Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used.

OBJECTIVES

To compare beta-lactam monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for cancer patients with fever and neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2012), LILACS (August 2012), MEDLINE and EMBASE (August 2012) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (Issue 3, 2012). We scanned references of all included studies and pertinent reviews and contacted the first author of each included trial, as well as the pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any beta-lactam antibiotic monotherapy with any combination of a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside antibiotic, for the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. All cause mortality was the primary outcome assessed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data concerning all cause mortality, infection related mortality, treatment failure (including treatment modifications), super-infections, adverse effects and study quality measures were extracted independently by two review authors. Risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis whenever possible. Individual domains of risk of bias were examined through sensitivity analyses. Published data were complemented by correspondence with authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-one trials published between 1983 and 2012 were included. All cause mortality was lower with monotherapy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, without statistical significance). Results were similar for trials comparing the same beta-lactam in both trial arms (11 trials, 1718 episodes; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.06) and for trials comparing different beta-lactams－usually a broad-spectrum beta-lactam compared with a narrower-spectrum beta-lactam combined with an aminoglycoside (33 trials, 5468 episodes; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09). Infection related mortality was significantly lower with monotherapy (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99). Treatment failure was significantly more frequent with monotherapy in trials comparing the same beta-lactam (16 trials, 2833 episodes; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20), and was significantly more frequent with combination therapy in trials comparing different beta-lactams (55 trials, 7736 episodes; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Bacterial super-infections occurred with equal frequency, and fungal super-infections were more common with combination therapy. Adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (numbers needed to harm 4; 95% CI 4 to 5). Specifically, the difference with regard to nephrotoxicity was highly significant. Adequate trial methods were associated with a larger effect estimate for mortality and smaller effect estimates for failure. Nearly all trials were open-label. No correlation was noted between mortality and failure rates and these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-lactam monotherapy is advantageous compared with beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy with regard to survival, adverse events and fungal super-infections. Treatment failure should not be regarded as the primary outcome in open-label trials, as it reflects mainly treatment modifications.

Imipenem and meropenem: Comparison of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials and adverse effects

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast imipenem and meropenem in terms of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and adverse effects.

DATA SELECTION

MEDLINE search from 1975 to 1997 and follow-up of references.

DATA EXTRACTION

Clinical trials comparing imipenem with meropenem, or either imipenem or meropenem with standard therapy in the treatment of serious infections were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Imipenem, the first carbapenem, was first marketed in 1987; meropenem was introduced to the market in 1996. In general, imipenem is more active against Gram-positive cocci while meropenem is more active against Gram-negative bacilli. The agents display similar pharmacokinetics. Clinical studies in patients with serious infections (intra-abdominal infection, respiratory infection, septicemia, febrile neutropenia) report similar bacteriological and clinical cure rates with imipenem and meropenem. Meropenem is approved for the treatment of bacterial meningitis, whereas imipenem is not. Adverse effects are similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports the use of imipenem at a dose of 500 mg every 6 h and meropenem at 1 g every 8 h for the treatment of severe infections. For the treatment of serious infections, imipenem (500 mg every 6 h or 2 g/day [$98/day]) is more economical than meropenem (1 g every 8 h or 3 g/day [$142/day]) based on acquisition cost.

Treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer who require hospitalization: a prospective randomized study comparing imipenem and cefepime

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and safety of imipenem and cefepime in the treatment of adult patients with cancer who had fever and neutropenia requiring hospitalization according to Infectious Disease Society of America criteria.

METHODS

In the current prospective randomized clinical trial at a university-affiliated tertiary cancer center, adult patients with cancer who had fever (> or = 38.3 degrees C or > or = 38.0 degrees C for > 2 hours) and neutropenia (< or = 500/mm(3) or < 1000/mm(3) but declining) requiring hospitalization were randomized to receive either cefepime or imipenem. Vancomycin or amikacin was added on suspicion of gram-positive or gram-negative bacterial infection, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients who received an imipenem regimen or a cefepime regimen were comparable in terms of age, gender, underlying malignancy, prior transplantation, degree and trend of neutropenia, and presence of central venous catheters (P > or = 0.3). An intent-to-treat analysis showed a 68% response rate to the imipenem regimen, compared with a 75% response rate to the cefepime regimen (P = 0.2). The rates of antibiotic-related adverse events and superinfections also were comparable (P = 0.6). There was no difference in response among patients who received imipenem or cefepime alone compared with patients who also received vancomycin or amikacin (P = 1.0). Leukemia was the only independent risk factor associated with a poor outcome (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-10.7; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Imipenem and cefepime had similar efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of adult cancer patients with fever and neutropenia who required hospitalization. The addition of either vancomycin or amikacin may not be necessary.

