A randomized monocentric trial in febrile neutropenic patients: ceftriaxone and gentamicin vs cefepime and gentamicin

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This guideline was written by a multidisciplinary committee with mandated members of the Dutch Society for Infectious Diseases, Dutch Society for Hematology, Dutch Society for Medical Oncology, Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists, Dutch Society for Medical Microbiology, and Dutch Society for Pediatrics. The guideline is written for adults and pediatric patients.

METHOD

The recommendations are based on the answers to nine questions formulated by the guideline committee. To provide evidence-based recommendations we used all relevant clinical guidelines published since 2010 as a source, supplemented with systematic searches and evaluation of the recent literature (2010-2020) and, where necessary, supplemented by expert-based advice.

RESULTS

For adults the guideline distinguishes between high- and standard-risk neutropenia based on expected duration of neutropenia (> 7 days versus ≤ 7 days). Where possible a distinction has been made between pediatric and adult patients.

CONCLUSION

This guideline was written to aid diagnosis and management of patients with febrile neutropenia due to chemotherapy in the Netherlands. The guideline provides recommendation for children and adults. Adults patient are subdivided as having a standard- or high-risk neutropenic episode based on estimated duration of neutropenia. The most important recommendations are as follows. In adults with high-risk neutropenia (duration of neutropenia > 7 days) and in children with neutropenia, ceftazidime, cefepime, and piperacillin-tazobactam are all first-choice options for empirical antibiotic therapy in case of fever. In adults with standard-risk neutropenia (duration of neutropenia ≤ 7 days) the MASCC score can be used to assess the individual risk of infectious complications. For patients with a low risk of infectious complications (high MASCC score) oral antibiotic therapy in an outpatient setting is recommended. For patients with a high risk of infectious complications (low MASCC score) antibiotic therapy per protocol sepsis of unknown origin is recommended.

[Fever in Cancer Patients]

Fever in cancer patients is a medical emergency until a severe infection has been ruled out. In case of neutropenia prompt diagnostic work-up should be paralleled by empiric antibiotic treatment. Underlying malignancy as well as treatments may impair immune response and thus pave the way for less virulent pathogens. So the spectrum of infections comprises both pathogens that cause disease in immunocompetent patients and a variety of rarer organisms. After collecting two pairs of blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment should commence within one to two hours. Depending on the individual patient's risk antimicrobial prophylaxis should be considered.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite reports questioning its efficacy, cefepime remains a first-line option in febrile neutropenia. We aimed to re-evaluate the role of cefepime in this setting.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify randomized comparisons of (1) cefepime vs alternative monotherapy or (2) cefepime plus aminoglycoside vs alternative monotherapy plus aminoglycoside, published until November 28, 2016.

RESULTS

Thirty-two trials, reporting on 5724 patients, were included. Clinical efficacy was similar between study arms (P = .698), but overall mortality was greater among cefepime-treated patients (risk ratio [RR] = 1.321; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.035-1.686; P = .025). Also of note, this effect seemed to stem from trials using low-dose (2 grams/12 hours, 100 mg/kg per day) cefepime monotherapy (RR = 1.682; 95% CI, 1.038-2.727; P = .035). Cefepime was also associated with increased mortality compared with carbapenems (RR = 1.668; 95% CI, 1.089-2.555; P = .019), a finding possibly influenced by cefepime dose, because carbapenems were compared with low-dose cefepime monotherapy in 5 of 9 trials. Treatment failure in clinically documented infections was also more frequent with cefepime (RR = 1.143; 95% CI, 1.004-1.300; P = .043). Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was more common among patients that received high-dose cefepime (P = .026), whereas low-dose cefepime monotherapy resulted in fewer adverse events, compared with alternative monotherapy (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Cefepime demonstrated increased mortality compared with carbapenems, reduced efficacy in clinically documented infections, and higher rates of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation. The impact of cefepime dosing on these outcomes is important, because low-dose regimens were associated with lower toxicity at the expense of higher mortality.

