with a resulting increase in morbidity and mortality due to infections. Which empiric antibiotic regimen to use in these cases is still under debate. METHODS: We performed a randomized comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of cefepime versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin as the initial treatment in an escalating, empirical, antibiotic therapy regimen in febrile neutropenic patients. Both adults and children were included. All patients had less than 500 neutrophils/microl at the time of infection. Patients were randomized to receive either cefepime or ceftriaxone plus amikacin. If infection continued 72 h later, patients in both groups received vancomycin, and if infection had not disappeared 7 days after starting antibiotics, amphotericin B was started. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included in each group. Both treatment and control groups were comparable for age and sex, among other factors. There were 18 cures in the cefepime group and 17 in the ceftriaxone plus amikacin group (p = 0.9). No patient discontinued therapy because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime is a safe and very effective therapy for patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia; in addition, it is a cheaper regimen in our country, and lacks the potential toxicity of the aminoglycosides.     

Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric therapy during the management of fever in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized study of cefepime 2 g every eight hours and ceftazidime 2 g every eight hours was performed in 276 adult neutropenic (absolute neutrophil count < 500/mm3) cancer patients with fever. RESULTS: Median duration of neutropenia was five days. Sixty-one percent (n = 188) of the patients were evaluable. Treatment was successful in 57% (58/101) of cefepime-treated patients and 60% (52/87) of ceftazidime-treated patients (95% CI -18 to 12; p = 0.77). Bacteremic clearance occurred in 71% (12/17) of cefepime-treated patients and 40% (6/15) of ceftazidime-treated patients (p = 0.3). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime appears to be as effective as ceftazidime in the initial treatment of febrile episodes in adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-associated neutropenia of modest duration.     

A comparative study of cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.

An open-label, randomized comparative study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime (2.0 g q. 8 h) and ceftazidime (2.0 g q. 8 h) in the empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients. A total of 45 eligible febrile episodes were randomized (1:1) to be treated with the study regimen. Nineteen febrile episodes treated with cefepime and 22 febrile episodes treated with ceftazidime were evaluable for efficacy. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, height, weight, underlying neoplasm, number of pretherapy neutrophil, duration of neutropenia and types of infections. The overall therapeutic success rate of the cefepime group (53%) was comparable to the ceftazidime group (50%). It did not differ significantly (95% confidence interval: -0.28 to 0. 34, p = 0.85). Eighty-eight percent of pathogens in each group were bacteriologically eradicated. The safety profile was similar in both groups. No patients in either group discontinued the therapy because of adverse events. None (0%) of the cefepime patients and 2 (9%) of the ceftazidime patients died of infection. The results of this study suggest that cefepime is an effective and safe agent in the empiric therapy of febrile episodes in 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.     

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.     

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 monotherapy for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer

We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefepime monotherapy (1 g intravenously every 8 h) for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer in a multi-institutional phase II study. Patients treated with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy for lung cancer were eligible for this study. Other eligibility criteria included fever (temperature of ≥38.0 °C) and an absolute neutrophil count of <500/mm³ or <1000/mm³ with an expected decline to <500/mm³ within the next 48 h. Risk assessment was performed using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer risk-index score. Cefepime 1 g was given intravenously every 8 h. The primary endpoint was the response rate at the end of cefepime therapy. Co-administration of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor was permitted. Of 54 patients enrolled, 39 were classified in the low-risk group and 15 in the high-risk group. Overall response rate was 78% (95% CI: 64.4–88.0%). The response rates were 85% (95% CI: 69.5–94.1%) in the low-risk group and 60% (95% CI: 32.3–83.7%) in the high-risk group, respectively. One patient died from septic shock due to Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia. There was no significant adverse event. Cefepime 1 g intravenously every 8 h appears to be effective for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer, especially in those with low-risk febrile neutropenia, and is well tolerated.Clinical trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000006157.     

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.     

Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein: a possible diagnostic marker for Gram-negative bacteremia in neutropenic cancer patients

Objective Cancer patients with febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy have a variable risk of bacterial infection. Especially Gram-negative bacteremia is associated with high mortality and/or morbidity. Early diagnosis of patients with Gram-negative bacteremia at the onset of febrile neutropenia is potentially useful in tailoring therapy.Design and setting Prospective study at the Department of Pediatric Oncology and Internal Medicine of a university hospital.Patients Were analyzed 66 febrile neutropenic episodes in 57 adults and children. Patients were divided into four groups: those with Gram-negative bacteremia, Gram-positive bacteremia, clinical sepsis, or fever of unknown origin.Measurements and results Plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations were determined. LBP at the onset of febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia than those with fever of unknown origin and those with Gram-positive bacteremia. Using a cutoff value for LBP proved to have much greater sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for Gram-negative bacteremia than the best cutoff value for CRP.Conclusions An initial high LBP level might predict Gram-negative bacteremia in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. These results may have potential clinical impact by allowing therapy to be initiated for these patients at a very early stage.This study was supported by a grant from the University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands     

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.     

Bacteremia in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND: An appropriate regimen in the empirical therapy of neutropenic fever episodes must be individualized at each institution. Hospitals have different patterns of microbial isolates and antibiotic resistance that must be taken into account. The aim of this study was to investigate isolates of bacteremia and their antibiotic susceptibility in patients with hematological malignancies. METHODS: All positive blood cultures at a medical center in Taiwan between 1999 and 2002 from patients with hematological malignancies were evaluated. Eleven kinds of antibiotics were tested for antimicrobial activities. The risk factors for mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-one episodes of bacteremia in 266 patients with hematological malignancies were recorded. Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) were still predominant and accounted for 78.2% of isolates, followed by gram-positive cocci for 20.8% of isolates, and anaerobes for 1% of isolates. Escherichia coli was the most common isolated organism accounting for 27.5% of GNB isolates. Other isolates included Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11%), and Enterobacter cloacae (10.1%). The most isolated microorganisms were susceptible to cefoperazone/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or imipenem. Age, GNB microorganism and inadequate empirical antibiotics were risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that cefoperazone/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime or imipenem is an ideal empirical therapy.     

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.     

Piperacillin-tazobactam and netilmicin as a safe and efficacious empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic children

Goals of work We evaluated piperacillin-tazobactam in association with netilmicin (TN) in the early empirical treatment of neutropenic children, as data are limited in number.Patients and method In 1996, an observational study was initiated to assess the efficacy and safety of this association, with a glycopeptide (TNG) if needed. The impact on the bacterial ecology of our unit was also observed. Children were treated for hematological malignancy or solid tumor between September 1996 and December 1998 and presented a febrile neutropenia.Results There were 148 evaluable febrile neutropenic episodes in 104 patients. Median age was 7 years, 55% of the episodes were fever of unknown origin, 22% were clinically documented and 23% microbiologically documented (27 bacteriemia). A glycopeptide was added in 67 episodes. The initial unmodified treatment was successful in 114 episodes (77%): 75/81 episodes in the TN group and 39/67 in the TNG group. For successful episodes, median treatment duration was 6 days. There were 22 febrile recurrences. These patients, as well as initial failures, always responded to a second-line treatment. One child was considered a failure because he developed a skin rash probably due to piperacillin-tazobactam and required another -lactamase.Conclusion This study suggests that piperacillin-tazobactam in association with netilmicin presents a satisfactory efficacy and a good tolerance as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic children. It allowed us to maintain the bacterial ecology of our unit.     

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.     

