Multicenter, randomized trial of ciprofloxacin plus azlocillin versus ceftazidime plus amikacin for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat him or her empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of oral antibiotics versus intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 4, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 4) and LILACS (1982 to 2007). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) (1995 to 2007), and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotic(s) to intravenous antibiotic(s) for the treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. The comparison between the two could be started initially (initial oral) or following an initial course of intravenous antibiotic treatment (sequential).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from the included studies assuming an 'intention-to-treat' basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for dichotomous data. Risk of bias assessment was also made in line with methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials (3142 episodes in 2372 patients) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar when comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68, 9 trials, 1392 patients, median mortality 0, range 0% to 8.8%). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. The effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotic were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal, were more common with oral antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present data, oral treatment is an acceptable alternative to intravenous antibiotic treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients (excluding patients with acute leukaemia) who are haemodynamically stable, without organ failure, and do not have pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide CI for mortality allows the present use of oral treatment in groups of patients with an expected low risk for mortality, and further research should be aimed at clarifying the definition of low risk patients.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics in treatment of paediatric febrile neutropenia

The purpose of this study is to determine whether, in low-risk febrile neutropenic paediatric populations, oral antibiotics are as effective as intravenous antibiotics in obtaining resolution of the febrile neutropenic episode. A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL identified prospective, randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with intravenous antibiotics in the treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in low-risk paediatric oncology patients. Outcomes assessed were mortality, rate of treatment failure, length of the febrile neutropenic episode and adverse events. The random effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean difference with standard deviation for continuous data. Seven trials were included in the overall analysis, which included 934 episodes of febrile neutropenia in 676 patients aged between 9 months and 20 years. The overall treatment failure rates were not significantly different between oral and intravenous antibiotics (RR: 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.32, P= 0.91). In carefully selected low-risk febrile neutropenic children, empiric treatment with oral antibiotics is a safe and effective alternative to intravenous antibiotics as they lower the cost of treatment as well as psychosocial burden on these children and their families.

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.

The evolution towards ambulatory and day-case management of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is only second to chemotherapy administration as a cause of hospital admission during treatment for cancer. As FN may signify serious or life-threatening infection, management protocols have focussed on trying to prevent adverse outcomes in these patients. However, it is now possible to identify a subset of patients with FN at low risk of life-threatening complications in whom duration of hospitalisation and intensity of therapy can be reduced safely. This review discusses how the management of FN has evolved to enable patients identified as low risk to be treated on specific low risk management strategies, with an emphasis on some of the practical considerations for the implementation of such strategies.

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.

Manejo del paciente con neutropenia de bajo riesgo y fiebre

For years the classical approach to febrile episodes in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia consisted of hospital admission and intravenous administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, since the end of the 1980s, it has been known that not all episodes of neutropenia carry the same risk of developing complications. These low risk febrile patients with neutropenia, that is, those without a clear focus of infection, without criteria for severe sepsis, and with an expected duration of neutropenia of less than 7-10 days, could benefit from outpatient oral antibiotic therapy or, failing this, from intravenous administration through a perfusion pump in the home. The present study analyzes the current situation of the new treatment modalities that aim to improve patients' quality of life and to optimize healthcare resources and costs.

Ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside in combination with a beta-lactam for the treatment of febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and toxicity of ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside, both in combination with a beta-lactam, for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

