Empirical monotherapy with meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients

Summary In a nonblind, randomised, parallel-group study, initial empirical monotherapy with meropenem 1 g intravenously every 8 h was compared to an identical dosage of imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of 66 febrile episodes in 61 adult neutropenic patients. 25/31 episodes treated with meropenem and 24/30 imipenem/cilastatin-treated episodes were still receiving unmodified therapy at 72 h (primary endpoint); this difference was not statistically significant. By the end of the treatment courses, 18/31 meropenem-treated episodes had responded clinically (cured or improved) compared with 18/30 episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Another ten episodes initially treated with meropenem and six episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatin were cured after an additional antimicrobial agent had been administered (cured with modification). Satisfactory bacteriological responses (eradication plus presumed eradication) at the end of unmodified therapy was 9/11 in the meropenem group and 14/16 in the comparator group. Both regimes were well tolerated; however, there were more reports of nausea and/or vomiting in the imipenem/cilastatin group (7/33 vs. 2/33 in the meropenem group). The carbapenems meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin appear to be suitable agents for empirical monotherapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Meropenem may be better tolerated than imipenem/cilastatin, allowing optimal dosing in this patient population.

---

Empirische Monotherapie mit Meropenem oder Imipenem/Cilastatin für Fieber bei neutropenischen Patienten

Zusammenfassung In einer offenen, randomisierten Vergleichsstudie wurde die initiale empirische Monotherapie mit Meropenem in einer Dosierung von 3 × 1g täglich verglichen mit Imipenem/Cilastatin in der gleichen Dosierung bei 66 Fieberepisoden von 61 erwachsenen neutropenischen Patienten. 72 Stunden nach Therapiebeginn erhielten noch 25/31 Patienten aus der Meropenem-Gruppe und 24/30 Patienten aus der Behandlungsgruppe mit Imipenem/Cilastatin die usprünglich zugewiesene Initialtherapie (Hauptzielkriterium). Bei Therapieende waren in der Meropenem-Gruppe 18/31 Episoden geheilt oder gebessert gegenüber 18/30 in der Gruppe mit Imipenem/Cilastatin. Weitere 10 Infektionsepisoden, die initial mit Meropenem behandelt wurden, und sechs Infektionsepisoden aus der Vergleichsgruppe konnten erfolgreich behandelt werden, nachdem eine zusätzliche antimikrobielle Substanz verabreicht worden war (Heilung nach Therapiemodifikation). Das zufriedenstellende bakteriologische Ansprechen (Keimelimination sowie vermutete Keimelimination) mit der Initialtherapie Meropenem betrug 9/11 und 14/16 mit Imipenem/Cilastatin. Beide Antibiotika wurden gut vertragen; es wurden jedoch unter Imipenem/Cilastatin mehr Fälle von Übelkeit und/oder Erbrechen registriert (7/33 vs 2/33 unter Meropenem). Die Carbapenem-Antibiotika Meropenem und Imipenem/Cilastatin scheinen geeignet für die empirische Monotherapie bei Fieberepisoden neutropenischer Patienten zu sein. Meropenem erlaubt durch seine offensichtlich bessere Verträglichkeit im Vergleich zu Impienem/Cilastatin auch eine optimale Dosierung bei diesem Patientengut.

     

Meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients

 A total of 101 cancer patients with 121 febrile neutropenia episodes were randomised to receive empirical treatment with i.v. meropenem (1 g/8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g/8 h). After 3 days, 89% of patients were on unmodified therapy in the meropenem group, compared with 83% in the ceftazidime group. Of the evaluable episodes (n=106), the success rate with unmodified empirical therapy until the end of the treatment course was slightly higher with meropenem than with ceftazidime (48% vs 38%, P=0.39). Furthermore, initial success with further infections was observed in 22% of episodes treated with meropenem and in 13% of episodes treated with ceftazidime. Glycopeptides were used as first modification in 28% and 39% of meropenem and ceftazidime recipients, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated and there were no reports of drug-related nausea/vomiting or seizures. No significant differences in response rate or in tolerability were observed when analysing only the first febrile episodes. In conclusion, meropenem seems to be as efficacious and well tolerated as ceftazidime and may be associated with a lesser requirement for the addition of glycopeptides. Received: 15 April 1999 / Accepted: 9 June 1999     

