Literature DB >> 1739355

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

K V Rolston1, P Berkey, G P Bodey, E J Anaissie, N M Khardori, J H Joshi, M J Keating, F A Holmes, F F Cabanillas, L Elting.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1739355

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  35 in total

1.  Open randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

Authors:  D Yamamura; R Gucalp; P Carlisle; M Cimino; J Roberts; C Rotstein
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Evolution of the clinical manifestations of infection during the course of febrile neutropenia in patients with malignancy.

Authors:  E C Dompeling; J P Donnelly; J M Raemaekers; S C Deresinski; R Feld; B E De Pauw
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.553

3.  Risk assessment and risk-based therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

Authors:  K V Rolston
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.267

4.  Cefepime monotherapy as an empirical initial treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  J Montalar; A Segura; C Bosch; A Galan; O Juan; C Molins; V Giner; J Aparicio
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with 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 and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program.

Authors:  A Cometta; T Calandra; H Gaya; S H Zinner; R de Bock; A Del Favero; G Bucaneve; F Crokaert; W V Kern; J Klastersky; I Langenaeken; A Micozzi; A Padmos; M Paesmans; C Viscoli; M P Glauser
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Imipenem and meropenem: Comparison of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials and adverse effects.

Authors:  G G Zhanel; A E Simor; L Vercaigne; L Mandell
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  1998-07

7.  Imipenem or cefoperazone-sulbactam combined with vancomycin for therapy of presumed or proven infection in neutropenic cancer patients.

Authors:  G Bodey; D Abi-Said; K Rolston; I Raad; E Whimbey
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  An analysis of interleukin-8, interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein serum concentrations to predict fever, gram-negative bacteremia and complicated infection in neutropenic cancer patients.

Authors:  A Engel; E Mack; P Kern; W V Kern
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 9.  [Febrile neutropenia: practical aspects].

Authors:  P Harten; B Seyfarth; N Schmitz
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-10-15

10.  Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.

Authors:  J A Paladino; L D Fong; A Forrest; R Ramphal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.