For this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination for the treatment of febrile neutropenia and reported data on effectiveness, mortality, and/or toxicity, we searched PubMed (1950-2004), Current Contents, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of retrieved articles, including review articles, as well as abstracts presented at international conferences. Data for 3 primary and 2 secondary outcomes were extracted by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in the analysis. Comparable or better outcomes were observed with the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination: clinical cure without modification of the initial regimen (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.74; P=.05), clinical cure in the subset of patients with documented Infections (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31; P=.03), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.35; P=.49), withdrawal of the study drugs due to toxicity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.32; P-.51), and nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P<.001). The ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination was also associated with better clinical cure compared to the aminoglycoside/beta-actam combination in the subset of RCTs with non-low-risk patients (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.01-1.88; P=-.04), as well as in the subset of studies that included the same beta-lactam in both treatment arms (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of ciprofloxacin with a beta-actam antibiotic should be considered an important therapeutic option in hospitalized febrile neutropenic patients who have not received a quinolone for prevention of infections and in settings in which quinolone resistance is not common.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of oral antibiotics versus intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register of trials (November 2002), the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (January 1980 to 2002) and LILACS (1982 to 2002). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) 1995 to 2002 and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotic/s to intravenous antibiotic/s for the treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. The comparison between the two could be started initially (initial oral), or following an initial course of intravenous antibiotic treatment (sequential).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from included studies assuming an "intention-to-treat" basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data were estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (median mortality 0, range 0 to 8.8%) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, 7 trials, 1223 patients). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. This effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotics were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal were more common with oral antibiotics.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present data, oral treatment is an acceptable alternative to intravenous antibiotic treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients (excluding patients with acute leukaemia) who are haemodynamically stable, without organ failure, not having pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide confidence interval for mortality allows the present use of oral treatment in groups of patients with an expected low risk for mortality, and further research should be aimed at clarifying the definition of low risk patients.

Pharmacodynamic interactions of ciprofloxacin, piperacillin, and piperacillin/tazobactam in healthy volunteers

Mathematical modeling methods were used to study pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of the antimicrobial combinations piperacillin plus ciprofloxacin and piperacillin plus tazobactam. Twelve healthy volunteers received the following treatments: piperacillin (4 g), ciprofloxacin (400 mg), piperacillin (4 g) plus ciprofloxacin (400 mg), and piperacillin (4 g) plus tazobactam (0.5 g), via intravenous infusion in a four-period crossover design. Serum drug concentrations were analyzed by means of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and inhibitory titers were performed against eight organisms. The pharmacodynamic response (growth or no growth) was modeled for each of the monotherapy courses using a Hill-type model where Emax was 1 (100% probability of no growth [P(NG)]), and EC50 was the concentration associated with a 50% P(NG). For piperacillin plus ciprofloxacin, P(NG) was a function of 1) plasma concentrations for both drugs; 2) EC50 values from the monotherapy courses; and 3) theta, an interaction term that accommodates synergy, additivity, or antagonism. For piperacillin/tazobactam, the serum ultrafiltrate area under the inhibitory curve was compared with that of piperacillin alone to determine the benefit of tazobactam. The interaction between piperacillin and ciprofloxacin was additive. The addition of tazobactam to piperacillin was beneficial against certain organisms. The model developed can be used to evaluate the activity of combination regimens against representative pathogens.

Ciprofloxacin plus piperacillin is an equally effective regimen for empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients compared with standard therapy

The purpose of this study was to test the comparative efficacy and toxicity of empiric gentamicin and ciprofloxacin, in combination with piperacillin, in febrile patients with treatment-induced neutropenia. Fifty patients were prospectively randomized to receive piperacillin plus gentamicin (PG), and 46 were randomized to receive piperacillin plus ciprofloxacin (PC). The groups were similar in age, sex, diagnosis, duration of neutropenia, and incidence of positive cultures. The two antibiotic regimens were associated with comparable rates of defervescence in the patients with gram-positive bacteremia. In the patients with gram-negative bacteremia and those with negative cultures, however, defervescence was more prompt in the PC group. In particular, 27% of the culture-negative patients on PC, compared to only 5% of those on PG, defervesced within 72 hr (P = 0.015). Because of the more prompt defervescence in the PC group, amphotericin B was used less frequently; 78% of the patients on PG compared with only 56% of those on PC were started on amphotericin B (P = 0.025). PC is an effective alternative to the more traditional PG for treatment of febrile neutropenic hosts who have not been given prophylactic quinolones. More important, PC appears to hasten defervescence compared with PG, especially in culture-negative patients and those with gram-negative bacteremia, and may decrease the necessity of additional antimicrobial agents such as amphotericin B.

