Literature DB >> 9818751

Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC (Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer).

P Biron1, C Fuhrmann, H Cure, P Viens, D Lefebvre, A Thyss, M Viot, P Soler-Michel, C Rollin, J J Grès.   

Abstract

This open, comparative, randomized, multicentre equivalence study compared cefepime 2 g bd and imipenem-cilastatin 1 g tds (50 mg/kg/day) as empirical monotherapy for febrile episodes in a homogeneous cohort of cancer patients with short duration neutropenia following chemotherapy for solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma. The study was conducted in 17 French anti-cancer centres in 1995 and 1996. Response to monotherapy was assessed 7 days after treatment and was based on resolution of fever and signs and symptoms, eradication of pathogens, absence of new infection, relapse, and death of infectious origin, without addition of other antibiotics. Patients were treated for a minimum of 4 days. Of the 400 episodes randomized, 344 (86%) were evaluable for efficacy. Patient characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Success of monotherapy was observed in 79% of episodes with cefepime and 72% with imipenem-cilastatin (equivalence, P <0.0001). The response rate for microbiologically documented infections was 66% with cefepime and 61% with imipenem-cilastatin (bacteraemic episodes: 63% for cefepime; 44% for imipenem-cilastatin). A second antibiotic (usually a glycopeptide) was added in 20% and 21% of the cases, respectively. Overall, the response to therapy, with or without an additional antibiotic, was 95% (cefepime) and 90% (imipenem-cilastatin). Survival was similar in both groups (95% and 98%, respectively). Cefepime treatment was better tolerated, with 9% of the patients experiencing related intercurrent events compared with 19% in the imipenem-cilastatin group (P = 0.003). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the imipenem-cilastatin group (15%) than in the cefepime group (5%; P = 0.001). Cefepime monotherapy was as effective as, and better tolerated than, imipenem-cilastatin in the empirical treatment of fever during short duration neutropenia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9818751     DOI: 10.1093/jac/42.4.511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  9 in total

1.  Cefepime monotherapy as an empirical initial treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  J Montalar; A Segura; C Bosch; A Galan; O Juan; C Molins; V Giner; J Aparicio
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 2.  Clinical and economic considerations of empirical antibacterial therapy of febrile neutropenia in cancer.

Authors:  G Dranitsaris
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Low-dose beta-lactam plus amikacin in febrile neutropenia: cefepime vs. piperacillin/tazobactam, a randomized trial.

Authors:  L Gómez; C Estrada; I Gómez; M Márquez; C Estany; J M Martí; R Bastús; L Cirera; S Quintana; J Garau
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.267

4.  Randomized study of cefepime versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  A Jimeno; A Arcediano; S Bazares; M L Amador; L González-Cortijo; E Ciruelos; L Robles; D Castellano; L Paz-Ares; C Lumbreras; J Hornedo; H Cortés-Funes
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 5.  Comparative review of the carbapenems.

Authors:  George G Zhanel; Ryan Wiebe; Leanne Dilay; Kristjan Thomson; Ethan Rubinstein; Daryl J Hoban; Ayman M Noreddin; James A Karlowsky
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Cefepime vs. cefoperazone/sulbactam in combination with amikacin as empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenia.

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

7.  Oral moxifloxacin or intravenous ceftriaxone for the treatment of low-risk neutropenic fever in cancer patients suitable for early hospital discharge.

Authors:  Catherine Sebban; Sophie Dussart; Christine Fuhrmann; Hervé Ghesquieres; Isabelle Rodrigues; Lionel Geoffrois; Yves Devaux; Laurence Lancry; Giselle Chvetzoff; Thomas Bachelot; Maria Chelghoum; Pierre Biron
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams.

Authors:  Mical Paul; Dafna Yahav; Assaf Bivas; Abigail Fraser; Leonard Leibovici
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-11-10

9.  The Dose-Dependent Efficacy of Cefepime in the Empiric Management of Febrile Neutropenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nikolaos Andreatos; Myrto Eleni Flokas; Anna Apostolopoulou; Michail Alevizakos; Eleftherios Mylonakis
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.835

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.