Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia

Multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a 2019-2020 single center retrospective case control study

Multi-drug resistance in the post COVID-19 world is a growing concern. The objective of this study was to describe temporal trends and explore independent risk factors for the isolation of multi-drug resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa.

Methods

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with P. aeruginosa isolates recovered from January 2019 to December 2020. MDR P. aeruginosa was defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more anti-pseudomonal antimicrobial categories.

Results

In total, 258 unique isolates were identified. Prolonged hospitalization (P<0.001), prior antibiotic use (P<0.001), and respiratory sources (P<0.001) were strongly associated with the presence of MDR P. aeruginosa. From 2019 to 2020, there was a decrease in the total number of P. aeruginosa isolates but a significant increase in the proportion of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates (P=0.015).

Conclusions

Over a period that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increased proportion of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates from hospitalized patients. Improved identification of patients at risk for MDR P. aeruginosa could facilitate appropriate empiric antibiotic decisions like dual anti-pseudomonal therapy. The features of the COVID-19 outbreak that had a severe impact on patient care and that may have affected drug resistance in other respiratory pathogens should be explored.

Evaluating Mono- and Combination Therapy of Meropenem and Amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteremia in the Hollow-Fiber Infection Model

Debate continues as to the role of combination antibiotic therapy for the management of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We studied the extent of bacterial killing by and the emergence of resistance to meropenem and amikacin as monotherapies and as a combination therapy against susceptible and resistant P. aeruginosa isolates from bacteremic patients using the dynamic in vitro hollow-fiber infection model. Three P. aeruginosa isolates (meropenem MICs of 0.125, 0.25, and 64 mg/L) were used, simulating bacteremia with an initial inoculum of ~1 × 105 CFU/mL and the expected pharmacokinetics of meropenem and amikacin in critically ill patients. For isolates susceptible to amikacin and meropenem (isolates 1 and 2), the extent of bacterial killing was increased with the combination regimen compared with the killing by monotherapy of either antibiotic. Both the combination and meropenem monotherapy were able to sustain bacterial killing throughout the 7-day treatment course, whereas regrowth of bacteria occurred with amikacin monotherapy after 12 h. For the meropenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolate (isolate 3), only the combination regimen demonstrated bacterial killing. Given that tailored antibiotic regimens can maximize potential synergy against some isolates, future studies should explore the benefit of combination therapy against resistant P. aeruginosa. IMPORTANCE Current guidelines recommend that aminoglycosides should be used in combination with β-lactam antibiotics as initial empirical therapy for serious infections, and otherwise, patients should receive β-lactam antibiotic monotherapy. Given the challenges associated with studying the clinical effect of different antibiotic strategies on patient outcomes, useful data for subsequent informed clinical testing can be obtained from in vitro models like the hollow-fiber infection model (HFIM). Based on the findings of our HFIM, we propose that the initial use of combination therapy with meropenem and amikacin provides some bacterial killing against carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates. For susceptible isolates, combination therapy may only be of benefit in specific patient populations, such as critically ill or immunocompromised patients. Therefore, clinicians may want to consider using the combination therapy for the initial management and ceasing the aminoglycosides once antibiotic susceptibility results have been obtained.

Guidelines on Implementing Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Korea

These guidelines were developed as a part of the 2021 Academic R&D Service Project of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency in response to requests from healthcare professionals in clinical practice for guidance on developing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). These guidelines were developed by means of a systematic literature review and a summary of recent literature, in which evidence-based intervention methods were used to address key questions about the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents and ASP expansion. These guidelines also provide evidence of the effectiveness of ASPs and describe intervention methods applicable in Korea.

Treatment of infections in cancer patients: an update from the neutropenia, infection and myelosuppression study group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hematological and advanced solid malignancies have acquired immune dysfunction, often exacerbated by treatment, posing a significant risk for the development of infections. This review evaluates the utility of current clinical and treatment guidelines, in the setting of management of infections in cancer patients.

