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     

Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients

Between July 1993 and September 1996, 107 consecutive febrile episodes in 83 neutropenic cancer patients with a median age of 41 years were randomized to treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 8 h i.v. or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h plus amikacin 15 mg/kg i.v. per day. In the case of fever >38° C 48 h after initiation of the antibiotic therapy, vancomycin 500 mg every 6 h i.v. was added. The study population was at serious risk of a poor outcome, since 67% of the patients had leukemia or lymphoma, 19% of the febrile events occurred after autologous bone marrow or blood stem cell transplantation, the median total duration of neutropenia was 16 days, and the median neutrophil count at study inclusion was 0.09 × 10⁹/l. The two patient groups were comparable in terms of risk factors. Bacteremia was found in 37%, other microscopically documented infections in 16%, and clinically documented infections in 26% of the febrile episodes. Most (96) febrile episodes were evaluable for response. No significant difference was found between piperacillin/ tazobactam and ceftazidime plus amikacin in terms of success rate (81% versus 83%), empirical addition of vancomycin (42% versus 38%), median time to fever defervescence (3.3 versus 2.9 days) or median duration of antibiotic therapy (7.2 versus 7.4 days). No patient died from the infection. Both antibiotic regimens were well tolerated, the study treatment being stopped only in 1 patient because of toxicity (cutaneous allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam). On the basis of the 107 febrile events encountered, we conclude that piperacillin/tazobactam is a safe and effective monotherapy. To define the definitive value of piperacillin/ tazobactam as a monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients a large randomized trial is warranted.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam 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     

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.     

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.     

Gentamicin and low dose piperacillin in febrile neutropenic patients

One hundred and twenty-seven febrile neutropenic patients were randomized to receive empirical antibiotic therapy with intravenous gentamicin and 12 g/day or 8 g/day piperacillin. Despite a high incidence of Hickman catheter infections by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, there was an overall response in 56% of patients and no difference in the numbers responding to each antibiotic regimen. In addition, the duration of fever was not significantly different in the two groups of patients. The majority of the unresponsive patients responded to the addition of further antibiotics and there were only two infection related deaths. The results suggest that high dose antibiotics are not essential for the initial empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.     

Ceftriaxone and amikacin versus ceftazidime and amikacin in febrile granulocytopenia.

The efficacy and safety of the two antibiotic combinations, ceftazidime plus amikacin and ceftriaxone plus amikacin were compared in an open randomized trial. 100 episodes of neutropenia caused by malignant diseases and/or cytostatic drugs were evaluated in 66 males and 34 females with a mean age of 49.4 years. The types of infections treated were: septicemia 38, fever of undetermined origin 26, pneumonia 13, ear, nose and throat infections 11 and others 12. 17 episodes were not evaluable (6 protocol violations, 6 doubtful infections and 5 non-bacterial infections). The overall results were comparable, with a 74% success rate for ceftazidime and a 70% rate for ceftriaxone (criteria of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer). In the patients with septicemia, the success rate was 64% in the ceftriaxone and 57% in the ceftazidime group. Eight patients died during the treatment, in 5 cases due to infectious complications. There were no differences between the two groups in respect of efficacy or toxicity.     

Febrile neutropenia: a prospective study to validate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score

Objective The objective of this study was to prospectively validate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score in an attempt to accurately predict on presentation with febrile neutropenia those cancer patients who are at low- or high-risk for development of serious medical complications during the episode.Patients and methods Patients who presented with febrile neutropenia during November 2000 and July 2002 were prospectively enrolled in the protocol. All patients were hospitalized until recovery or outcome of the event and were treated with broad-spectrum, empiric, intravenous antibiotic therapy. The MASCC risk-index score (based on seven independent factors present at onset of febrile neutropenia) was calculated in 64 patients with 80 febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients with a score of 21 were regarded as low risk; patients with a score of <21 were regarded as high risk.Results Of the 80 febrile neutropenic episodes, 58 were classified as low-risk and 22 as high-risk patients. Fifty-seven (98.3%) of the 58 low-risk patients recovered without complications, and three (13.6%) of the 22 high-risk patients did not develop medical complications. One low-risk patient developed a fungal infection but recovered completely in comparison to 11 high-risk patients (50%) who developed serious medical complications (p<0.001). None of the low-risk patients died. However, eight (36.4%) of the 22 high-risk patients died during the febrile neutropenic episode (p<0.001), six as a consequence of sepsis and two due to rapidly uncontrolled cancer.Conclusion We correctly predicted 98.3% of low-risk patients and 86.3% of high-risk patients. This study had a positive predictive value of 98.3% and a negative predictive value of 86.4% with both a sensitivity and specificity of 95%. The MASCC risk-index score correctly identifies low- and high-risk patients at presentation with febrile neutropenia.     

