Oguz Resat Sipahi1, Hasip Kahraman2, Huseyin Aytac Erdem1, Funda Yetkin3, Selcuk Kaya4, Tuna Demirdal5, Ozlem Guzel Tunccan6, Omer Karasahin6, Ebru Oruc7, Yasemin Cag8, Behice Kurtaran9, Mehmet Ulug10, Murat Kutlu11, Meltem Avci12, Nefise Oztoprak13, Bilgin Arda1, Husnu Pullukcu1, Meltem Tasbakan1, Tansu Yamazhan1, Ozlem Kandemir14, Murat Dizbay6, Hilal Sipahi15, Sercan Ulusoy1. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. hasipkahraman@gmail.com. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Inonu University Faculty of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey. 4. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey. 5. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Katip Celebi University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey. 8. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Dr. Lütfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 9. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey. 10. Infectious Diseases Clinic, Eskisehir Private Umit Hospital, Eskisehir, Turkey. 11. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey. 12. Infectious Disease and Clinical Microbiology Clinic, İzmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 13. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Clinic, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey. 14. Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey. 15. Bornova Health Directorate, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this multicentre, retrospective, matched cohort study we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of neutropenic fever cases that were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin). METHODS: Data and outcomes of adult (aged > 18-years old) patients with neutropenic fever [(1) without clinical and radiological evidence of pneumonia, (2) who were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (teicoplanin or vancomycin) for any reason and for at least 72 h] were extracted from the hospital databases. Matching was performed with all of the three following criteria: (1) underlying disease, (2) reason for starting daptomycin or glycopeptide (microbiologic evidence vs. microbiologic evidence, clinical infection vs. clinical infection and empirical therapy vs. empirical therapy) and (3) neutropenic status. RESULTS: Overall 128 patients [(69/123) (56.1%) in the daptomycin cohort (D) and 59/123 (48%) in the glycopeptide cohort (G)] had a resolution of fever at the end of 72 h antibiotic treatment (p = 0.25). There was no significant difference in cured, improved and (cured + improved) rates between (D) and (G) cohorts as well as fever of unknown origin cases or microbiologically confirmed infections or clinically defined infections subgroups (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference (p > 0.05), in terms of persistent response in the (D) versus (G) cohorts, CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that although not better, daptomycin efficacy is comparable to vancomycin if used as empiric therapy in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia. We conclude that daptomycin may be used at least as a salvage therapy alternative to glycopeptides in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia cases. A large, randomized-controlled trial may further consolidate the evidence related to this question.
PURPOSE: In this multicentre, retrospective, matched cohort study we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of neutropenic fever cases that were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin). METHODS: Data and outcomes of adult (aged > 18-years old) patients with neutropenic fever [(1) without clinical and radiological evidence of pneumonia, (2) who were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (teicoplanin or vancomycin) for any reason and for at least 72 h] were extracted from the hospital databases. Matching was performed with all of the three following criteria: (1) underlying disease, (2) reason for starting daptomycin or glycopeptide (microbiologic evidence vs. microbiologic evidence, clinical infection vs. clinical infection and empirical therapy vs. empirical therapy) and (3) neutropenic status. RESULTS: Overall 128 patients [(69/123) (56.1%) in the daptomycin cohort (D) and 59/123 (48%) in the glycopeptide cohort (G)] had a resolution of fever at the end of 72 h antibiotic treatment (p = 0.25). There was no significant difference in cured, improved and (cured + improved) rates between (D) and (G) cohorts as well as fever of unknown origin cases or microbiologically confirmed infections or clinically defined infections subgroups (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference (p > 0.05), in terms of persistent response in the (D) versus (G) cohorts, CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that although not better, daptomycin efficacy is comparable to vancomycin if used as empiric therapy in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia. We conclude that daptomycin may be used at least as a salvage therapy alternative to glycopeptides in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia cases. A large, randomized-controlled trial may further consolidate the evidence related to this question.
Authors: Anne-Marie Chaftari; Ray Hachem; Victor Mulanovich; Roy F Chemaly; Javier Adachi; Kalen Jacobson; Ying Jiang; Issam Raad Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2010-05-08 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Kyle P Murray; Jing J Zhao; Susan L Davis; Ravina Kullar; Keith S Kaye; Paul Lephart; Michael J Rybak Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Vance G Fowler; Helen W Boucher; G Ralph Corey; Elias Abrutyn; Adolf W Karchmer; Mark E Rupp; Donald P Levine; Henry F Chambers; Francis P Tally; Gloria A Vigliani; Christopher H Cabell; Arthur Stanley Link; Ignace DeMeyer; Scott G Filler; Marcus Zervos; Paul Cook; Jeffrey Parsonnet; Jack M Bernstein; Connie Savor Price; Graeme N Forrest; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Marcelo Gareca; Susan J Rehm; Hans Reinhardt Brodt; Alan Tice; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Branimir Jaksic; Giovanni Martinelli; Jaime Perez-Oteyza; Charlotte S Hartman; Linda B Leonard; Kenneth J Tack Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Abdalaziz M Awadelkarim; Isra Idris; Muhammad Abdelhai; Ahmed Yeddi; Eltaib Saad; Rashid Alhusain; John Dayco; Mohammed Ali; Lubna Salih Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-06-20