Clinical efficacy and safety of cefepime in febrile neutropenic patients with lung cancer

The efficacy and safety of cefepime or meropenem in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer. A randomized phase II study

Febrile neutropenia frequently develops after chemotherapy. There is little evidence to indicate the type of antimicrobial agents that should be used in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors. The objective is to determine the efficacy and safety of cefepime (CFPM) and meropenem (MEPM) in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in lung cancer patients in a prospective randomized study. FN patients with lung cancer were randomly divided into CFPM or MEPM groups. The primary end-point was the response rate. The secondary end-points were the defervescence rates at 72 h, 7 days, 14 days and the incidence of adverse events. Twenty-one patients were treated with CFPM and 24 patients were treated with MEPM. One patient died of FN. The CFPM treatment completion rate was 17.65% (95% CI; 0.00-35.77%), while the MEPM treatment completion rate was 38.10% (95% CI; 17.33-58.87%). The defervescence rates at 72 h, 7 days, and 14 days were 70.59%, 86.67%, and 100.00%, respectively in the CFPM group; and 65.00%, 84.21%, and 92.31% in the MEPM group. Adverse events were observed in 33.33% of the CFPM group and 45.83% of the MEPM group. The response rate of the CFPM group was 94.12% (95% CI; 73.02-98.95%), while that of the MEPM group was 85.71% (95% CI; 65.36-95.02%). No differences were found in the efficacy or safety of CFPM and MEPM in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer.

Cefepime monotherapy for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer

We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefepime monotherapy (1 g intravenously every 8 h) for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer in a multi-institutional phase II study. Patients treated with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy for lung cancer were eligible for this study. Other eligibility criteria included fever (temperature of ≥38.0 °C) and an absolute neutrophil count of <500/mm(3) or <1000/mm(3) with an expected decline to <500/mm(3) within the next 48 h. Risk assessment was performed using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer risk-index score. Cefepime 1 g was given intravenously every 8 h. The primary endpoint was the response rate at the end of cefepime therapy. Co-administration of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor was permitted. Of 54 patients enrolled, 39 were classified in the low-risk group and 15 in the high-risk group. Overall response rate was 78% (95% CI: 64.4-88.0%). The response rates were 85% (95% CI: 69.5-94.1%) in the low-risk group and 60% (95% CI: 32.3-83.7%) in the high-risk group, respectively. One patient died from septic shock due to Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia. There was no significant adverse event. Cefepime 1 g intravenously every 8 h appears to be effective for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer, especially in those with low-risk febrile neutropenia, and is well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000006157.

Combination antibiotic therapy for empiric and definitive treatment of gram-negative infections: insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

The widespread emergence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative organisms has compromised the utility of current treatment options for severe infections caused by these pathogens. The rate of gram-negative multidrug resistance is worsening, threatening the effectiveness of newer broad-spectrum antibiotic agents. Infections associated with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Enterobacteriaceae are having a substantial impact on hospital costs and mortality rates. The potential for these resistant gram-negative nosocomial pathogens must always be a primary consideration when selecting antibiotic therapy for critically ill patients. Empiric combination therapy directed at gram-negative pathogens is a logical approach for patients with suspected health care-associated infections, particularly those with risk factors for infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. Although in vitro synergy tests have shown potential benefits of continued combination therapy, convincing clinical data that demonstrate a need for combination therapy once susceptibilities are known are lacking. Thus, deescalation to a single agent once susceptibilities are known is recommended for most patients and pathogens. Use of polymyxins, often in combination with other antimicrobials, may be necessary for salvage therapy.