L Nesher1, F P Tverdek1, S N Mahajan1, R F Chemaly1, Kenneth V I Rolston2. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd (Unit 1460), Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd (Unit 1460), Houston, TX, 77030, USA. krolston@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ertapenem is being increasingly utilized in cancer patients, but published data regarding its usage are limited. Our objective was to describe the various indications for ertapenem therapy and its safety and efficacy in cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who received monotherapy with ertapenem for at least 72 h, between January 2007 and February 2013. RESULTS: Among 97 unique patients who received ertapenem monotherapy, the most common indications were: (1) To facilitate discharge from the hospital of stable patients still requiring antimicrobial therapy (46 %). (2) Primary therapy of various documented infections (bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and skin structure infection) with ertapenem (28 %). (3) De-escalation from a different broad-spectrum agent or regimen to ertapenem within the hospital setting in patients not ready for discharge (25 %). The median age of the 97 patients studied was 59 years (range 9-87 years) with 52 % being men. Most patients had underlying hematologic malignancies (54 %), and 7 % were recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Twenty-nine patients (30 %) were neutropenic, 26 % were diabetic, and 6 % had chronic lung disease. Primary ertapenem monotherapy was successful in all patients, de-escalation in 95.8 % of patients, and the strategy of discharge on outpatient therapy with ertapenem in 95.6 % of patients. Patients failing de-escalation or early discharge responded to alternative regimens. We documented no significant ertapenem associated toxicity or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem appears to be safe and effective for several indications in cancer patients.
PURPOSE:Ertapenem is being increasingly utilized in cancerpatients, but published data regarding its usage are limited. Our objective was to describe the various indications for ertapenem therapy and its safety and efficacy in cancerpatients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancerpatients who received monotherapy with ertapenem for at least 72 h, between January 2007 and February 2013. RESULTS: Among 97 unique patients who received ertapenem monotherapy, the most common indications were: (1) To facilitate discharge from the hospital of stable patients still requiring antimicrobial therapy (46 %). (2) Primary therapy of various documented infections (bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and skin structure infection) with ertapenem (28 %). (3) De-escalation from a different broad-spectrum agent or regimen to ertapenem within the hospital setting in patients not ready for discharge (25 %). The median age of the 97 patients studied was 59 years (range 9-87 years) with 52 % being men. Most patients had underlying hematologic malignancies (54 %), and 7 % were recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Twenty-nine patients (30 %) were neutropenic, 26 % were diabetic, and 6 % had chronic lung disease. Primary ertapenem monotherapy was successful in all patients, de-escalation in 95.8 % of patients, and the strategy of discharge on outpatient therapy with ertapenem in 95.6 % of patients. Patients failing de-escalation or early discharge responded to alternative regimens. We documented no significant ertapenem associated toxicity or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Ertapenem appears to be safe and effective for several indications in cancerpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer patients; De-escalation; Ertapenem; Neutropenia
Authors: Timothy H Dellit; Robert C Owens; John E McGowan; Dale N Gerding; Robert A Weinstein; John P Burke; W Charles Huskins; David L Paterson; Neil O Fishman; Christopher F Carpenter; P J Brennan; Marianne Billeter; Thomas M Hooton Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-12-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: George H Talbot; John Bradley; John E Edwards; David Gilbert; Michael Scheld; John G Bartlett Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sminil N Mahajan; Ella J Ariza-Heredia; Kenneth V Rolston; Linda S Graviss; Barry W Feig; Thomas A Aloia; Roy F Chemaly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alison G Freifeld; Eric J Bow; Kent A Sepkowitz; Michael J Boeckh; James I Ito; Craig A Mullen; Issam I Raad; Kenneth V Rolston; Jo-Anne H Young; John R Wingard Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Farah Ahmad; Jason M Pogue; Dror Marchaim; Teena Chopra; Suchita Bheemreddy; Jiha Lee; Niveditha S Mudegowdra; Aaisha Chaudhry; Keith S Kaye Journal: J Infect Public Health Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: E B Rubenstein; K Rolston; R S Benjamin; J Loewy; C Escalante; E Manzullo; P Hughes; B Moreland; A Fender; K Kennedy Journal: Cancer Date: 1993-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hedy Teppler; Richard M Gesser; Ian R Friedland; Gail L Woods; Anne Meibohm; Gary Herman; Goutam Mistry; Robin Isaacs Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: W J Heinz; D Buchheidt; M Christopeit; M von Lilienfeld-Toal; O A Cornely; H Einsele; M Karthaus; H Link; R Mahlberg; S Neumann; H Ostermann; O Penack; M Ruhnke; M Sandherr; X Schiel; J J Vehreschild; F Weissinger; G Maschmeyer Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 3.673