Moxalactam plus ticarcillin or tobramycin for treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients

Moxalactam disodium in combination with ticarcillin disodium or tobramycin sulfate was used to treat 445 episodes of suspected or confirmed infection in patients with cancer. The majority had leukemia and neutropenia. The rate of cures during the 231 confirmed infections was 65% for moxalactam and ticarcillin and 64% for moxalactam and tobramycin. Both regimens were comparable against aerobic gram-negative and polymicrobial infections. In gram-positive infections, the response rate for moxalactam and ticarcillin was 73% and for moxalactam and tobramycin, 53%. Only three of nine enterococcal infections responded to treatment. Thirteen percent of all organisms recovered were resistant to moxalactam. Side effects occurred infrequently; the most important was coagulopathy due to moxalactam. Nephrotoxic effects occurred in six patients receiving moxalactam and tobramycin and in none of those receiving moxalactam and ticarcillin. In 39 patients, a superinfection was confirmed. Fourteen were fungal, three were due to enterococcus, and one due to Klebsiella species. Eleven of the 14 fungal episodes occurred in the moxalactam-ticarcillin group. Moxalactam with ticarcillin and moxalactam with tobramycin are equally active for the initial treatment of presumed infection in patients with neutropenia.     

A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND--Neutropenic patients with cancer are traditionally treated with empiric antibiotic combinations when they become febrile. The availability of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ceftazidime and imipenem has made it possible to initiate therapy with a single agent (monotherapy). The objectives of this trial were to compare ceftazidime and imipenem as single agents for the therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients and to ascertain whether the addition of an aminoglycoside (amikacin) to either of these agents would provide an advantage. METHODS--A prospective clinical trial was conducted in which eligible neutropenic patients with cancer were randomized to one of four treatment arms: ceftazidime alone; imipenem alone; ceftazidime plus amikacin; and imipenem plus amikacin. Efficacy analysis was done for 750 assessable episodes. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was also performed to examine the unique contribution of various prognostic factors. RESULTS--The overall response rates were 76% with imipenem plus amikacin, 72% with imipenem, 71% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 59% with ceftazidime alone. Single-organism gram-positive infections occurred in 101 of 750 episodes. Without a change in antibiotics, the response rates were 50% with imipenem, 40% with imipenem plus amikacin, 39% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 38% with ceftazidime. Most responded to vancomycin or other antibiotics, and the mortality associated with gram-positive infections was only 5%. Regardless of the antibiotic regimen, the majority of uncomplicated gram-negative infections responded to therapy and the majority of complicated gram-negative infections failed to respond. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis showed that recovery of the neutrophil count was the most favorable prognostic factor in a patient's response to infection, whereas the presence of gram-positive infection, acute leukemia, pulmonary or enteric infection, and therapy with ceftazidime were unfavorable factors. CONCLUSIONS--Single-agent therapy with imipenem is as effective as more conventional combination antibiotic therapy for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer.     

Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in febrile neutropenic patients

Eight patients with fever and neutropenia were given 2 g of ceftazidime i.v. as a bolus injection over the course of 3 min. The pharmacokinetic variables for ceftazidime were similar to those found previously in febrile, acutely ill, non-neutropenic patients. The area under the plasma-concentration-time curve was significantly smaller, and the terminal half-life (t1/2lambda(z)) significantly shorter, compared with elderly, healthy subjects (p < 0.005). Three patients survived long enough to be assayed after normalization of temperature and neutrophil counts. Glomerular filtration rates and clearances tended to be higher and the area under the curve and half-life lower on the day of fever and neutropenia. When considering our data in relation to known MIC values for common pathogens, ceftazidime administered intermittently every 6 h seems an appropriate regimen in patients with febrile neutropenia. Larger studies are needed to confirm this.     

Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients

 Infections remain the major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic cancer patients. The current study addresses the question whether monotherapy with the new broad-spectrum carbapenem meropenem exhibits efficacy comparable to that of the standard combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Seventy-one patients with hematological malignancies (55%) or solid tumors (45%), neutropenia <500/μl, and fever <38.5  °C were randomly assigned to either meropenem (1 g every 8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) intravenously. Meropenem (n=34) and ceftazidime/amikacin (n=37) were equivalent with respect to the clinical response at 72 h (62% versus 68%) (p<0.05) and at the end of unmodified therapy (59% versus 62%). Gram-positive bacteremia responded poorly in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin group (29% versus 25%), whereas all gram-negative bacteremias responded except for one in the meropenem group caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All patients survived to 72 h. One patient in each group died of gram-positive sepsis resistant to study medication. No significant side effects occurred in any regimen. This study suggests that meropenem monotherapy might be as effective as combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Received: 13 June 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 5 December 1997     

A randomized clinical trial of ceftriaxone and teicoplanin versus ceftazidime and teicoplanin as antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients and bone marrow transplant recipients

Summary A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing combination therapy with ceftriaxone and teicoplanin versus ceftazidime and teicoplanin in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients and bone marrow transplant recipients was performed. One hundred and two patients were randomized, but two patients were considered unevaluable for efficacy, and three patients were withdrawn due to incorrect randomization. Of the remaining 97 patients, infection resolved without modification of therapy in 31/49 (63%) patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin versus 27/48 (56%) patients treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin (P=0.48). Of all 97 patients treated therapy was modified in 18/49 (36%) with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin and 21/48 (43%) with ceftazidime/teicoplanin. Nineteen patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin received netilmicin and 21 patients treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin also received netilmicin according to the study design (escalation therapy). When netilmicin was added infection resolved in 78% of patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin versus 84% of those treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin. It was concluded that combination therapy with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin is an alternative to combination therapy with ceftazidime/teicoplanin, and has the advantage of once daily administration.

---

Antibiotische Therapie der febrilen Neutropenie von Tumor- und Knochenmarktransplantationspatienten. Eine randomisierte Studie mit Ceftriaxon und Teicoplanin im Vergleich mit Ceftazidim und Teicoplanin

Zusammenfassung In einer prospektiven, randomisierten klinischen Studie wurde die Kombinationstherapie mit Ceftriaxon und Teicoplanin gegen die Kombinationspartner Ceftazidim und Teicoplanin bei neutropenischen Patienten oder Patienten nach Knochenmarktransplantation verglichen. Insgesamt wurden 101 Patienten in die Studie eingebracht, davon waren 97 Patienten auswertbar. In der Ceftriaxon/Teicoplanin-Gruppe waren 63% der Patienten geheilt, gegenüber 56% der Patienten in der Ceftazidim/Teicoplanin-Gruppe. Dieses Ergebnis war ohne Modifikation der Studien-Medikamente erreicht worden. Bei 18 von 49 Patienten in der Ceftriaxon/Teicoplanin-Gruppe und 21 von 48 Patienten in der Ceftazidim/Teicoplanin-Gruppe wurde von der Studienmedikation abgegangen und zusätzlich Netilmicin (Eskalationstherapie) gegeben. Durch die zusätzliche Gabe von Netilmicin waren 78% der Patienten in der Ceftriaxon/Teicoplanin-Gruppe und 84% in der Ceftazidim/Teicoplanin-Gruppe geheilt. Diese Daten deuten darauf hin, daß die Kombinationstherapie mit Ceftriaxon/Teicoplanin eine Alternative zur Kombinationstherapie mit Ceftazidim und Teicoplanin darstellt, zumal die Gabe von Ceftriaxon und Teicoplanin den Vorteil hat, daß diese Medikamente nur einmal pro Tag gegeben werden müssen.