Pharmacodynamic modeling of the in vivo interaction between cefotaxime and ofloxacin by using serum ultrafiltrate inhibitory titers

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of cefotaxime and ofloxacin and of their combination were examined in a three-period randomized crossover study involving 12 healthy adults. The PK of cefotaxime and ofloxacin were modeled. PD was assessed from the predicted concentrations in serum and serum untrafiltrate inhibitory titers for 10 test organisms. An inhibitory sigmoid Emax model based on the probability of bacterial growth was used, where Emax = 1 and EC50 is the concentration resulting in a 50% probability of growth. The total body clearance (CL(T)) and volume of distribution at steady state (V(SS)) for cefotaxime were 0.236 liters/kg/h and 0.207 liters/kg, respectively, for the monotherapy and 0.231 liters/kg/h and 0.208 liters/kg for the combination therapy. Ofloxacin exhibited PK parameters of 0.143 liters/kg/h for CL(T) and 1.20 liters/kg for V(SS) following the monotherapy and of 0.141 liters/kg/h for CL(T) and 1.16 liters/kg for V(SS) following combination therapy. For the combination therapy, an interaction term, theta, defined the type and relative extent of interaction. The range of observed theta values (-0.033 to 0.067) is consistent with an additive PD interaction according to standards similar to those used for the in vitro fractional inhibitory concentration index.

Ciprofloxacin. An updated review of its pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability

Ciprofloxacin is a broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent. Since its introduction in the 1980s, most Gram-negative bacteria have remained highly susceptible to this agent in vitro; Gram-positive bacteria are generally susceptible or moderately susceptible. Ciprofloxacin attains therapeutic concentrations in most tissues and body fluids. The results of clinical trials with ciprofloxacin have confirmed its clinical efficacy and low potential for adverse effects. Ciprofloxacin is effective in the treatment of a wide variety of infections, particularly those caused by Gram-negative pathogens. These include complicated urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhoea and chancroid), skin and bone infections, gastrointestinal infections caused by multiresistant organisms, lower respiratory tract infections (including those in patients with cystic fibrosis), febrile neutropenia (combined with an agent which possesses good activity against Gram-positive bacteria), intra-abdominal infections (combined with an antianaerobic agent) and malignant external otitis. Ciprofloxacin should not be considered a first-line empirical therapy for respiratory tract infections if penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae is the primary pathogen; however, it is an appropriate treatment option in patients with mixed infections (where S. pneumoniae may or may not be present) or in patients with predisposing factors for Gram-negative infections. Clinically important drug interactions involving ciprofloxacin are well documented and avoidable with conscientious prescribing. Recommended dosage adjustments in patients with impaired renal function vary between countries; major adjustments are not required until the estimated creatinine clearance is < 30 ml/min/1.73m2 (or when the serum creatinine level is > or = 2 mg/dl). Ciprofloxacin is one of the few broad spectrum antibacterials available in both intravenous and oral formulations. In this respect, it offers the potential for cost savings with sequential intravenous and oral therapy in appropriately selected patients and may allow early discharge from hospital in some instances. In conclusion, ciprofloxacin has retained its excellent activity against most Gram-negative bacteria, and fulfilled its potential as an important antibacterial drug in the treatment of a wide range of infections. Rational prescribing will help to ensure the continued clinical usefulness of this valuable antimicrobial drug.

