Imipenem or cefoperazone-sulbactam combined with vancomycin for therapy of presumed or proven infection in neutropenic cancer patients

Efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam in empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia: A systemic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam for empiric therapy febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov database were searched through May 10, 2019. Only clinical trials comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam with other antibiotics for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia were included. The primary outcome was treatment success without modification, and the secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective cohort study were included. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam exhibited a treatment success rate similar to those of comparator drugs for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.24, I = 0%). A similar finding was noted in pooled analysis of 10 RCTs (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30, I = 0%). Subgroup analysis showed that cefoperazone-sulbactam had a treatment success rate similar to the rates of comparators for adults (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.38, I = 0%) and children (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.46, I = 0%). Cefoperazone-sulbactam did not differ significantly from comparators in the risks of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.58, I = 0%) or common AEs, namely rash, nausea/vomiting, and superinfection.

CONCLUSION

The clinical efficacy and tolerability of cefoperazone-sulbactam are comparable to those of comparator drugs in the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Safety and Efficacy of Cefoperazone Plus Sulbactam versus Ceftazidime in the Empiric Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia

Objective:

To compare the safety and efficacy of cefoperazone plus sulbactam (CPZ + SB) (3 g [2:1] every 8 h) and ceftazidime (CTZ) (2 g every 8 h) as monotherapy in the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer.

Patients:

One hundred eighteen cancer patients with chemotherapy-associated neutropenia and fever. Most patients (82) received norfloxacin and fluconazole as prophylaxis.

Results:

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in the CPZ + SB group, and 59 were enrolled in the CTZ group. The mean duration of antibiotic therapy was less than 10 days in both groups. Forty-three patients (19 in the CPZ + SB group and 24 in the CTZ group) were bacteremic, and 7 others had cellulitis. Of the 56 microorganisms producing bacteremia, 51 were gram-positive bacteria, mostly staphylococci (28 isolates) and streptococci (22 isolates). Gram-positive cocci were more frequently resistant to CTZ than to CPZ + SB (77% vs. 40%, respectively; p < 0.002). However, the clinical response rate at 72 hours of therapy was 53% in the CPZ + SB group and 52% in the CTZ group (p = 1.0). At the end of therapy, clinical responses were similar in the two groups (p = 0.19). Clinical success with antibiotic modification was seen in 42% of the CPZ + SB recipients and in 58% of CTZ recipients (p = 0.10). Bacteriologic eradication among bacteremic patients appeared to be slightly better in the CPZ + SB group (79% vs. 54%; p = 0.09). Except for rashes in 3 patients (1 in the CPZ + SB group and 2 in the CTZ group), both drugs were well tolerated. Adverse events included superinfections, transient elevation of serum transaminase concentrations, diarrhea, and chills.

Conclusions:

CPZ + SB was superior to CTZ in its in vitro activity against aerobic gram-positive cocci encountered in the study; however, the clinical efficacy and safety of the two drug treatments were similar in the empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia.

Clostridium difficile infection following systemic antibiotic administration in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antibiotics have been the most important risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). However, only data from non-randomised studies have been reviewed. We sought to evaluate the risk for development of CDI associated with the major antibiotic classes by analysing data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases were searched and the references of selected RCTs were also hand-searched. Eligible studies should have compared only one antibiotic versus another administered systemically. Inclusion of studies comparing combinations of antibiotics was allowed only if the second antibiotic was the same or from the same class or if it was administered in a subset of the enrolled patients who were equally distributed in the two arms. Only a minority of the selected RCTs (79/1332; 5.9%) reported CDI episodes. Carbapenems were associated with more CDI episodes than fluoroquinolones [risk ratio (RR) = 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-4.49] and cephalosporins (RR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.46-3.42), but not penicillins (RR = 2.53, 95% CI 0.87-7.41). Cephalosporins were associated with more CDIs than penicillins (RR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.32-4.23) and fluoroquinolones (RR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.60-5.06). There was no difference in CDI frequency between fluoroquinolones and penicillins (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.55-3.25). Finally, clindamycin was associated with more CDI episodes than cephalosporins and penicillins (RR = 3.92, 95% CI 1.15-13.43). In conclusion, data from RCTs showed that clindamycin and carbapenems were associated with more CDIs than other antibiotics.