AREAS COVERED

These include causes of infection in cancer patients, management of patients with high-risk and low-risk febrile neutropenia, management of low-risk patients in an outpatient setting, the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the prevention and treatment of neutropenia-related infections, management of lung infections in various clinical settings, and emerging challenges surrounding the risk of infection in cancer patients treated with novel treatments. The literature search was performed by accessing PubMed and other databases, focusing on published clinical trials of relevant anti-cancer agents and diseases, primarily covering the recent past, but also including several key studies published during the last decade and, somewhat earlier in a few cases.

EXPERT REVIEW

Notwithstanding the promise of gene therapy/gene editing in hematological malignancies and some types of solid cancers, innovations introduced in clinical practice include more discerning clinical management such as the generalized use of biosimilar formulations of G-CSF and the implementation of novel, innovative immunotherapies.

Acute Oncology Care: A narrative review of the acute management of neutropenic sepsis and immune-related toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors

Cancer care has become increasingly specialized and advances in therapy have resulted in a larger number of patients receiving care. There has been a significant increase in the number of patients presenting with cancer related emergencies including treatment toxicities and those directly related to the malignancy. Suspected neutropenic sepsis is an acute medical emergency and empirical antibiotic therapy should be administered immediately. The goal of empirical therapy is to cover the most likely pathogens that will cause life-threatening infections in neutropenic patients. Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with only a minority of treated patients developing significant medical complications. Outpatient management of low risk febrile neutropenia patients identified by the MASCC score is a safe and effective strategy. Immunotherapy with "checkpoint inhibitors" has significantly improved outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma and evidence of benefit in a wide range of malignancies is developing. Despite these clinical benefits a number of immune related adverse events have been recognised which can affect virtually all organ systems and are potentially fatal. The timing of the onset of the adverse events is dependent on the organ system affected and unlike anti-neoplastic therapy can be delayed significantly after initiation or completion of therapy. The field of Acute Oncology is changing rapidly. Alongside, the traditional challenge of neutropenic sepsis there are many emerging toxicities. Further research into the optimal management, strategies and pathways of acutely unwell patients with cancer is required.

Diagnosis and empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (FUO) in adult neutropenic patients: guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Fever may be the only clinical symptom at the onset of infection in neutropenic cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. A prompt and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approach is mandatory. A systematic search of current literature was conducted, including only full papers and excluding allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Recommendations for diagnosis and therapy were developed by an expert panel and approved after plenary discussion by the AGIHO. Randomized clinical trials were mainly available for therapeutic decisions, and new diagnostic procedures have been introduced into clinical practice in the past decade. Stratification into a high-risk versus low-risk patient population is recommended. In high-risk patients, initial empirical antimicrobial therapy should be active against pathogens most commonly involved in microbiologically documented and most threatening infections, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but excluding coagulase-negative staphylococci. In patients whose expected duration of neutropenia is more than 7 days and who do not respond to first-line antibacterial treatment, specifically in the absence of mold-active antifungal prophylaxis, further therapy should be directed also against fungi, in particular Aspergillus species. With regard to antimicrobial stewardship, treatment duration after defervescence in persistently neutropenic patients must be critically reconsidered and the choice of anti-infective agents adjusted to local epidemiology. This guideline updates recommendations for diagnosis and empirical therapy of fever of unknown origin in adult neutropenic cancer patients in light of the challenges of antimicrobial stewardship.

Management of infection and febrile neutropenia in patients with solid cancer

An expert group from the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC, for its acronym in Spanish) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM, for its acronym in Spanish) have reviewed the main aspects to be considered when evaluating patients with solid cancer and infectious complications contained in this article. Recommendations have, therefore, been put forth regarding the prophylaxis of the most prevalent infections in these patients, the use of vaccines, measures to control infection through vascular catheters, and preventing infection in light of certain surgical maneuvers. The following is a revision of the criteria for febrile neutropenia management and the use of colony-stimulating factors and closes with several guidelines for treating the cancer patient with serious infection. The document concludes with a series of measures to control hospital infection.

