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

Dose Individualization of Cefepime for Febrile Neutropenia in Patients With Lymphoma or Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Optimal cefepime dosing is a challenge because of its dose-dependent neurotoxicity. This study aimed to determine individualized cefepime dosing for febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 16 patients receiving cefepime at a dose of 2 g every 12 hours. Unbound concentrations were determined at 0.5 hours, 7.2 hours [at the 60% time point of the 12 hours administration interval (C7.2h)], and 11 hours (trough concentration) after the first infusion (rate: 2 g/h). The primary and secondary end points were the predictive performance of the area under the unbound concentration-time curve (AUC unbound ) and the effect of unbound cefepime pharmacokinetic parameters on clinical response, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) AUC unbound was 689.7 (226.6) mcg h/mL, which correlated with C7.2h (R 2 = 0.90), and the Bayesian posterior AUC unbound using only the trough concentration (R 2 = 0.66). Although higher exposure was more likely to show a better clinical response, each parameter did not indicate a statistical significance between positive and negative clinical responses ( P = 0.0907 for creatinine clearance (Ccr), 0.2523 for C7.2h, 0.4079 for trough concentration, and 0.1142 for AUC unbound ). Cutoff values were calculated as 80.2 mL/min for Ccr (sensitivity: 0.889, specificity: 0.714), 18.6 mcg/mL for C7.2h (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000), and 9.2 mcg/mL for trough concentration (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000). When aiming for a time above 100% the minimum inhibitory concentration, both continuous infusion of 4 g/d and intermittent infusion of 2 g every 8 hours achieved a probability of approximately 100% at a minimum inhibitory concentration of 8 mcg/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic drug monitoring by sampling at C7.2h or trough can facilitate rapid dose optimization. Continuous infusion of 4 g/d was recommended. Intermittent dosing of 2 g every 8 hours was alternatively suggested for patients with a Ccr of 60-90 mL/min.

Cefepime Versus Cefepime Plus Amikacin as an Initial Antibiotic Choice for Pediatric Cancer Patients With Febrile Neutropenia in an Era of Increasing Cefepime Resistance

BACKGROUND

We investigated the treatment outcomes before and after the addition of amikacin to cefepime monotherapy as an initial empirical antibiotic treatment in pediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

This was a retrospective historical cohort study. The subjects were pediatric cancer patients who visited the emergency room at the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, due to chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, between January 2011 and December 2016. Since September 2014, the empirical antimicrobial treatment regimen for febrile neutropenia was changed from high-dose cefepime monotherapy to combination therapy of adding a single dose of amikacin.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five bacteremia episodes in 164 patients were reported during the study period. Bacteremia caused by cefepime-resistant Gram-negative bacteria was observed in 16% of patients before September 2014 and in 21% of the patients after September 2014 (P = 0.331). Use of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatments increased from 62% to 83% following addition of amikacin to cefepime treatment (P = 0.003). The duration of fever was shorter in the cefepime plus amikacin group than in the cefepime group (22 vs. 34 hours, P = 0.014); however, rates of septic shock and pediatric intensive care unit hospitalizations were not significantly different between the 2 groups (septic shock, both 7%, P = 0.436; pediatric intensive care unit 3% vs. 1%, P = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no additional benefit of amikacin addition to high-dose cefepime monotherapy. Therefore, adding amikacin to cefepime monotherapy in conditions where cefepime-resistant Gram-negative bacteremia amounts to 20% or less may not be justified.

Impact of a cefepime shortage on dosing regimens and outcomes in hospitalized adults with febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Drug shortages may negatively impact outcomes in hospitalized patients. A cefepime dosing regimen of 1 gram every 6 hours (1 g q6h) has shown to provide similar exposures above target minimum inhibitory concentrations compared to the regimen of 2 g q8h approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for febrile neutropenia. Our objective was to determine if the dosing regimen of 1 g q6h amidst a cefepime shortage is an appropriate alternative for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients who received cefepime for febrile neutropenia over a two-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on cefepime dosing strategy: 2 g q8h vs. 1 g q6h. The primary objective was to compare time to defervescence after cefepime initiation. Secondary objectives included all-cause 30-day mortality, duration of antibiotic therapy, and inpatient length of stay.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients in each arm were included. There were no differences in baseline age or severity of illness between groups. There was no difference in the primary objective as median time to defervescence was similar between the 2 g q8h and 1 g q6h groups (69.0 vs. 65.3 h: p= 0.67). Additionally, no differences were found in the secondary objectives of all-cause 30-day mortality (10.7% vs. 9.3%: p = 0.79), duration of therapy (80.8 vs. 88.0 h: p = 0.34), or length of stay (9 vs. 7 days: p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified no differences in clinical outcomes with cefepime 1 g q6h compared to the traditional FDA-approved 2 g q8h regimen for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Efficacy of Ceftriaxone 1 g daily Versus 2 g daily for The Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Ceftriaxone has been recommended as a first-line treatment for various infections; however, the doses for pneumonia have not been a consensus in randomized clinical trials. To compare ceftriaxone 1 g daily efficacy to other ceftriaxone dosing regimens in community-acquired pneumonia. Area covered: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and LILACS. Randomized controlled trials of ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia were included. Outcomes included clinical cure in modified intention-to-treatment, clinically and microbiologically evaluable patients. Expert opinion: Ceftriaxone dosages of 1 g daily are as safe and effective as other antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia. Twenty-four articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies evaluated ceftriaxone regimens at a dosage of 2 g daily and 12 studies evaluated ceftriaxone at a dosage of 1 g daily. The odds-ratio of clinical cure in the modified intention-to-treatment patients administered either ceftriaxone (4666 patients) or a comparator (4411 patients) was 0.98 (95% CI [0.82-1.17]). Comparator regimens showed similar efficacy to ceftriaxone regimens of 1 g daily, with an odds ratio of 1.03 (95% CI [0.88-1.20]). Dosages higher than ceftriaxone 1 g daily did not result in improved clinical outcomes for community-acquired pneumonia patients (OR 1.02, 95% CI [0.91-1.14]).

Clinical Outcomes of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Infections with Susceptibilities among Levofloxacin, Cefepime, and Carbapenems

PURPOSE

Highly resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections are associated with high mortality. Increasing resistance to standard therapy illustrates the need for alternatives when treating resistant organisms, especially extended-spectrum beta-lactamase- (ESBL-) producing Enterobacteriaceae.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review at a community hospital was performed. Patients who developed ESBL-producing infections were included. Patients less than eighteen years old, who were pregnant, or who were incarcerated were excluded. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

113 patients with ESBL-producing infections met the criteria for review. Hospital mortality: carbapenem (16.6%), cefepime (0%), and levofloxacin (15.3%) (p=0.253). ICU mortality: carbapenem (4.5%), cefepime, (0%), and levofloxacin (3.7%) (p=0.616). Mean ICU and hospital length of stay: carbapenem (9.8 ± 16, 12.1 ± 1 days), cefepime (7.8 ± 6, 11.1 ± 10.5 days), and levofloxacin (5.4 ± 4.1, 11.1 ± 10.4 days) (p=0.805, 0.685). No predictors were clearly found between the source of infection and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Cefepime or levofloxacin can be a potential alternative agent for infections with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and larger clinical trials investigating these outcomes are warranted.