β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors versus carbapenems for the treatment of sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data on the relative efficacy of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLIs) versus carbapenems are scant.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any BL/BLI versus any carbapenem for the treatment of sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A broad search was conducted with no restrictions on language, publication status or date. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Assessment of risk of bias was performed using the domain-based approach. Subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity and focus on patient groups more likely to harbour ESBL-positive bacteria. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated and pooled.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs were included. There was no difference between BL/BLIs and carbapenems in terms of mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.20), without heterogeneity. No differences were observed with regard to clinical or microbiological failure and bacterial superinfections. The results were not affected by risk of bias. No differences were detected in the subgroups of patients with nosocomial infections, Gram-negative infections and neutropenic fever. Adverse events requiring discontinuation were more common with BL/BLIs, on account of an increased incidence of diarrhoea. However, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.87) was more frequent with carbapenems and seizures were more frequent with imipenem (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in efficacy between BL/BLIs and carbapenems exist in RCTs including patient populations with a certain, albeit unknown, rate of ESBL-positive bacteria causing infections.

The risk of seizures among the carbapenems: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A consensus exists among clinicians that imipenem/cilastatin is the most epileptogenic carbapenem, despite inconsistencies in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing carbapenems with each other or with non-carbapenem antibiotics to assess the risk of seizures for imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem.

RESULTS

In the risk difference (RD) analysis, there were increased patients with seizure (2 per 1000 persons, 95% CI 0.001, 0.004) among recipients of carbapenems versus non-carbapenem antibiotics. This difference was largely attributed to imipenem as its use was associated with an additional 4 patients per 1000 with seizure (95% CI 0.002, 0.007) compared with non-carbapenem antibiotics, whereas none of the other carbapenems was associated with increased seizure. Similarly, in the pooled OR analysis, carbapenems were associated with a significant increase in the risk of seizures relative to non-carbapenem comparator antibiotics (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35, 2.59). The ORs for risk of seizures from imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem compared with other antibiotics were 3.50 (95% CI 2.23, 5.49), 1.04 (95% CI 0.61, 1.77), 1.32 (95% CI 0.22, 7.74) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 1.53), respectively. In studies directly comparing imipenem and meropenem, there was no difference in epileptogenicity in either RD or pooled OR analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The absolute risk of seizures with carbapenems was low, albeit higher than with non-carbapenem antibiotics. Although imipenem was more epileptogenic than non-carbapenem antibiotics, there was no statistically significant difference in the imipenem versus meropenem head-to-head comparison.

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefoperazone/sulbactam in adult low-risk febrile neutropenia cases

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) and cefoperazone/sulbactam (C/S) in the empirical treatment of adult neutropenic fever.

METHODS

Data and outcomes of low-risk adult cases with neutropenic fever and treated with P/T (4.5 g q6h) or C/S (2 g q8h) between 2005 and 2011 June were extracted from our database. Risk evaluation was made according to criteria of Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and a score of ≥ 21 was considered as low risk. Data were collected prospectively by daily visits and evaluated retrospectively. Primary outcome was - fever defervescence at 72 h in combination with success without modification (referring to episodes where the patient recovered from fever with disappearance of signs of infection without modification to initial empirical treatment). All-cause mortality referred to death resulting from a documented or presumed infection or unidentified reason during the treatment and 30-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients (113 cases P/T and 59 cases C/S) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. Persistent response in P/T arm was 73.5%, whereas it was 64.5% in C/S arm (p > 0.05). Rates of any modification were also similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality during the treatment and 30-day follow-up period was not significantly different (P/T: 4/113 vs. C/S: 2/59, p > 0.05). There was no severe adverse effect requiring antibiotic cessation in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our data suggest that C/S may be a safe alternative to P/T in the empirical treatment of adult low-risk febrile neutropenia cases.