Sepsis in the severely immunocompromised patient

The prevention and treatment of sepsis in the immunocompromised host present a challenging array of diagnostic and management issues. The neutropenic patient has a primary defect in innate immune responses and is susceptible to conventional and opportunistic pathogens. The solid organ transplant patient has a primary defect in adaptive immunity and is susceptible to a myriad of pathogens that require an effective cellular immune response. Risk for infections in organ transplant recipients is further complicated by mechanical, vascular, and rejection of the transplanted organ itself. The immune suppressed state can modify the cardinal signs of inflammation, making accurate and rapid diagnosis of infection and sepsis difficult. Empiric antimicrobial agents can be lifesaving in these patients, but managing therapy in an era of progressive antibiotic resistance has become a real issue. This review discusses the challenges faced when treating severe infections in these high-risk patients.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Less is more: combination antibiotic therapy for the treatment of gram-negative bacteremia in pediatric patients

IMPORTANCE

Definitive combination antibiotic therapy with a β-lactam and an aminoglycoside for the treatment of gram-negative bacteremia is commonly prescribed in pediatric patients; however, its efficacy and toxicity relative to β-lactam monotherapy are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether definitive combination antibiotic therapy affects mortality and nephrotoxicity in pediatric patients with gram-negative bacteremia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study including pediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) with gram-negative bacteremia hospitalized at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center between 2002 and 2011.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes included 30-day mortality and nephrotoxicity classified according to the pediatric RIFLE (risk for renal dysfunction, injury to the kidney, failure of kidney function, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal disease) criteria. To account for nonrandom assignment of combination therapy, propensity score weighting was combined with multivariable logistic regression to estimate the effect of combination therapy on mortality and nephrotoxicity.

RESULTS

Of the 879 eligible pediatric patients with bacteremia, 537 (61.1%) received combination therapy. After propensity score adjustment, baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups were well balanced. There was no association between combination therapy and 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.02; P = .27). There were 170 patients (19.3%) with evidence of acute kidney injury, including 135 (25.1%) and 35 (10.2%) in the combination therapy and monotherapy arms, respectively. Patients receiving combination therapy had approximately twice the odds of nephrotoxicity compared with those receiving monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.09-2.21).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The use of β-lactam monotherapy for gram-negative bacteremia in pediatric patients reduces subsequent nephrotoxicity without compromising survival.

Evaluation and Management of Bacterial and Fungal Infections Occurring in Patients with a Hematological Malignancy: A 2011 Update

Patients with a hematological malignancy are a heterogeneous patient population who are afflicted with diseases that range from rapidly fatal acute leukemia to indolent lymphoma or chronic leukemia. Treatment options for these patients range from observation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but all patients are more susceptible to infection. The problem of infection is dynamic with continued shifts in pathogenic organisms and microbial susceptibilities, new treatment regimens that further diminish immune function, and patients receiving treatment who are now older and frailer. The classic patterns of immunodeficiency for patients with a hematological malignancy include: periods of profound neutropenia, increased iatrogenic risks (i.e., central vascular catheters), and cellular immune suppression that affects HSCT recipients, patients with lymphoid malignancies, and those receiving treatment with corticosteroids or agents like alemtuzumab [1–4]. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development, new technology, clinical trial results, and further clinical experience have enhanced the database on which to make infection prophylaxis and treatment decisions. However, the practicing clinician must remember that the majority of basic infection management principles for patients who are neutropenic remain unchanged.

Combination therapy for treatment of infections with gram-negative bacteria

Combination antibiotic therapy for invasive infections with Gram-negative bacteria is employed in many health care facilities, especially for certain subgroups of patients, including those with neutropenia, those with infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, those with ventilator-associated pneumonia, and the severely ill. An argument can be made for empiric combination therapy, as we are witnessing a rise in infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms. The wisdom of continued combination therapy after an organism is isolated and antimicrobial susceptibility data are known, however, is more controversial. The available evidence suggests that the greatest benefit of combination antibiotic therapy stems from the increased likelihood of choosing an effective agent during empiric therapy, rather than exploitation of in vitro synergy or the prevention of resistance during definitive treatment. In this review, we summarize the available data comparing monotherapy versus combination antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of infections with Gram-negative bacteria.

