N Horita1, Y Shibata2, H Watanabe2, H Namkoong3, T Kaneko2. 1. Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. Electronic address: horitano@yokohama-cu.ac.jp. 2. Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 3. Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactam empiric monotherapy for febrile neutropenia by network meta-analysis. METHODS: Searches using Pubmed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science Core Collection were carried out in June 2016. English articles, non-English articles, full-length articles, short articles and conference abstracts were allowed. Eligible trial design was a parallel-group individual randomization. We included febrile neutropenia adult and paediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy for either solid tumours or haematological malignancies and treated with intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams for initial empiric therapy. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID 42016043377. RESULTS: Of 1275 articles detected by the search, 50 studies with 10 872 patients were finally included. Among the guideline-recommended cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and ceftazidime; imipenem/cilastatin showed the highest odds of treatment success without modification, which was the primary endpoint, based on the random-effect model network analysis. Ceftazidime was related to lower treatment success rate without modification compared with imipenem/cilastatin with OR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.89, p 0.006). Imipenem/cilastatin showed the lowest odds of all-cause death. Patients treated with cefepime had higher risk for all-cause death compared with those treated with imipenem/cilastatin (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.11-3.78, p 0.029). Any adverse event was significantly more prevalent in the imipenem/cilastatin arm; however, there was no difference concerning adverse events leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem may be reasonable first-choice medications for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactam empiric monotherapy for febrile neutropenia by network meta-analysis. METHODS: Searches using Pubmed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science Core Collection were carried out in June 2016. English articles, non-English articles, full-length articles, short articles and conference abstracts were allowed. Eligible trial design was a parallel-group individual randomization. We included febrile neutropenia adult and paediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy for either solid tumours or haematological malignancies and treated with intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams for initial empiric therapy. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID 42016043377. RESULTS: Of 1275 articles detected by the search, 50 studies with 10 872 patients were finally included. Among the guideline-recommended cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and ceftazidime; imipenem/cilastatin showed the highest odds of treatment success without modification, which was the primary endpoint, based on the random-effect model network analysis. Ceftazidime was related to lower treatment success rate without modification compared with imipenem/cilastatin with OR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.89, p 0.006). Imipenem/cilastatin showed the lowest odds of all-cause death. Patients treated with cefepime had higher risk for all-cause death compared with those treated with imipenem/cilastatin (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.11-3.78, p 0.029). Any adverse event was significantly more prevalent in the imipenem/cilastatin arm; however, there was no difference concerning adverse events leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS:Imipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem may be reasonable first-choice medications for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia.
Authors: Gwendolyn M Pais; Jack Chang; Erin F Barreto; Gideon Stitt; Kevin J Downes; Mohammad H Alshaer; Emily Lesnicki; Vaidehi Panchal; Maria Bruzzone; Argyle V Bumanglag; Sara N Burke; Marc H Scheetz Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.577
Authors: Tim Cooksley; Carme Font; Florian Scotte; Carmen Escalante; Leslie Johnson; Ronald Anderson; Bernardo Rapoport Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maximilian Christopeit; Martin Schmidt-Hieber; Rosanne Sprute; Oliver A Cornely; Georg Maschmeyer; Dieter Buchheidt; Marcus Hentrich; Meinolf Karthaus; Olaf Penack; Markus Ruhnke; Florian Weissinger Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.673
Authors: José C Álvarez; Sonia I Cuervo; Edelberto Silva; Jorge A Díaz; Lorena L Jiménez; Daniel S Parra; Julio C Gómez; Ricardo Sánchez; Jorge A Cortés Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Roberto L Parodi; Mariana Lagrutta; Mauro Tortolo; Estefanía Navall; María S Rodríguez; Gervasio F Sasia; Lucas F De Candia; Matias A Gruvman; Oscar Bottasso; Alcides A Greca Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 3.240