Targeted therapy against multi-resistant bacteria in leukemic and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: guidelines of the 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL-4, 2011)

The detection of multi-resistant bacterial pathogens, particularly those to carbapenemases, in leukemic and stem cell transplant patients forces the use of old or non-conventional agents as the only remaining treatment options. These include colistin/polymyxin B, tigecycline, fosfomycin and various anti-gram-positive agents. Data on the use of these agents in leukemic patients are scanty, with only linezolid subjected to formal trials. The Expert Group of the 4(th) European Conference on Infections in Leukemia has developed guidelines for their use in these patient populations. Targeted therapy should be based on (i) in vitro susceptibility data, (ii) knowledge of the best treatment option against the particular species or phenotype of bacteria, (iii) pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, and (iv) careful assessment of the risk-benefit balance. For infections due to resistant Gram-negative bacteria, these agents should be preferably used in combination with other agents that remain active in vitro, because of suboptimal efficacy (e.g., tigecycline) and the risk of emergent resistance (e.g., fosfomycin). The paucity of new antibacterial drugs in the near future should lead us to limit the use of these drugs to situations where no alternative exists.

Randomized comparison of piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin versus cefoperazone-sulbactam plus amikacin for management of febrile neutropenia in children with lymphoma and solid tumors

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) plus amikacin (AMK) (PIP/TAZO+AMK) versus cefoperazone-sulbactam (CS) plus AMK (CS+AMK) for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer. The study was designed prospectively and randomized in 0- to 18-year-old children with lymphoma or solid tumor who were hospitalized with FN diagnosis. Consecutively randomized patients received either PIP/TAZO 360 mg/kg/day in 4 doses plus AMK 15 mg/kg/day in 3 doses or CS 100 mg/kg/day in 3 doses plus AMK 15 mg/kg/day in 3 doses intravenously. Treatment modification was defined as any change in the initial empirical antibiotic therapy. A total of 116 FN episodes were managed in 46 patients (26 boys and 20 girls) with a median age of 6.5 years (range .8-17.0) during the study period. Success rates without modification of therapy were 47.5% and 52.6% in PIP/TAZO+AMK group and CS+AMK group, respectively (P >.05). No statistical difference was found between treatment groups in terms of durations of neutropenia, fever, and hospitalization. The overall success rate in all groups was 97.4%. No major side effect was observed in either group during the course of the study. Our study is the first to compare the effectiveness of PIP/TAZO+AMK and CS+AMK therapies. Both combinations were effective and safe as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

Use of cefoperazone/sulbactam in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates are at high risk for nosocomial infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens. The use of β-lactamase inhibitors in combination with β-lactam antibiotics broadens the antimicrobial spectrum. Cefoperazone/sulbactam is used in children but there are limited data on its usage in neonates. The purpose of the present study was therefore to evaluate the use of cefoperazone/sulbactam in the treatment of neonatal infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens.

METHODS

The records of neonates who were hospitalized and who received cefoperazone/sulbactam were reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 90 infants who received cefoperazone/sulbactam. A pathogen could be isolated in 41 (45.6%) of the infants. In total, 17.1% of isolated pathogens were resistant to cefoperazone/sulbactam. Side-effects were seen in four of the infants. Two infants had cholestasis, one infant had neutropenia and one had superinfection with candida.

CONCLUSION

Cefoperazone/sulbactam can be used in the treatment of nosocomial infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens in neonates.

Epileptogenic potential of carbapenem agents: mechanism of action, seizure rates, and clinical considerations