Comparison of the bactericidal activities of ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin alone and in combination with ceftazidime and piperacillin against clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

On the basis of MIC data, ciprofloxacin exhibits superior activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa than the other currently available fluoroquinolones do. Despite the antipseudomonal advantage noted for ciprofloxacin monotherapy, it is unknown whether this advantage is maintained when the fluoroquinolones are used in combination with antipseudomonal beta-lactams such as ceftazidime and piperacillin. Twelve healthy volunteers were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, steady-state, six-way cross-over, comparative trial. All subjects received the following regimens: (i) 400 mg of ofloxacin given intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h (q12h), (ii) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h, (iii) 400 mg of ofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 1 g of ceftazidime given i.v. every 8 h (q8h), (iv) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 1 g of ceftazidime given i.v. q8h, (v) 400 mg of ofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 4 g of piperacillin given i.v. q8h, and (vi) 400 mg of ciprofloxacin given i.v. q12h plus 4 g of piperacillin given i.v. q8h. Serum bactericidal titers with subsequent calculation of the area under the bactericidal curve were determined against three clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa. As monotherapy, ciprofloxacin demonstrated superior antipseudomonal activity than ofloxacin did; however, combination of these agents with ceftazidime yielded remarkably similar and statistically comparable activity profiles. In contrast, ciprofloxacin-piperacillin retained a bactericidal advantage over ofloxacin-piperacillin. Although ciprofloxacin exhibits superior antipseudomonal activity when used as monotherapy, combination of ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin with ceftazidime yielded equivalent activity profiles against susceptible strains of P. aeruginosa.

Empiric therapy for infections in the febrile, neutropenic, compromised host

In the years to come, it is likely that with the advent of cytokines and even more with possibility to insert drug-resistant genes into hematopoietic stem cells, the risk of infection will be decreased because the severity and duration of neutropenia will be minimized. It is true that the ideal empiric antimicrobial regimen--a single antibiotic with a low incidence of superinfection and a low toxicity, without need for subsequent additions and readjustments--is still a wish. In the meantime and while living in the neutropenic area, physicians, for the benefit of patients, have to follow guidelines and create algorithms (see Fig. 1). Recommendations, however, should be always adjustable to the individual characteristics of the patient and the institution and to progress in antimicrobial chemotherapy. It is inevitable that research and clinical practice should go "hand in hand" in these "difficult-to-manage" and "difficult-to-treat" patients. After all, it should never be forgotten that the ultimate goal of empiric antimicrobial regimens in febrile neutropenia is to ensure patients' survival.

Feasibility of outpatient management of fever in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenia: results of a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

We recently demonstrated the efficacy of single-agent oral ofloxacin in the management of hospitalized neutropenic febrile patients. Ofloxacin was particularly effective in patients with short duration of neutropenia and fever of undetermined origin. These results prompted us to study the feasibility of outpatient management of neutropenic febrile patients who are otherwise at low risk of morbidity and mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional, prospective, randomized trial included 182 low-risk neutropenic febrile episodes. After an initial work-up for fever, patients were randomized to receive oral ofloxacin 400 mg immediately and twice daily thereafter in the hospital or as outpatients. Close monitoring and follow-up were carried out in all patients. Those who failed to respond and remained febrile were given parenteral antibiotics. Nonresponding outpatients were admitted to the hospital for parenteral therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine episodes were evaluable. The hospital and outpatient treatment groups had comparable clinical characteristics. Pyrexias of undetermined origin (PUO) comprised 69% of episodes managed in hospital and 73% of episodes treated outside. The success rate with PUO was similar with inpatient and outpatient management. Patients with clinical and microbiologic infections fared less well than those with PUO. Overall, 78% of inpatient and 77% of outpatient fevers resolved with no modification of the initial treatment. Twenty-one percent of patients originally assigned to outside management required hospitalization. Mortality was 2% among inpatients and 4% among outpatients. One early death in a nonhospitalized patient underscores the need for close monitoring and surveillance in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient management of low-risk neutropenic febrile patients with ofloxacin is as effective as inpatient management with the same agent. This approach should be limited to the subset of patients with low-risk factors who are not otherwise on quinolone prophylaxis.