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。     

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.     

Ceftazidime in combination with glycopeptide antibiotic is an effective first-line therapy for patients undergoing high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support

 It was the objective of this study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of an empirical antibiotic therapy consisting in ceftazidime and a glycopeptide antibiotic. All patients enrolled in the study had hematological malignancies and underwent high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. In this retrospective study, 183 of 207 patients who had received a PBSC-supported high-dose therapy were evaluable. Any patients who had fever higher than 38.5  °C received ceftazidime in combination with vancomycin (105 patients) or teicoplanin (69 patients). In 80 of 174 patients with fever (45%) the fever resolved within 72 h as a result of the treatment with ceftazidime and the glycopeptide antibiotic. In nonresponding patients, the changes included the replacement of ceftazidime by imipenem/cilastin (94 patients) and the addition of erythromycin (12 patients) or metronidazole (3 patients). Amphotericin B was administered in 29 patients. Following hematological reconstitution, the fever and clinical signs, including radiographic findings, resolved in 20 primarily nonresponding patients. In blood cultures, a significantly higher incidence of gram-positive than of gram-negative bacteria was observed (26 vs 7). The toxicity of the first-line antibiotic therapy was limited to allergic skin reactions in 12 patients. Ceftazidime in combination with a glycopeptide antibiotic provides an effective and safe first-line therapy for patients with neutropenic fever following PBSC-supported high-dose therapy.     

Outpatient management of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients

Febrile neutropenic patients have traditionally received hospital-based parenteral antibiotic therapy because of the risk of serious complications and associated mortality. Recently a low-risk subset among febrile neutropenic patients has been identified. Several alternatives to hospital-based therapy have been evaluated in such patients. These include early discharge to home antibiotic therapy after initial stabilization in the hospital, or treatment of the entire febrile episode with intravenous and/or oral antibiotics in an ambulatory setting. A multidisciplinary approach involving the physician and other health-care providers, the patients, and their families, ensures the success of this therapeutic modality. Careful patient selection, daily follow-up, close monitoring for the development of complications and/or adverse reactions, and informed consent along with detailed instructions to patients, minimize the risk of the development of serious complications. Outpatient antibiotic therapy for febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients should now be considered an acceptable alternative to hospital-based therapy.Presented as an invited lecture at the 6th International Symposium: Supportive Care in Cancer, New Orleans, La., USA, 2–5 March 1994     

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.     

Outbreak of ceftazidime resistance due to a novel extended-spectrum beta-lactamase in isolates from cancer patients.

Ceftazidime is widely used in the therapy of infectious complications in neutropenic patients. We studied an outbreak of ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacillary infections in pediatric cancer patients receiving empirical ceftazidime therapy for neutropenic fever. Fourteen isolates (12 Klebsiella pneumoniae and 2 Escherichia coli) from 13 patients were studied. Specimens were obtained from multiple clinical sites including blood, urine, throat, and lung. The organisms were resistant to ceftazidime, aztreonam, and penicillins but remained susceptible to cephamycins and imipenem. All resistant isolates produced a novel beta-lactamase (TEM-26) with a pI of approximately 5.58, which was transferred by transformation to E. coli on a 7.9-kb nonconjugative plasmid which cotransferred resistance to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. This enzyme readily hydrolyzed ceftazidime, aztreonam, and penicillins in a spectrophotometric assay. DNA sequencing data suggest that TEM-26 is derived from TEM-1.     

