BACKGROUND:Ciprofloxacin (CPFX) is a potential alternative in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) because of its activity against Gram-negative organisms. We conducted a non-inferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous CPFX and cefepime (CFPM) for FN patients with hematological malignancies. METHODS:Patients aged from 15 to 79 years with an absolute neutrophil count of <0.500 × 10(9/)l were eligible, and were randomized to receive 300 mg of CPFX or 2g of CFPM every 12h. Initial treatment efficacy, overall response, and early toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS:Fifty-one episodes were included in this trial, and 49 episodes (CPFX vs. CFPM: 24 vs. 25) were evaluated. Treatment efficacy at day 7 was significantly higher in the CFPM group (successful clinical response: nine with CPFX and 19 with CFPM; p=0.007). The response was better in high-risk patients with neutrophil counts of ≤ 0.100 × 10(9/)l (p=0.003). The overall response during the study period was similar between the CPFX and CFPM groups (p=0.64). Adverse events were minimal, and all patients could continue the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We could not prove the non-inferiority of CPFX in comparison with CFPM for the initial treatment of FN. CFPM remains the standard treatment of choice for FN.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Ciprofloxacin (CPFX) is a potential alternative in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) because of its activity against Gram-negative organisms. We conducted a non-inferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous CPFX and cefepime (CFPM) for FN patients with hematological malignancies. METHODS:Patients aged from 15 to 79 years with an absolute neutrophil count of <0.500 × 10(9/)l were eligible, and were randomized to receive 300 mg of CPFX or 2g of CFPM every 12h. Initial treatment efficacy, overall response, and early toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one episodes were included in this trial, and 49 episodes (CPFX vs. CFPM: 24 vs. 25) were evaluated. Treatment efficacy at day 7 was significantly higher in the CFPM group (successful clinical response: nine with CPFX and 19 with CFPM; p=0.007). The response was better in high-risk patients with neutrophil counts of ≤ 0.100 × 10(9/)l (p=0.003). The overall response during the study period was similar between the CPFX and CFPM groups (p=0.64). Adverse events were minimal, and all patients could continue the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We could not prove the non-inferiority of CPFX in comparison with CFPM for the initial treatment of FN. CFPM remains the standard treatment of choice for FN.
Authors: M Ponraj; Biswajit Dubashi; B H Harish; S Kayal; S L Cyriac; Jogamaya Pattnaik; K Ranjith; Unni S Pillai; Naresh Jadhav; Kiran K Matta; Jagdeep Singh; Esha Jaffa; Bhanu Prakash Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.603