The role of new antibiotics for the treatment of infections in the emergency department

Treatment of infectious diseases comprises a large part of emergency medicine practice. The management of infectious diseases in the emergency department is often different than in other settings because of the types of infectious presentations and the frequent necessity of empiric treatment decisions. This paper examines the new antimicrobials and their role for the treatment of infections in the ED.

Susceptibilities of bacterial isolates from patients with cancer to levofloxacin and other quinolones

The antibacterial activity of levofloxacin was compared with those of ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against bacterial isolates from patients with cancer. In general, levofloxacin was as active or was twofold more active than ofloxacin and was two- to fourfold less active than ciprofloxacin against most gram-negative pathogens. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ciprofloxacin was the most active agent tested (MIC for 90% of isolates tested, 1.0 microgram/ml). Overall, all three agents had similar activities against gram-positive organisms and were moderately active against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci, Streptococcus species, and Enterococcus species.

Outpatient treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization and intravenous (IV) broad-spectrum antibiotics are the standard of care for all febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. Recent work suggests that a low-risk population exists who might benefit from an alternate approach.

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed comparing oral ciprofloxacin 750 mg plus clindamycin 600 mg every 8 hours with IV aztreonam 2 g plus clindamycin 600 mg every 8 hours for the empiric outpatient treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer.

RESULTS

The oral regimen cured 35 of 40 episodes (88% response rate), whereas the IV regimen cured 41 of 43 episodes (95% response rate, P = 0.19). Although the cost of the oral regimen was significantly less than that of the IV regimen (P < 0.0001), it was associated with significant renal toxicity (P < 0.05), which led to early termination of the study. Overall, combining its safety and efficacy, the IV regimen was superior (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study suggested that outpatient antibiotic therapy for febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer is safe and effective. Better oral regimens are needed.

Intravenous ciprofloxacin: a position statement by the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

Intravenous ciprofloxacin is approved for the treatment of urinary tract, bone and joint, skin and soft tissue, and lower respiratory tract infections. Few large, randomized studies comparing its effectiveness with that of other available agents exist; most of these have been published in non-peer-reviewed journal supplements. Intravenous ciprofloxacin is nearly ten times more expensive than the "equivalent" oral dose. Based on the limitations of currently available clinical data, iv ciprofloxacin does not appear to be superior, and is at best comparable in efficacy to other currently available antibiotics. Bacterial resistance, especially in serious infections secondary to P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, is becoming more prevalent. Intravenous ciprofloxacin should be considered an alternative for the treatment of infections of the urinary and lower respiratory tracts only when the following conditions exist: (1) documented bacterial resistance to less-costly regimens with proven efficacy for these indications (e.g., beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) and known susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, (2) documented hypersensitivity to first-line agents, or (3) inability to ingest or absorb oral ciprofloxacin. Further clinical trials using higher doses are required before iv ciprofloxacin can be recommended routinely for treatment of serious systemic infections. Because of its poor activity against streptococci, marginal activity against some strains of P. aeruginosa, and the rapidly developing resistance of staphylococci, iv ciprofloxacin should not be used empirically for infections in settings (such as the intensive care unit) where these organisms are likely to be pathogenic.

Use of the quinolones for the prophylaxis and therapy of infections in immunocompromised hosts

The prevention and treatment of infections are major issues of supportive care in patients with haematological malignancies. Because of their broad antimicrobial activity, the use of fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis in neutropenic patients has been extensively studied. In comparison with placebo, norfloxacin reduces the incidence of Gram-negative infections, whereas Gram-positive bacterial and fungal infections remain unaffected. Ofloxacin and enoxacin also bacterial and fungal infections remain unaffected. Ofloxacin and enoxacin also produce a reduction in fever and documented infections. In randomized studies comparing ciprofloxacin with cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) plus colistin (each in combination with nonabsorbable antifungal agents), conflicting results were obtained. The incidence of documented Gram-negative bacterial infections was markedly reduced by ciprofloxacin prophylaxis; however, the number of Gram-positive infections may increase dramatically. Combining ciprofloxacin with a macrolide antibiotic in an attempt to prevent streptococcal infections can result in breakthrough bacteraemias due to resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Empirical antimicrobial therapy after quinolone prophylaxis should also be directed against microorganisms susceptible to quinolones, since sustained eradication by oral administration cannot be assumed with certainty. Clinical trials comparing intravenous quinolones in combination with aminoglycosides with widely used standard regimens for the treatment of infections in cancer patients indicate equivalent efficacy; however, in studies of ciprofloxacin alone, response rates were significantly lower compared with standard combinations. Therefore, quinolone monotherapy as empirical treatment in febrile neutropenic patients cannot be recommended.