Antimicrobials are the most frequently implicated class of drugs in drug-induced seizure, with β-lactams being the class of antimicrobials most often implicated. The seizure-inducing potential of the carbapenem subclass may be directly related to their β-lactam ring structure. Data on individual carbapenems and seizure activity are scarce. To evaluate the available evidence on the association between carbapenem agents and seizure activity, we conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE (1966-May 2010), EMBASE (1974-May 2010), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2010) databases. Reference citations from the retrieved articles were also reviewed. Mechanistically, seizure propensity of the β-lactams is related to their binding to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. There are numerous reports of seizure activity associated with imipenem-cilastatin, with seizure rates ranging from 3-33%. For meropenem, doripenem, and ertapenem, the seizure rate for each agent is reported as less than 1%. However, as their use increases and expands into new patient populations, the rate of seizures with these agents may increase. High-dose therapy, especially in patients with renal dysfunction, preexisting central nervous system abnormalities, or a seizure history increases the likelihood of seizure activity. Although specific studies have not been conducted, data indicate that carbapenem-associated seizure is best managed with benzodiazepines, followed by other agents that enhance GABA transmission. Due to the drug interaction between carbapenems and valproic acid, resulting in clinically significant declines in valproic acid serum concentrations, the combination should be avoided whenever possible. Clinicians should be vigilant regarding the possibility of carbapenem-induced seizures when selecting and dosing antimicrobial therapy.

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in a tertiary care medical center

This retrospective, case-control study aimed to identify variables associated with the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in acute care facilities and to specifically identify the relationship of fluoroquinolones and acid suppressive agents in the development of CDAD. Seventy-one symptomatic patients positive for C. difficile toxin A or B hospitalized for at least 72 hours were compared with 142 control patients hospitalized for at least 72 hours who were not positive for C. difficile toxin A or B. Two controls were matched to one case patient for age within 5 years, unit of admission, and date of admission. The mean ages for cases and controls were 63.5 and 62.7 years, respectively. After adjusting for two confounding variables-hospital stay within 3 months and Charlson Comorbidity Index-conditional multiple logistic regression identified six risk factors for development of CDAD: gastrointestinal procedures within 60 days (odds ratio [OR] 9.1, P < 0.013), levofloxacin exposure (OR 8.2, P < 0.033), moxifloxacin exposure (OR 4.1, P < 0.026), imipenem exposure (OR 14.9, P < 0.014), laxative use (OR 20.2, P < 0.0001), and immunosuppressive use (OR 20.7, P < 0.034). The risk of CDAD after exposure to levofloxacin or moxifloxacin was not significantly different. Acid suppressive therapy was not a risk factor for CDAD development.

Comparison of sulbactam-cefoperazone with carbapenems as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic children with lymphoma and solid tumors

Febrile neutropenia (FEN) is a leading complication of intensive chemotherapy. With this prospective randomized study, the authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of sulbactam-cefoperazone (SC) versus carbapenems, as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with lymphoma and solid tumors. Febrile neutropenic children (age ≤16 years) hospitalized at the authors' center for lymphomas or solid tumors between March 2007 and June 2009 were included in the study. Patients randomly received SC or carbapenem. Patients were reevaluated at 72 hours and in case of persistent fever, an aminoglycoside and/or a glycopeptide was added to the antibiotic treatment. When a resistant pathogen was isolated, the antibiotic therapy was modified. Treatment responses was defined as success without modification, overall success, or failure. Two hundred and eight episodes were documented in 128 patients (F/M: 56/72), with a median age of 7 years (0.5-17.4 years). Absolute neutrophil count and duration of neutropenia in patients treated with SC and carbapenems were 133/mm(3) (0-500) and 113/mm(3) (0-500), and 4 days (1-21) and 5 days (2-20), respectively. In the SC and carbapenem groups, 82 (78.8%) and 84 episodes (80.7%) improved with treatment, whereas 21 (20.2%) and 19 (18.3%) episodes required treatment modification respectively. One patient from each treatment group died according to febrile neutropenia. The overall success rates were 99% in both groups (P = .94). Empiric SC therapy was found to be as effective as carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric febrile neutropenic patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.

