OBJECTIVE: To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenic patient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07%; 95% Cl, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; Cl, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; Cl, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; Cl, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenicpatient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation. INTERVENTIONS:Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07%; 95% Cl, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; Cl, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; Cl, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; Cl, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenicpatients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia.
Authors: A H E Herbers; W J F M van der Velden; A F J de Haan; J P Donnelly; N M A Blijlevens Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 5.483
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
Authors: Tobias Rachow; Verena Schlüter; Sibylle Bremer-Streck; Udo Lindig; Sebastian Scholl; Peter Schlattmann; Michael Kiehntopf; Andreas Hochhaus; Marie von Lilienfeld-Toal Journal: Infection Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: C Jaccard; N Troillet; S Harbarth; G Zanetti; D Aymon; R Schneider; R Chiolero; B Ricou; J Romand; O Huber; P Ambrosetti; G Praz; D Lew; J Bille; M P Glauser; A Cometta Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Maarten van Vliet; J Peter Donnelly; Carin M J Potting; Nicole M A Blijlevens Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-04-25 Impact factor: 3.603