Incidence,clinical features,risk factors and outcome of bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-sensitiveEnterococcus species analyzed over a 7-year period in a single cancer institution

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the incidence, risk factors, and outcome in patients seen over a 7-year period at the National Cancer Institute in the Slovak Republic, with vancomycin-sensitive or vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia. The total incidence of enterococcal bacteremia at the National Cancer Institute increased from 5.1% in 1991 to 11.1% in 1993 and then decreased to 4.3% in 1995. Analysis of the 77 episodes of enterococcal bacteremia from 66 patients showed that 69 episodes from 60 patients were due to vancomycin-sensitiveEnterococcus faecalis (group 1) and 8 episodes from 8 patients were due to vancomycin-resistantEnterococcus faecium (group 2). The features most frequently associated with enterococcal bacteremia were the insertion of a central venous catheter, neutropenia lasting more than 10 days, previous therapy with cephalosporins or vancomycin, previous prophylaxis with quinolones, and the incidence of superinfections. There was no difference in the clinical course or outcome between the 2 study groups. Previous therapy with aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, vancomycin or imipenem, neutropenia less than 10 days in length, malignancies other than leukemia or solid tumors, and the incidence of breakthrough bacteremia significantly correlated with patients with vancomycin-resistantE. faecium rather than patients with vancomycin-sensitiveE. faecalis. The overall mortality was similar in both groups and averaged 32.5% for all enterococcal bacteremic patients. In this study, the major risk factors associated with cancer patients for developing vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia were previous therapy with aminoglycosides, cephalosporins or vancomycin, superinfections with other organisms and the incidence of breakthrough bacteremia.     

Adequacy of High-Dose Cefepime Regimen in Febrile Neutropenic Patients with Hematological Malignancies

While guidelines recommend empirical cefepime therapy in febrile neutropenia, the mortality benefit of cefepime has been controversial. In light of this, recent reports on pharmacokinetic changes for several antibiotics in febrile neutropenia and the consequent suboptimal exposure call for a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of current dosing. This study aimed to assess pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment from a 2-g intravenous (i.v.) every 8 h (q8h) cefepime regimen in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. Cefepime plasma concentrations were measured in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th dosing intervals at 60% of the interval and/or trough point. The selected pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets were the proportion of the dosing interval (60% and 100%) for which the free drug concentration remains above the MIC (fT_>MIC). Target attainment was assessed in reference to the MIC of isolated organisms if available or empirical breakpoints if not. The percentage of fT_>MIC was also estimated by log-linear regression analysis. All patients achieved >60% fT_>MIC in the 3rd and 6th dosing intervals. A 100% fT_>MIC was not attained in 6/12, 4/10, and 4/9 patients in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th dose intervals, respectively, or in 14/31 (45%) of the dosing intervals investigated. On the other hand, 29/31 (94%) of trough concentrations were at or above 4 mg/liter. In conclusion, for patients with normal renal function, a high-dose 2-g i.v. q8h cefepime regimen appears to provide appropriate exposure if the MIC of the organism is ≤4 mg/liter but may fail to cover less susceptible organisms.     

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.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of cefepime in febrile neutropenic patients with lung cancer

Fever often occurs along with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This condition is referred to as febrile neutropenia (FN). Excellent guidelines for FN treatment have recently been published; however, there has so far been insufficient research concerning FN associated with solid tumors, especially in Japan. A multi-institution prospective study of cefepime for the treatment of FN in lung cancer patients was conducted. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of cefepime for FN in lung cancer patients. Cefepime (2 g × 2/day) was administered to patients with FN after treatment for lung cancer. The therapeutic response rate, the effect of the drug on pathogen populations, and the incidence of adverse effects were statistically analyzed. Twenty-one patients with FN were registered for this study. One case was excluded because of protocol violation; therefore, a total of 20 cases were analyzed. Three days after the administration of cefepime, improvement was evident in 15 cases. The response rate was 75%, 95% CI: 53.1–88.8. After 7 days, 17 patients experienced improvement in their condition (85%, 95% CI: 64.0–94.8). Carbapenem was eventually substituted for cefepime in three cases, and all cases finally displayed improvement. There was no mortality. Pathogens for FN were detected in three cases and they disappeared in one case. Four patients experienced adverse side effects, including skin eruption, serum bilirubin elevation, neutrophil depletion, and anterior chest pain. There were no severe adverse events. In this study, cefepime demonstrated a high degree of clinical efficacy and safety in the treatment of FN. Empiric monotherapy using cefepime is a recommended regimen for FN in patients with lung cancer in Japan.