     

Penicillin or vancomycin plus ceftazidime in febrile neutropenic patients after stem cell transplantation

The response of gram-positive cocci to third generation cephalosporin therapy in febrile neutropenic patients is not optimal. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ceftazidime plus penicillin (C + P) and compared it to ceftazidime plus vancomycin (C + V) in febrile neutropenic patients. The study includes 64 patients admitted to the Department of Haematology. Thirty-six patients were treated with C + V and 28 patients with C + P. Control of infection was observed in 78% of the patients in the C + V group and in 57% of the patients in C + P group (p = 0.5). Infection was the cause of the death of 1 patient in each group. We conclude that the combination of C + P has the same activity as the combination of C + V in febrile neutropenic patients. The morbidity and mortality were identical in both groups but cost effectiveness was in favour of the C + P group.     

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

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

Evaluation of infectious etiology and prognostic risk factors of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients

OBJECTIVES: Febrile neutropenic cancer patients are at risk for development of serious infections, morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the type and frequency of infections and to evaluate some prognostic risk factors. METHODS: 220 episodes of neutropenic fever in 177 cancer patients have been reviewed. RESULTS: Infections could be documented microbiologically in 38 (17.3%) episodes and suspected clinically in 29 (13.2%). The most common focus of infection was the lower respiratory tract (11.4%) followed by the urinary tract (6.4%). The most frequently isolated pathogen was Escherichia coli (31%) followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (18%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (13%). The median durations of neutropenia and fever were 4 and 3 days, respectively. Mortality was seen in 25 patients (11.4%). Its rate was higher in documented infections except for non-bacteremic microbiologic infections in which no death was seen. Hypotension and shock were the most significant determinants of poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The management of these special patients should be given adequate attention and be considered important since the success of therapy depends on revealing of etiologic agents.     

Ceftazidime and amikacin as empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients in Saudi Arabia.

Sixty-four consecutive febrile episodes in 50 consecutive patients with malignancy and neutropenia were empirically treated with a combination of ceftazidime and amikacin. Of 52 analysable episodes, the response rate was 59.6% overall and 26.3% of episodes with microbiologically documented infections with septicaemia. Infection-related death occurred in 10 patients (19.2% of episodes). The response rates were similar in patients with acute leukaemia or other malignancies. Poor response is attributed to increased frequency of infections with Gram-positive and fungal organisms. A modified empiric regimen including cover for Gram-positive and fungal organisms is suggested in similar patient populations.     

Cefotaxime plus amikacin as empiric therapy in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies

Summary Between October 1980 and October 1981, cefotaxime plus amikacin were used in the treatment of 131 febrile episodes that occurred in 108 neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. The overall clinical response was 86.2%. Fevers of unknown origin and clinically or microbiologically documented infections responded in 88.8 and 84.4% of the cases, respectively. Renal toxicity occurred in 3.8% of the cases.In vitro studies showed that cefotaxime and amikacin were active against 78.7 and 94.7% of the pathogens, respectively, despite the high frequency (31%) of multiply resistant strains ofPseudomonas aeruginosa (defined asin vitro simultaneously resistant to carbenicillin, gentamicin, tobramycin and sisomicin) isolated from blood and infected sites. Synergy studies performed against 35 gram-negative bacilli isolated from blood revealed the presence of synergism between cefotaxime and amikacin in 54% of the cases. The peak levels of bactericidal activity in the serum of patients receiving cefotaxime plus amikacin showed median values of 1:128 and 1:8 againstEscherichia coli andP. aeruginosa septicemias, respectively.