Effect of ceftazidime and gentamicin on the oropharyngeal and faecal flora of patients with haematological malignancies

Thirty-four patients with haematological malignancies were studied to investigate the effect of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy (ceftazidime and gentamicin) on the gastro-intestinal flora. Twenty-five patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or post-autologous bone-marrow transplantation were given framycetin, nystatin and colistin (Fracon), and two patients with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were on co-trimoxazole, as long-term gut prophylaxis. Semi-quantitative microbiology was carried out on oropharyngeal swabs and quantitative microbiology on faecal specimens. The oropharyngeal flora consisted mainly of streptococci, coagulase-negative staphylococci and coryneforms, and was little affected by ceftazidime/gentamicin. A strain of Enterobacter cloacae resistant to ceftazidime and gentamicin colonized one patient, who later developed septicaemia. The faecal flora of patients on Fracon was dominated by enterococci; the few enterobacteria present were eliminated by ceftazidime/gentamicin. The anaerobic flora was absent in 15% of patients; in the remainder, it consisted mainly of Bacteroides spp., and was little affected by ceftazidime/gentamicin. The faecal flora of patients not on Fracon always contained anaerobes, and some strains of enterobacteria persisted throughout antibiotic treatment. None of the patients was colonized by Clostridium difficile or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Broad-spectrum therapy with ceftazidime and gentamicin appeared to have little effect on the gastro-intestinal flora, except to encourage the overgrowth of enterococci and reduce the numbers of enterobacteria.     

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.     

Ceftazidime and amikacin alone and in combination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae

The efficacy of ceftazidime alone and combined with amikacin was studied in a rabbit model simulating closed-space infections at locally neutropenic sites. Six strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and six Enterobacteriaceae (two strains each of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Serratia marcescens and one strain each of Escherichia coli and Citrobacter freundii) in pooled rabbit serum were each inoculated into separate subcutaneous semipermeable chambers. Intramuscular antibiotic therapy was begun 4 hr later with ceftazidime (50 mg/kg) alone and combined with amikacin (15 mg/kg) for Enterobacteriaceae or ceftazidime (100 mg/kg) alone and combined with amikacin (15 mg/kg) for pseudomonads every 6 hr for 16 doses. Amikacin alone was ineffective for all 12 strains. Ceftazidime alone was successful (greater than or equal to 5.5 log10 colony forming units (CFU)/ml decrease from drug-free control) in eliminating five of six Enterobacteriaceae but was not successful against any of the pseudomonads. Ceftazidime plus amikacin was successful against the same five of six Enterobacteriaceae and five of six pseudomonads. The best in vitro tests for the prediction of in vivo outcome were high inoculum (greater than or equal to 7 log10 CFU/ml) susceptibility, checkerboard synergism testing, and conventional inoculum time-kill rates at concentrations of antimicrobials simulating extravascular levels obtained in vivo.     

Pseudomonas peritonitis in neutropenic rats treated with amikacin, ceftazidime and ticarcillin, alone and in combination

Peritonitis in neutropenic rats, caused by a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to amikacin and ticarcillin alone but susceptible to ceftazidime and combinations of amikacin with ticarcillin, amikacin with ceftazidime and ticarcillin with ceftazidime, was investigated. Four hours after a bacterial challenge with a LD70 intraperitoneal dose of P. aeruginosa (1.5 X 10(8) cfu/ml), either amikacin, ticarcillin, ceftazidime, amikacin-ticarcillin, amikacin-ceftazidime, or ticarcillin-ceftazidime was administered at dosing intervals that mimicked the serum concentrations of the drugs found in humans after therapeutic doses. When the serum concentrations did not exceed the MIC, as occurred with amikacin, no difference in survival was observed compared with controls. All other regimens resulted in animal survival during the treatment. When therapy was stopped only those regimens resulting in serum concentrations above the MBC were effective (amikacin-ticarcillin, amikacin-ceftazidime, ticarcillin-ceftazidime). The recovery of viable bacteria from the peritoneum agreed well with mortality.     

Ceftazidime plus mezlocillin as initial antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancy

Sixty episodes of fever in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancy were treated with ceftazidime and mezlocillin. Improvement or temporary improvement was seen in 76% of patients with microbiologically or clinically documented infection. Fifty-seven per cent of episodes due to bacteraemia improved with the antibiotics. Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus were the commonest pathogens isolated; bacteraemia due to Staph. epidermis was not encountered. The toxicity of ceftazidime plus mezlocillin was acceptable. Diarrhoea developed in 12% and a skin rash in 10%.