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.

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

Patients with fever and granulocytopenia are at risk of developing severe infection. We performed a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose cefepime plus amikacin (C-A) compared to low-dose piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (PT-A). Patients received cefepime (2 g/12 h) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) or piperacillin/tazobactam (4 g/500 mg/8 h) plus amikacin. A total of 317 episodes of febrile granulocytopenia in 190 patients were studied (152 in the C-A group, 165 in the PT-A group). A microbiologically documented infection was present in 53 (35%) episodes in the C-A group and 41 (25%) episodes in the PT-A group (p = ns); a clinically documented infection was observed in 39 (26%) and 47 (28%) episodes, respectively. Toxicity was observed in 6 (4%) episodes in the C-A group and in 5 (3%) episodes in the PT-A group. The antibiotic success rate (no change or addition of antibiotics) was recorded in 89 (59%) and 105 (64%) cases, respectively (p = ns). Mortality related to infection was similar in each arm (3.9% vs. 3.6%). Combination therapy of low-dose beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside achieves very good response rates and low rates of toxicity. It might be an attractive option in an environment of increasing resistance among gram-negative bacteria.

Efficacy and safety of cefepime: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cefepime is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with enhanced coverage against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. We did a systematic review of randomised trials that compared cefepime with another beta-lactam antibiotic, alone or with the addition of a non-beta-lactam antibiotic to both study groups. We searched Central, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, new US Food and Drug Administration drug applications, conference proceedings, and references of the included studies. Two reviewers independently did the search and data extraction. 57 trials were included. All-cause mortality-the primary outcome-was higher with cefepime than other beta-lactams (risk ratio [RR] 1.26 [95% CI 1.08-1.49]). Sensitivity analyses by the trials' methodological quality revealed higher RRs for trials reporting adequate allocation-sequence generation (1.52 [1.20-1.92]) and allocation concealment (1.36 [1.09-1.70]). Baseline risk factors for mortality were similar. No significant differences between groups in treatment failure, superinfection, or adverse events were found. This Review provides evidence and offers possible explanations for increased mortality among patients treated with cefepime in randomised trials.

Once-Daily Oral Levofloxacin Monotherapy versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam Three Times a Day: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial in Patients with Febrile Neutropenia

A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral monotherapy with 500 mg levofloxacin in comparison with 4.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam 3 times a day in patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. Low risk was defined by oral temperature > or = 38.5 degrees C on one occasion or > or = 38.0 degrees C twice within 24 hours and granulocytopenia < or = 500/microL for less than 10 days. The primary end point was defined as defervescence after 72 hours followed by at least 7 afebrile days. Secondary end points were overall response, time to defervescence, survival on day 30, and toxicity. Thirty-four episodes were included. Fever of unknown origin accounted for 26 (76.5%) of the episodes, microbiologically defined infection for 5 (14.7%) of the episodes, and clinically defined infection for 3 (8.8%) of the episodes. On an intent-to-treat basis, all episodes were evaluable for the primary end point. Levofloxacin and piperacillin/tazobactam were successful after 72 hours of treatment in 76.5% and 88.3% of the episodes. Overall response was achieved in 94.1% and 100% of the episodes, respectively. One inpatient in the oral treatment group died of septic shock without identification of a causative pathogen. A larger phase III trial is warranted to further evaluate the lack of inferiority of the oral monotherapy regimen versus standard intravenous therapy.

Ceftriaxone in febrile neutropenia

Standard management of febrile neutropenia requires prompt administration of empirical, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, since febrile neutropenia is associated with a significant risk of infectious complications and mortality. Risk-assessment models have been developed that differentiate febrile patients with neutropenia according to their risk for infectious complications and/or mortality and have prompted a change in the management of these patients. Ceftriaxone is a long-lasting, broad spectrum cephalosporin which has demonstrated efficacy in this indication in many publications. The role of ceftriaxone in febrile neutropenia will be discussed based on literature analysis and on the author's experience.