---

Cefotaxim plus Amikacin als empirische Therapie bei febrilen Episoden neutropenischer Patienten mit malignen hämatologischen Erkrankungen

Zusammenfassung Zwischen Oktober 1980 und Oktober 1981 wurden 131 fieberhafte Episoden bei 108 neutropenischen Patienten mit hämatologischen Neoplasien mit Cefotaxim plus Amikacin behandelt. Insgesamt wurde bei 86,2% der Fälle ein klinischer Erfolg erzielt. Bei Fieber unbekannter Ursache sprachen 88,8% und bei klinisch oder mikrobiologisch dokumentierten Infektionen 84,4% der Patienten auf die Therapie an. Bei 3,8% der Fälle kam es zur toxischen Nierenschädigung.In vitro-Studien zeigten, daß Cefotaxim und Amikacin gegen 78,7% beziehungsweise 94,7% der pathogenen Erreger aktiv waren, obwohl multiresistentePseudomonas aeruginosa-Stämme (definiert als simultane Resistenzin vitro gegen Carbenicillin, Gentamicin, Tobramycin und Sisomycin) 31% der aus Blut und von Infektionsstellen isolierten Erreger ausmachten. Bei 35 Isolaten von grampositiven Stäbchen aus Blut wurden Synergismus-Studien mit Cefotaxim und Amikacin durchgeführt; gegen 54% der Stämme war eine synergistische Aktivität der Kombination nachzuweisen. Die höchste bakterizide Aktivität im Serum nach Gabe von Cefotaxim plus Amikacin betrug im Mittel gegen von Septikämie-Patienten isolierteEscherichia coli 1:128 und gegenP. aeruginosa 1:8.

     

A randomised comparison of ceftazidime and piperacillin, both in combination with flucloxacillin for treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic children. Finnish Three-Centre Study

111 febrile episodes in 98 neutropenic children were randomly treated with either ceftazidime (CAZ) 150 mg/kg/day or with piperacillin (PIP) 200 mg/kg/day, both combined with flucloxacillin (FLUC) 50 mg/kg/day. A total of 37/47 (79%) eligible episodes in the CAZ group and 41/53 (77%) in the PIP group were cured without needing to stop the initial therapy. The success without modification of the treatment in the verified septicaemias in the CAZ group was 8/18 (44%) and in the PIP group 5/18 (28%). Of the bacteriologically documented infections, 13/24 (54%) in the CAZ group and 11/24 (46%) in the PIP group were cured without modification of the therapy. Similarly, 17/31 (55%) of all the isolated bacteria in the CAZ group and 14/33 (42%) in the PIP group were eradicated with the initial therapy. Overall there were 13 deaths of which 4 in the CAZ group and 5 in the PIP group occurred during the infection. An increasing granulocyte count exceeding 0.25 x 10(9)/l at the end of the therapy was a good prognostic sign for the outcome of the infection. This study indicates that CAZ is as effective as PIP in the treatment of infections in neutropenic children.     

A randomized study of carbenicillin plus cefamandole or tobramycin in the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive carbenicillin plus tobramycin by continuous infusion (C+T), carbenicillin plus cefamandole by continuous infusion (C+CC) or carbenicillin plus cefamandole by intermittent infusion (C+IC) during 490 febrile episodes. Carbenicillin was administered over 2 hours every 4 hours. The per cent of cures achieved during the 235 documented infections was 65 per cent for C+CC, 57 per cent for C+IC and 54 per cent for C+T. Among those infections caused by single gram-negative bacilli, C+CC produced a higher cure rate than C+IC or C+T(74 per cent versus 59 per cent versus 50 per cent). C+CC was significantly more effective than C+IC among patients with persistent severe neutropenia of less than 100 neutrophils/mm3 (65 per cent versus 21 per cent, p = 0.03). If the infecting organism was sensitive to both antibiotics, the cure rate which occurred during 12 per cent to 13 per cent of the febrile episodes, regardless of antibiotic regimen. However, it occurred significantly more often during documented infections than during fevers of unknown etiology (20 per cent versus 6 per cent, p less than 0.001). C+CC appears to be the most effective of the three regimens for the treatment of infections in patients with persistent severe neutropenia.     