A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

Multivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple correlated outcomes from randomised trials, and is an alternative to a separate univariate meta-analysis of each outcome independently. Usually not all trials report all outcomes; furthermore, outcome reporting bias (ORB) within trials, where an outcome is measured and analysed but not reported on the basis of the results, may cause a biased set of the evidence to be available for some outcomes, potentially affecting the significance and direction of meta-analysis results. The multivariate approach, however, allows one to 'borrow strength' across correlated outcomes, to potentially reduce the impact of ORB. Assuming ORB missing data mechanisms, we aim to investigate the magnitude of bias in the pooled treatment effect estimates for multiple outcomes using univariate meta-analysis, and to determine whether the 'borrowing of strength' from multivariate meta-analysis can reduce the impact of ORB. A simulation study was conducted for a bivariate fixed effect meta-analysis of two correlated outcomes. The approach is illustrated by application to a Cochrane systematic review. Results show that the 'borrowing of strength' from a multivariate meta-analysis can reduce the impact of ORB on the pooled treatment effect estimates. We also examine the use of the Pearson correlation as a novel approach for dealing with missing within-study correlations, and provide an extension to bivariate random-effects models that reduce ORB in the presence of heterogeneity.

A survey on hematology-oncology pediatric AIEOP centers: prophylaxis, empirical therapy and nursing prevention procedures of infectious complications

A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was designed to evaluate the management and prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in pediatric patients admitted to hematology-oncology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant units. Of the 34 participating centers, 40 and 63%, respectively, continue to prescribe antibacterial and antimycotic prophylaxis in low-risk subjects and 78 and 94% in transplant patients. Approximately half of the centers prescribe a combination antibiotic regimen as first-line therapy in low-risk patients and up to 81% in high-risk patients. When initial empirical therapy fails after seven days, 63% of the centers add empirical antimycotic therapy in low-and 81% in high-risk patients. Overall management varies significantly across centers. Preventive nursing procedures are in accordance with international guidelines. This survey is the first to focus on prescribing practices in children with cancer and could help to implement practice guidelines.

Use of empiric antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee

Administration of empiric antimicrobial therapy is standard practice in the management of neutropenic fever, but there remains considerable debate about the selection of an optimal regimen. In view of emerging evidence regarding efficacy and toxicity differences between empiric treatment regimens, and strong evidence of heterogeneity in clinical practice, the current guidelines were developed to provide Australian clinicians with comprehensive guidance for selecting an appropriate empiric strategy in the setting of neutropenic fever. Beta-lactam monotherapy is presented as the treatment of choice for all clinically stable patients while early treatment with combination antibiotic therapy is considered for patients at higher risk. Due consideration is given to the appropriate use of glycopeptides in this setting. Several clinical caveats, accounting for institution- and patient-specific risk factors, are provided to help guide the judicious use of the agents described. Detailed recommendations are also provided regarding time to first dose, timing of blood cultures, selection of a first-line antibiotic regimen, subsequent modification of antibiotic choice and cessation of therapy.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Does aminoglycoside therapy cause significant acute kidney injury in febrile neutropenia?

Owing to concern about aminoglycoside-related acute kidney injury (AKI) in therapy for febrile neutropenia, the aim of this study was to ascertain the incidence, severity and persistence of AKI secondary to aminoglycoside use for febrile neutropenia at an adult tertiary referral hospital. All admitted adults with neutropenia in a 27-month period were reviewed. Cases of febrile neutropenia due to chemotherapy who received an aminoglycoside were identified and renal function was assessed up to Day 30 after aminoglycoside administration. Transient renal impairment (TRI) was defined as any temporary rise in serum creatinine of >44 μmol/L within 30 days; and persistent, significant renal impairment (PSRI) was defined as an elevation of serum creatinine of >44 μmol/L at Day 30, or death from renal failure or need for dialysis. The Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage for all episodes was also determined. Amongst 554 episodes of neutropenia, 148 episodes of chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia with aminoglycoside treatment were identified. PSRI occurred in six episodes [4.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-8.6%] and TRI occurred in seven episodes (4.7%; 95% CI 2.3-9.4%). No PSRI was attributable to aminoglycoside therapy alone (0%; 95% CI 0-3.2%). Severe sepsis was the main cause of PSRI. Aminoglycoside therapy was the main contributing cause of TRI in two episodes (1.4%; 95% CI 0.2-5.3%). In conclusion, PSRI is a rare complication of aminoglycoside therapy for febrile neutropenia at this institution. AKIN stage 1 AKI is a common complication of febrile neutropenia episodes in which aminoglycosides are administered.

Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2007) meta-analyses with data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized trial with binary primary efficacy outcome. For each meta-analysis, we calculated the summary odds ratio of the adult trials and the pediatric trials, respectively; the relative odds ratio (ROR) of the adult versus pediatric odds ratios per meta-analysis; and the summary ROR across all meta-analyses. ROR <1 means that the experimental intervention is more unfavorable in children than adults.

RESULTS

Across 128 eligible meta-analyses (1051 adult and 343 pediatric trials), the summary ROR did not show a statistically significant difference between adults and children (0.96; 95% confidence intervals, 0.86 to 1.08). However, in all meta-analyses except for 1, the individual ROR's 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in efficacy over 20%. In two-thirds, the relative difference in observed point estimates exceeded 50%. Nine statistically significant discrepancies were identified; 4 of them were also clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment effects are on average similar in adults and children, but available evidence leaves large uncertainty about their relative efficacy. Clinically important discrepancies may occur.

Infectious Complications of Cancer Therapy

Advances in the management of cancer, particularly the development of new chemotherapeutic agents, have greatly improved the survival and outcome of patients with hematologic malignancies and solid tumors; overall 5-year survival rates in cancer patients have improved from 39% in the 1960s to 60% in the 1990s.1 However, infection, caused by both the underlying malignancy and cancer chemotherapy, particularly myelosuppressive chemotherapy, remains a persistent challenge.

Antibiotic regimens for suspected early neonatal sepsis

BACKGROUND

Early acquired infection may cause severe illness or death in the neonatal period. Prompt treatment with antibiotics has shown to reduce mortality. It is not clear which antibiotic regimen is suitable for treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effectiveness and adverse effects of antibiotic regimens for treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (1980 to September 2003) and ZETOC (1993 to August 2003) databases were searched for possible studies. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing antibiotic regimens for the treatment of early neonatal sepsis (both monotherapies and combination therapies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both reviewers screened abstracts and full reports against the inclusion criteria, appraised the quality of and extracted data from papers. For dichotomous outcomes, treatment effect was expressed as relative risk with 95% confidence interval. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small studies had compared monotherapy with combination therapy. There was no significant difference in mortality, treatment failure or bacteriological resistance.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised trials to suggest that any antibiotic regimen may be better than any other in the treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis. More studies are needed to resolve this issue.

Beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for fever with neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in the treatment of patients with fever and neutropenia.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Lilacs, the Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings to 2002. References of included studies and contact with authors. No restrictions on language, year of publication, or publication status.

STUDY SELECTION

All randomised trials of beta lactam monotherapy compared with beta lactam-minoglycoside combination therapy as empirical treatment for patients with fever and neutropenia.

DATA SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data. An intention to treat approach was used. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause fatality.

RESULTS

Forty seven trials with 7807 patients met inclusion criteria. Nine trials compared the same beta lactam. There was no significant difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02). For success of treatment there was a significant advantage with monotherapy (0.92, 0.85 to 0.99), though there was considerable heterogeneity among trials. There was no significant difference between monotherapy and combination treatment in trials that compared the same beta lactam, whereas there was major advantage with monotherapy in trials that compared different beta lactams (0.87, 0.80 to 0.93). Rates of superinfection were similar. Adverse events, including those associated with severe morbidity, were significantly more common in the combination treatment group. Detected flaws in methods did not affect results.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with fever and neutropenia there is no clinical advantage in treatment with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy. Broad spectrum beta lactams as monotherapy should be regarded as the standard of care for such patients.