Profile of infections and outcome in high-risk febrile neutropenia: experience from a tertiary care cancer center in India

Objective of the present study was to describe the profile of infections in febrile neutropenia (FN) in acute leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) with emphasis on response to therapy and outcome. In a prospective, observational single-institutional study, consecutive episodes of high-risk FN were enrolled over a 1½-year period. Uniform antibiotic policy and response criteria were used. Of the 200 episodes enrolled, acute leukemia induction comprised 40.5%, consolidation with high-dose cytarabine 22.5%, HSCT 29% (auto-HSCT 84%), and others 8% of the episodes, respectively. Microbiologically documented infections comprised 30% episodes, while bacteremia was documented in 26% episodes. Gram-negative isolates were more common (55.7%). Cefoperazone-sulbactam had the highest in vitro efficacy against Gram-negative rods. Carbapenem resistance was most prevalent among Acinetobacter spp. (80%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (50%). All Gram-positive cocci other than enterococci were susceptible to vancomycin, while 2/8 enterococci were resistant to it. Cefoperazone-sulbactam and amikacin were used as first-line antibiotics. Overall mortality was 8%. On multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with a nadir leukocyte count < 200/μl and an abnormal chest radiograph. Among high-risk FN patients, inspite of a high-level of resistance to antibiotics, a frontline regime containing cefoperazone-sulbactam could restrict the use of imipenem and resulted in an acceptable mortality of 8%.

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

BACKGROUND

Several beta-lactams are recommended as single agents for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams as single agents in the treatment of febrile neutropenia. To compare the development of bacterial resistance, bacterial and fungal superinfections during or following treatment with the different beta-lactams.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 3, 2010. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, FDA drug applications, conference proceedings and ongoing clinical trial databases up to August 2010. References of included studies were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antipseudomonal beta-lactam to another antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic, both given alone or with the addition of the same glycopeptide to both study arms, for the initial treatment of fever and neutropenia among cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors applied inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently. Missing data were sought. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and pooled using the fixed effect model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using a domain-based evaluation and its effect of results was assessed through sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included. The antibiotics assessed were cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem and meropenem. Adequate allocation concealment and generation were reported in about half of the trials and only two trials were double-blinded. The risk for all-cause mortality was significantly higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.86, 21 trials, 3471 participants), without heterogeneity and with higher RRs in trials at low risk for bias. There were no differences in secondary outcomes but for a non-significantly higher rate of bacterial superinfections with cefepime. Mortality was significantly lower with piperacillin-tazobactam compared to other antibiotics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92, 8 trials, 1314 participants), without heterogeneity. Carbapenems resulted in similar all-cause mortality and a lower rate of clinical failure and antibiotic modifications as compared to other antibiotics, but a higher rate of diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in locations where antibiotic resistance profiles do not mandate empirical use of carbapenems. Carbapenems result in a higher rate of antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. There is a high level of evidence that all-cause mortality is higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams and it should not be used as monotherapy for patients with febrile neutropenia.

An overview of harms associated with beta-lactam antimicrobials: where do the carbapenems fit in?

The US Institute of Medicine's focus on patient safety has motivated hospital administrators to facilitate a culture of safety. As a result, subcommittees of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee have emerged in many hospitals to focus on adverse events and patient safety. Antimicrobial harms have gained the attention of practicing clinicians and hospital formulary committees, because they top the list of drugs that are associated with adverse events and because of certain serious harms that have ultimately led to the withdrawal of some antimicrobial agents. In the near future, several antimicrobials in the late phase of development will become available for clinical use (ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, and telavancin), and others (doripenem and dalbavancin) have recently joined the armamentarium. Because new antimicrobials will become part of the treatment armamentarium, it is important to discuss our current understanding of antimicrobial harms in general. Although not thought of as traditional adverse events, Clostridium difficile infection and development of resistance during therapy are adverse events that occur as a result of antimicrobial exposure and therefore are discussed. In addition, a distillation of our current understanding of β-lactam specific adverse events will be provided. Finally, new methods of administration are being evaluated that may influence peak concentration-related antimicrobial adverse events.

Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Early, empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is the established practice for febrile neutropenia. Several beta-lactams are accepted for monotherapy. We asked whether patients' outcomes are influenced by the chosen beta-lactam.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams administered as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenia, with or without vancomycin. The search included The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs databases, bibliography, conference proceedings, trial registries and FDA new drug approvals. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment and extracted the data. Trials assessing the same beta-lactam were pooled using the fixed effect model. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The primary outcome assessed was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Thirty-three trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. Cefepime was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 30 days than other beta-lactams (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.94, 3123 participants). Carbapenems were associated with fewer treatment modifications, including addition of glycopeptides, than ceftazidime or other comparators. Adverse events were significantly more frequent with carbapenems, specifically pseudomembranous colitis (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.24-3.04, 2025 participants). All-cause mortality was unaltered. Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared only with cefepime and carbapenems, in six trials. No significant differences were demonstrated with paucity of data for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of cefepime for febrile neutropenia is associated with increased mortality and should be carefully considered pending further analysis. Empirical use of carbapenems entails fewer treatment modifications, but an increased rate of pseudomembranous colitis. Ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem appear to be suitable agents for monotherapy.

Role of glycopeptides as part of initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials studying glycopeptides as part of the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with a beta-lactam and with or without an aminoglycoside. 14 randomised controlled trials that studied 2413 patients were included in the analysis. A better outcome regarding treatment success, without modification of the initial regimen, was accomplished with the inclusion of a glycopeptide in the empirical therapy; this better outcome applied to the full set of studied patients (OR=1.63, 95% CI 1.17-2.28), as well as in three important subsets of patients--those with microbiologically documented infections (2.03, 1.39-2.97), patients with bacteraemia (1.80, 1.23-2.63), and patients with severe neutropenia, defined as a white blood cell count below 100 cells/microL (2.24, 1.15-4.39). However, mortality was not different in the compared groups (0.67, 0.42-1.05). Overall treatment success was not different if a glycopeptide was added to the antimicrobial regimen in the case of continuation of fever 72 hours or more after the start of treatment (1.02, 0.68-1.52). Also, the inclusion of a glycopeptide in the empirical regimen did not lead to a difference regarding time to defervesence. Adverse effects (4.98, 2.91-8.55), including nephrotoxicity (2.10, 1.12-3.95), were more common in the group receiving a glycopeptide as part of the empirical treatment. In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that there are good reasons why glycopeptides should not be routinely used as part of the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.

Imipenem/cilastatin versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin for empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: results of the COSTINE study

BACKGROUND

Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have become standard therapy for suspected infections in patients with profound neutropenia. However, it is not clear whether such combinations are advantageous over therapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness ratio of empirical therapy of febrile neutropenia with imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (P/T+A).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective, multicenter observational study with 2 matched parallel cohorts treated with I/C (500 mg/6 h iv) or P/T+A (P/T: 4 g/6 h iv; A: 20 mg/kg/day iv).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Therapeutic success was defined as the resolution of fever following > or = 7 days of unchanged antibiotic treatment. An economic comparison was conducted focusing on the daily treatment costs, and the management of its toxicity.

RESULTS

There were 343 eligible patients (180 I/C, 163 P/T+A), of whom 290 were evaluable for the primary clinical effectiveness analysis. Follow-up information beyond 7 days of study inclusion was only available for 52% of all evaluable patients. Treatment success was observed in 42% of I/C patients compared with 31% of P/T+A patients (95% CI: -0.01, 21.4). The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences was 13% for I/C and 6% for P/T+A, with no differences in moderate or severe adverse experiences nor in those causing discontinuation of antibiotic therapy. Treatment costs were 189.55 euros (95% CI: 127.46-251.46) lower per episode of febrile neutropenia for patients treated with I/C.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical effectiveness of I/C was similar to that of P/T+A. In both treatment groups toxicity was low and did not limit antibiotic therapy. Resource consumption was lower with I/C.

Management of fever in neutropenic patients

Substantial progress has been made in the management of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients, largely by the prompt administration of potent, broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. During the past several decades, the spectrum of organisms has changed from a predominance of gram-negative pathogens to a predominance of gram-positive pathogens. In recent years, some hospitals have experienced an increase of infections caused by multi-drug-resistant pathogens. Hence, it is no longer possible to rely on standardized regimens, but antimicrobial therapy must be selected based on the predominant pathogens and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns at each institution. It is customary to initiate antifungal therapy empirically in those patients whose fever persists despite broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy. Alternatives now exist to amphotericin B, including lipid formulations of this drug, and fluconazole. It is critically important that each patient be carefully re-assessed before starting antifungal therapy, because there are many other potential causes for persistent fever, including resistant bacteria and viruses. Novel approaches to therapy include outpatient antibiotics, and use of growth factors as adjunctive therapy. There also has been a renewed interest in white blood cell transfusions. Although the prognosis for infection in neutropenic patients has improved greatly, new infectious problems have emerged that limit our successful management of these complications.

Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing clinafloxacin with imipenem as empirical monotherapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients

In a double-blind, multicenter trial, 541 febrile granulocytopenic patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (iv) clinafloxacin (200 mg every 12 h) or i.v. imipenem (500 mg every 6 h) as empirical monotherapy. More baseline pathogens were susceptible to clinafloxacin (259 [99%] of 262 organisms) than to imipenem (253 [95%] of 265; P=.03). Initial favorable clinical response rates for clinafloxacin (88 [32%] of 272 patients) and imipenem (89 [33%] of 269) were similar. After addition of other antimicrobial agents, overall response rates were 259 (95%) of 272 for clinafloxacin and 251 (93%) of 269 for imipenem. During the study, only 13 clinafloxacin (5%) and 18 imipenem (7%) recipients died. Both drugs were generally well tolerated. Drug-related skin rash occurred more often with clinafloxacin (11% vs. 6%; P=.07), whereas nausea (2% vs. 5%; P=.16), Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhea (3% vs. 8%; P=.02), and seizures (0% vs. 2%; P=.06) occurred more often with imipenem. These results suggest that clinafloxacin and imipenem have similar efficacy as empirical monotherapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Opportunistic Infections in Immunocompromised Surgical Patients

The advent of successful therapy for patients who suffer many types of organ dysfunction and failure, malignancies, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome has led to the concurrent threat of infection due to a wide array of pathogens, particularly opportunistic microbes that rarely cause disease under routine circumstances. Among patients who are subjected to extreme degrees of immunosuppression, almost any type of bacterial, fungal, viral, protozoal, or parasitic organism can exhibit pathogenic potential and lead to devastating consequences for the host. Immunosuppressive drug therapy for the purpose of organ allograft maintenance, cancer chemotherapy, or the human immunodeficiency virus exerts potent effects upon cellular immunity. Therefore, although these groups of patients are more susceptible to all types of infectious disease processes, infections due to those pathogens that require a component of cellular immunity for their eradication, such as fungi and viruses, occur at a higher frequency than that observed among normal individuals. Of critical importance, all types of infections are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality in immunosuppressed patients. Currently, improved diagnostic techniques and new treatment modalities have rendered many serious infections, for which suitable therapy previously did not exist, amenable to treatment. Because of the large number of immunosuppressed patients who now lead highly productive lives, it is important for the surgical practitioner to become familiar with the modalities currently available to precisely diagnose and effectively treat opportunistic infections in immunocompromised surgical patients.

Gastrointestinal toxicity and Clostridium difficile diarrhea in patients treated with paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of grade 3 and 4 gastrointestinal toxicity and the prevalence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in patients with gynecologic malignancies treated with paclitaxel-based chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients treated on the Gynecology Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 1993 to July 1, 1996. We identified all patients treated with paclitaxel during this period and determined the total number of patients hospitalized for symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration, within 4 weeks of chemotherapy, as well as the incidence of CDAD among these patients.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-four patients were treated with paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens during the study period, including 55 patients who were treated on a "dose-dense" high-dose protocol for advanced ovarian cancer. Among these, 149 patients (24%) were hospitalized for symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity. During the study period, a total of 40 cases of CDAD were reported among hospitalized patients on the Gynecology Service and 24 (60%) of these cases occurred in patients who had received paclitaxel within the prior 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of CDAD in patients receiving paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy is not rare and can result in severe dehydration requiring hospitalization. The risk of C. difficile colitis appears to be 2.2% in patients receiving standard-dose regimens and as high as 20% in patients receiving high-dose regimens. This etiology should be considered and treated early in patients presenting with symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity subsequent to chemotherapy treatments.