Micafungin compared with caspofungin for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND:Invasive fungal infections are associated with morbidity and mortality in neutropenia secondary to hematological malignancies. Empirical antifungal agents are used to reduce their consequences. Caspofungin is the only echinocandin approved for this indication. Micafungin was compared with caspofungin for the treatment of patients with hematological malignancies and prolonged neutropenia.METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who had hematological malignancies with profound neutropenia for a minimum of 10 days, and received empirical micafungin or caspofungin for a minimum of five days, between April 2005 and November 2009. Successful outcome was based on a composite end point: survival for a minimum of seven days following antifungal cessation, successful treatment of baseline fungal infection, absence of adverse events and absence of breakthrough fungal infection. Fungal infections were defined according to revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC-MSG) criteria, with modification of the diagnostic imaging criteria.RESULTS:Micafungin had similar overall success to caspofungin (60.4% [29 of 48] versus 57.3% [47 of 82], respectively; P=0.729). Survival was higher in the micafungin group compared with the caspofungin group (100% [48 of 48] versus 89% [73 of 82]; P=0.02). No baseline invasive fungal infections were identified in the micafungin group, compared with three proven infections treated successfully with caspofungin (3.7%; P=0.18). Three proven breakthrough infections were observed in the micafungin group (three of 48 [27.3%]) compared with none in the caspofungin group (zero of 82; P=0.02).CONCLUSION:Micafungin has similar efficacy to caspofungin as empirical antifungal therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. Verification of these results in a prospective trial is warranted.     

Ceftriaxone and amikacin as single daily dose in the empiric therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients

One hundred thirty-three febrile episodes in 115 neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were empirically treated with ceftriaxone and amikacin in a single daily dose. An indwelling central venous catheter (CVC) was present in 44 cases. Septicemia was documented in 18 (41%) patients with CVC (13 gram-positive, 5 gram-negative and 1 fungus) and in 30 (34%) patients without CVC (19 gram-positive, 10 gram-negative and 2 fungi). Coagulase-negative staphylococcus was observed in 10 out of 19 blood isolates in the presence of a CVC and in 6 out of 31 blood isolates in patients without CVC. Empiric therapy was successful in 56.4% of cases. Improvement after the addition of vancomycin or teicoplanin was observed in 38.6% of cases with a CVC and in 13.5% of those without (p less than 0.02). Only two patients died from gram negative septicemia, and the substitution of ceftriaxone with another beta-lactam was necessary in only 6% of the cases. Empiric therapy with single daily-dose ceftriaxone and amikacin appears to be effective in febrile neutropenic patients; our data, however, show the high incidence of Staphylococcus epidermidis septicemia and the frequent need to add an anti-gram-positive drug in patients with an indwelling CVC.     

Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical antibiotic treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis

We set out to compare the efficacy of antibiotic monotherapy with that of combination therapy including an aminoglycoside for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. We did a meta-analysis of 29 randomised clinical trials pooling data from 4795 febrile episodes and a subset of 1029 bacteraemic episodes by both fixed and random effects models. Outcome measure was clinical failure of antibiotic treatment, defined as modification of the initially allocated regimen or death during treatment. In febrile episodes, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical failure with monotherapy versus combination therapy was 0.88, with 95% CI from 0.78 to 0.99 by the fixed effects model, and 0.87 with 95% CI from 0.75 to 1.01 by the more conservative random effects model. For bacteraemic episodes, the pooled OR of failure with monotherapy was 0.70 (0.54 to 0.92) by the fixed effects model, and 0.72 (0.54 to 0.95) by the random effects model. We conclude that monotherapy has been as effective as aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia.