Meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options.

DISCUSSION

Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Effect of meropenem with or without immunoglobulin as second-line therapy for pediatric febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Meropenem (MEPM) is widely used for treatment of febrile neutropenia. There have been many reports on MEPM for pediatric febrile neutropenia showing success rates of approximately 50-75%. Although i.v. immunoglobulin (IVIG) is widely used for treatment of infection with antibiotics, there has been no report on the efficacy of IVIG for pediatric febrile neutropenia. This prospective randomized study was therefore carried out to clarify the usefulness of MEPM with or without IVIG as second line-therapy for pediatric febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 61 pediatric patients with 146 episodes were judged to have failure of first-line therapy (August 2008-April 2010: cefozopran vs cefepime; April 2010-April 2012: cefepime vs piperacillin/tazobactam) for febrile neutropenia, and were randomized to MEPM and MEPM + IVIG groups.

RESULTS

MEPM with or without IVIG as second-line therapy was effective in 68.1% of a total of 144 episodes. Success rates in the MEPM and MEPM + IVIG groups were 66.3% and 70.5%, respectively. Furthermore, success rates for patients with IgG <500 mg/dL were 62.5% in the MEPM group and 81.3% in the MEPM + IVIG group. This result, however, was not statistically significant, possibly because of the small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

MEPM is effective and safe for second-line treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric patients. Moreover, IVIG is effective for patients with low serum IgG.

Evidence-based guidelines for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever in Korea

Neutrophils play an important role in immunological function. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to infection, and except fever is present, inflammatory reactions are scarce in many cases. Additionally, because infections can worsen rapidly, early evaluation and treatments are especially important in febrile neutropenic patients. In cases in which febrile neutropenia is anticipated due to anticancer chemotherapy, antibiotic prophylaxis can be used, based on the risk of infection. Antifungal prophylaxis may also be considered if long-term neutropenia or mucosal damage is expected. When fever is observed in patients suspected to have neutropenia, an adequate physical examination and blood and sputum cultures should be performed. Initial antibiotics should be chosen by considering the risk of complications following the infection; if the risk is low, oral antibiotics can be used. For initial intravenous antibiotics, monotherapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic or combination therapy with two antibiotics is recommended. At 3-5 days after beginning the initial antibiotic therapy, the condition of the patient is assessed again to determine whether the fever has subsided or symptoms have worsened. If the patient's condition has improved, intravenous antibiotics can be replaced with oral antibiotics; if the condition has deteriorated, a change of antibiotics or addition of antifungal agents should be considered. If the causative microorganism is identified, initial antimicrobial or antifungal agents should be changed accordingly. When the cause is not detected, the initial agents should continue to be used until the neutrophil count recovers.

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.

Executive Summary: 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.

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.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients with cancer requires antibacterial regimens active against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. This study was performed to demonstrate the noninferiority of monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam, compared with cefepime.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized-controlled, open-label, multicenter clinical trial among high-risk patients from 34 university-affiliated tertiary care medical centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia who were undergoing treatment for leukemia or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were hospitalized for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients received piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 h) or cefepime (2 g every 8 h) intravenously. The primary outcome was success (defined by defervescence without treatment modification) at 72 h of treatment, end of treatment, and test of cure in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, microbiological efficacy, the additional use of glycopeptide antibiotics, emergence of resistant bacteria, and safety.

RESULTS

For 528 subjects (265 received piperacillin-tazobactam and 263 received cefepime), success rates were 57.7% and 48.3%, respectively (P = .04) at the 72-h time point, 39.6% and 31.6% (P = .06) at end of treatment, and 26.8% and 20.5% (P = .11) at the test-of-cure visit. The analyses demonstrated noninferiority for piperacillin-tazobactam at all time points (P< or = .0001). Treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam was independently associated with treatment success in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.64; P = .035). Both regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the noninferiority and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy, compared with cefepime, for the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

Clinical Experience with Three Combination Regimens for the Treatment of High-risk Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h), piperacillin/tazobactam (4 g/500 mg every 6 h), and meropenem (1 g every 8 h), when combined with amikacin (15 mg/kg once daily), in the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with haematological malignancy. Materials and Methods : A prospective, comparative study designed in the haematology unit of a university hospital in Turkey. Results: A total of 89 febrile episodes in 60 neutropenic patients were treated; 29 febrile episodes in 23 patients with ceftazidime plus amikacin (group 1), 30 episodes in 25 patients with piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (group 2), and 30 episodes in 25 patients with meropenem plus amikacin (group 3). The 3 groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, underlying malignancy, pretherapy neutrophil counts, duration of neutropenia and types of infections. Neutropenia, since the start of fever, persisted for 10 days in all of the episodes in the 3 study groups. Nearly all of the episodes were seen in patients with acute leukaemia. In 25.8% (23/89) of the febrile neutropenia episodes, an aetiologic organism was isolated, with gram- negative bacteria being the most commonly isolated. The success without modification rates were 34.5%, 30% and 36.7% for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P >0.05). After modification with a different class of antimicrobial therapy, the response rates increased to 65.5%, 63.3% and 70% for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P >0.05). The mean duration of treatment and the time to defervescence were also comparable in all groups. In all arms, side effects were minimal. Conclusions: It is concluded that the 3 regimens were equally effective and safe in the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic episodes. Key words: Antibiotic therapy, Haematological malignancy

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.

Meropenem in the treatment of febrile neutropenic children

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of meropenem in immunocompromised children. Between January 1998 and December 2002 in the hemato-oncological units of our hospital meropenem was used in 87 febrile events diagnosed in 55 patients, and 328 bacterial cultures were evaluated. Microorganisms were detected and identified in 64 of the 328 hemocultures; there was a predominance of gram-positive strains (67%). In 49.4% the infection was documented microbiologically. In 16 additional cases the infection was proven clinically and 32.2% of the episodes were considered to be fever of unknown origin. The success rate of the meropenem therapy-excluding the proven fungal or coagulase-negative Staphylococcus infections--was 72.9% and for the whole cohort 49.4%. The results demonstrate that meropenem is effective and well-tolerated when used for the treatment of neutropenic cancer children.

Empiric carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

To determine which carbapenem (imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem) was the preferable empiric antibiotic monotherapy in pre-engrafted pediatric bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in terms of patient tolerance, therapeutic efficacy, and cost.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 16 pediatric BMT patients who received meropenem, and retrospectively analyzed 16 matched patients who had received imipenem/cilastatin for BMT procedures during the prior 2-year period. We evaluated the patients for evidence of bacterial infection, necessity for concurrent antibiotics, vomiting episodes, duration of concurrent total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and cost of therapy.

RESULTS

We found no differences in the number of culture proven or clinically suspected breakthrough bacterial infections or the need for concurrent additional antibiotics between the groups. Our analysis found that patients who received meropenem experienced significantly less vomiting than those in the imipenem/cilastatin cohort. Our data showed both direct and indirect cost savings for the meropenem group. The statistical and clinical differences in the number of vomiting episodes between these groups impacted other aspects of patient care, antiemetic use, and TPN duration.

CONCLUSIONS

By switching to meropenem, we reduced the cost of antiemetic therapy per patient treatment course, and also showed a trend toward reduced duration of TPN. We found that meropenem provided both clinical and fiscal advantages over imipenem/cilastatin as empiric antibiotic monotherapy in neutropenic pediatric BMT patients.