Use of the quinolones in the prophylaxis and treatment of granulocytopenic immunocompromised cancer patients

The potential use of the quinolones in the prophylaxis and treatment of febrile episodes in granulocytopenic patients is reviewed. Of 7 controlled prophylactic studies performed with quinolones, 2 were double-blind and placebo-controlled. The occurrence of fever and mortality due to infection was not reduced with quinolone prophylaxis, although the occurrence of Gram-negative bacteraemia was significantly reduced. The delay to first fever was occasionally increased, and this was associated with a reduction in the number of days with antimicrobial agents. No effect was observed on disseminated fungal infections with quinolone prophylaxis. Breakthrough bacteraemia and subsequent infections were due to resistant organisms, mainly Gram-positive organisms (streptococci, staphylococci). Tolerability and compliance were excellent and were occasionally better than with the classic regimen [nonabsorbable antibiotics and cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole)]. Six controlled studies dealing with empiric treatment with the quinolones were reviewed. Overall, the results suggested that monotherapy with ciprofloxacin may be used in patients with a good prognosis (short and less severe neutropenia, solid tumours, compliant patients). Combinations with broad spectrum penicillins, netilmicin or teicoplanin seem to be as effective as the classic regimens (a broad spectrum penicillin or cephalosporin plus aminoglycosides), although the number of patients was limited (n = 334). The response rate of Gram-positive bacteraemia was lower with quinolone-containing regimens except for a combination that included teicoplanin.

Randomised comparison of oral ofloxacin alone with combination of parenteral antibiotics in neutropenic febrile patients

Prompt treatment with empirical antibiotics in neutropenic febrile patients reduces morbidity and mortality. Most patients have been treated with parenteral combination antibiotics, but newer antibiotics with broad-spectrum bactericidal activity have made monotherapy feasible. Ofloxacin, a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone, has the additional advantage that bactericidal concentrations can be achieved with oral administration. We have compared ofloxacin as an oral single agent with standard parenteral combination antibiotics for the management of neutropenic febrile patients in a prospective, randomised trial. Patients with severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count less than or equal to 0.5 x 10(9)/l), fever above 38 degrees C, and ability to take drugs by mouth were eligible for the study. After initial investigations, 60 patients were randomly assigned to oral ofloxacin 400 mg twice daily and 62 to parenteral combination antibiotic therapy (amikacin 15 mg/kg daily, plus, at various times in the trial, carbenicillin, cloxacillin, or piperacillin). Patients were examined 72 h and 7 days after the start of treatment and when neutropenia resolved. 24 (40%) ofloxacin-treated and 26 (42%) combination-treated patients had pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO). In both treatment groups, the treatment success rate was higher for such patients than for those with clinically or microbiologically documented infections (92% vs 67% [p less than 0.05] for ofloxacin; 85% vs 64% for combination). There were no significant differences in success rates of ofloxacin and combination treatment for these subgroups or overall (77% vs 73%). Patients with neutropenia for less than 1 week had better responses to both treatments than patients with longer-lasting neutropenia. There were 4 (7%) deaths in the ofloxacin group and 6 (10%) in the combination group. Both regimens were well tolerated. We conclude that oral single-agent ofloxacin is as effective as parenteral combination antibiotic therapy in neutropenic febrile patients, especially those expected to have short durations of neutropenia.