OBJECTIVE: To compare the associations of cefepime (2 g x 2/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefe-ami) and ceftazidime (2 g x 3/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefta-ami) in patients under mechanical ventilation suffering from a nosocomial pneumonia. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centre, open, comparative, randomised study. PATIENTS: The study included 275 ICU patients enrolled either in the cefe-ami group (n = 141) or in the cefta-ami group (n = 134). METHODS: All cases were reviewed in a blinded fashion by the steering committee. RESULTS:Microbiology laboratory tests were positive in 74% of patients of the cefe-ami group and in 63% of the cefta-ami group respectively; 319 presumed causative strains of bacteria were isolated. The mean duration of treatment was 12 days for cefepime, 11 days for ceftazidime and 8 days for amikacin. In intention to treat, the clinical recovery rate was 48.2% in the cefe-ami group and 44.8% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the population with a documented pneumonia, the clinical recovery was significantly better in the cefe-ami group (53.3%), than in the cefta-ami group (39.3%) (P = 0.05). In per protocol analysis, these rates reached 67.7% in the cefe-ami group and 68.2% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the bacteriologically documented cases the eradication rates were 86.5% and 89.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: The efficacy rates of cefe-ami and cefta-ami combinations were similar in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation with a nosocomial pneumonia. However the cefe-ami association was significantly more efficient in the population with a bacteriologically documented pneumonia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the associations of cefepime (2 g x 2/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefe-ami) and ceftazidime (2 g x 3/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefta-ami) in patients under mechanical ventilation suffering from a nosocomial pneumonia. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centre, open, comparative, randomised study. PATIENTS: The study included 275 ICU patients enrolled either in the cefe-ami group (n = 141) or in the cefta-ami group (n = 134). METHODS: All cases were reviewed in a blinded fashion by the steering committee. RESULTS: Microbiology laboratory tests were positive in 74% of patients of the cefe-ami group and in 63% of the cefta-ami group respectively; 319 presumed causative strains of bacteria were isolated. The mean duration of treatment was 12 days for cefepime, 11 days for ceftazidime and 8 days for amikacin. In intention to treat, the clinical recovery rate was 48.2% in the cefe-ami group and 44.8% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the population with a documented pneumonia, the clinical recovery was significantly better in the cefe-ami group (53.3%), than in the cefta-ami group (39.3%) (P = 0.05). In per protocol analysis, these rates reached 67.7% in the cefe-ami group and 68.2% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the bacteriologically documented cases the eradication rates were 86.5% and 89.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: The efficacy rates of cefe-ami and cefta-ami combinations were similar in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation with a nosocomial pneumonia. However the cefe-ami association was significantly more efficient in the population with a bacteriologically documented pneumonia.
Authors: Andre C Kalil; Mark L Metersky; Michael Klompas; John Muscedere; Daniel A Sweeney; Lucy B Palmer; Lena M Napolitano; Naomi P O'Grady; John G Bartlett; Jordi Carratalà; Ali A El Solh; Santiago Ewig; Paul D Fey; Thomas M File; Marcos I Restrepo; Jason A Roberts; Grant W Waterer; Peggy Cruse; Shandra L Knight; Jan L Brozek Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: R G Masterton; A Galloway; G French; M Street; J Armstrong; E Brown; J Cleverley; P Dilworth; C Fry; A D Gascoigne; Alan Knox; Dilip Nathwani; Robert Spencer; Mark Wilcox Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 5.790