Evaluation of imipenem 1.5 g daily in febrile patients with short duration neutropenia after chemotherapy for non-leukemic hematologic malignancies and solid tumors: personal experience and review of the literature

Numerous studies have demonstrated efficacy of imipenem-cilastatin, 50 mg/kg/day, as first line therapy in febrile patients with neutropenia of short duration consecutive to cytostatic chemotherapy. However, only two studies used low dosage of this antibiotic as 1.5 g/day, in prospective, double blind, randomized clinical trials, in this indication. Efficacy and tolerability of imipenem-cilastatin 0.5 g three times daily IV in 30-min infusions, as first-line empiric therapy, were retrospectively evaluated in our hematological unit. From January 1996 to September 2000, 30 neutropenic patients (12 females) with 45 febrile episodes were included. Median age was 57.5 years (31-75). Twenty-four of them had lymphomas, 4 solid tumors and 2 myelomas. There were 13 clinically documented infections, (CD, 28.8%), 16 microbiologically documented infections, (MD, 35.6%) and 16 febrile episodes corresponding to fever of unknown origin, (FUO, 35.6%). The median neutrophils count on nadir (n = 44), was 67/mm3 (8-369). The median duration of neutropenia was 5 days (3-15). Bacteremia was observed in 10 patients, urinary tract infection in 3 patients. The most frequently isolated microorganism was Escherichia coli. The overall success rate of the first line therapy was 66.7%. Adverse events were observed in 11.1% of the patients without necessity to stop treatment. The MD infections showed a lower rate of success compared with CD infections and FUO. These data were in accordance with the previous studies. The importance of number of microorganisms (p = 0.007) and of infected sites (p = 0.01) appeared as prognostic factors (univariate analysis). Although imipenem-cilastatin has been used in numerous studies as empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy in the treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients, the exact dosage of this antibiotic is still not standardized. However, utilization of this antibiotic in monotherapy at low dosage seems to us to be safe and effective as usual dosage in the antimicrobial treatment ofthe febrile patients with post chemotherapy neutropenia of short duration.

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy treated cancer patients are prone to neutropaenia and life-threatening infections. Early, empirical antibiotic treatment is therefore administered routinely to febrile neutropaenic patients. Currently, either beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination treatment or beta-lactam monotherapy are recommended.

OBJECTIVES

We compared beta-lactam monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for cancer patients with fever and neutroepaenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register (searched July, 2000), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2001), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2000), LILACS (January 1982 to August 2001), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2001), and ICAAC conference proceedings (1995 to 2000). We scanned references of all included studies, pertinent reviews, and contacted the first author of each included trial and the pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any beta-lactam antibiotic monotherapy to any combination of a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside antibiotic, for the initial, empirical treatment of febrile neutropaenic cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data concerning mortality, treatment failure (including treatment modifications), superinfections, adverse effects and study quality measures were extracted independently by two reviewers. Relative risks with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six trials and 7642 patients were included. All cause mortality was the primary outcome assessed. For all mortality comparisons, no significant difference between monotherapy and combination therapy was seen, relative risk 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-1.02) for all studies combined. Treatment failure was the outcome reported in all included trials. No significant difference between study groups was shown for studies comparing the same beta-lactam, relative risk 1.12 (95% CI 0.96-1.29). A significant advantage to monotherapy was observed for studies comparing different beta-lactams, relative risk 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.93). Bacterial and fungal superinfections developed with similar frequencies in the monotherapy and combination treatment groups. Adverse events were significantly more common in the combination treatment group, relative risk 0.83, (95% CI 0.72-0.97). These included events associated with significant morbidity, primarily renal toxicity. Results were consistent for subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have shown an advantage to broad-spectrum beta-lactam monotherapy over beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for febrile neutropaenia. This advantage comprises of 1) a similar, if not better, survival, 2) a significantly lower treatment failure rate, 3) comparable probability for secondary infections and, 4) most importantly, a lower rate of adverse events associated with significant morbidity. Monotherapy can be regarded, therefore, as the standard of care for febrile neutropaenic patients.

Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical antibiotic treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis

We set out to compare the efficacy of antibiotic monotherapy with that of combination therapy including an aminoglycoside for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. We did a meta-analysis of 29 randomised clinical trials pooling data from 4795 febrile episodes and a subset of 1029 bacteraemic episodes by both fixed and random effects models. Outcome measure was clinical failure of antibiotic treatment, defined as modification of the initially allocated regimen or death during treatment. In febrile episodes, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical failure with monotherapy versus combination therapy was 0.88, with 95% CI from 0.78 to 0.99 by the fixed effects model, and 0.87 with 95% CI from 0.75 to 1.01 by the more conservative random effects model. For bacteraemic episodes, the pooled OR of failure with monotherapy was 0.70 (0.54 to 0.92) by the fixed effects model, and 0.72 (0.54 to 0.95) by the random effects model. We conclude that monotherapy has been as effective as aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime or imipenem/cilastatin versus ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients in Germany

A three-pronged cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients was conducted. It included a review of 37 randomized, controlled studies in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-1996). Clinical outcomes as well as costs of treatment with imipenem/cilastatin, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside were compared. Primary therapy and modification, respectively, were successful in 62 and 27% of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin, in 56 and 31% with ceftazidime and in 41 and 13% with ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside. From the perspective of a 1,800-bed teaching hospital, the average overall cost per successfully treated patient was DM 7,475 with imipenem/cilastatin, DM 7,810 with ceftazidime and DM 8,963 with ceftriaxone + netilmicin (DM 1 = USD 0.56; 7/97). The costs for the German national economy were imipenem/cilastatin DM 23,828, ceftazidime DM 24,985 and ceftriaxone + netilmicin DM 29,838.

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.

Prospective randomized study to compare imipenem 1.5 grams per day vs. 3.0 grams per day in infections of granulocytopenic patients

The objective of this presented prospective randomized study was to compare the efficacy of empirical antimicrobial monotherapy with imipenem 3 x 0.5 g per day to 3 x 1.0 g per day for treatment of infections in neutropenic patients. A total of 192/220 febrile episodes were evaluable for clinical efficacy. The overall response rate was 53/93 (57%) vs. 57/99 (58%). Of the different infection types, fever of unknown origin (FUO) showed the best response, with defervescence in 29/41 (71%) and 36/42 (86%) cases, respectively (not significant). Unfavourable results were found in pneumonias [5/20 (25%) vs. 4/23 (17%)]. The median time until persistent defervescence was equal in both groups (2 days), likewise the median duration of imipenem therapy in responders (7 days). The most frequent micro-organisms were Gram-negative, documented in 22% of the febrile episodes in the lower dosage group vs. 17% of all episodes in the patients with imipenem 3.0 g per day (Gram-positives 17% vs. 14%, fungal 5% vs. 8%). In the lower dosage group, fever with abdominal symptoms occurred less frequently (8% vs. 15%), and significantly more patients tolerated imipenem without any side-effects (95.8% vs. 79.4%), especially regarding severe nausea/vomiting (2.1% vs. 11.8%). Of the initial non-responders, 35/40 (88%) vs. 41/42 (98%) were cured after therapy modification. There was no significant difference in the use of further antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, ceftazidime or amphotericin B, except a marginally higher use of metronidazole in patients with imipenem 3.0 g per day (3% vs. 10%). Overall, we found no significant differences in efficacy between the two study groups, but more frequent side-effects with imipenem 3.0 g per day.

A comparison of aztreonam plus vancomycin and imipenem plus vancomycin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The improved efficacy of imipenem over other beta-lactam antibiotics in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients has been attributed to its broad spectrum of activity.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, clinical trial was performed comparing vancomycin 1 g every 12 hours plus imipenem/cilassatin 500 mg every 6 hours and the same dose of vancomycin plus aztreonam 2 g every 6 hours for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer.

RESULTS

The imipenem regimen cured 76% of the 148 evaluable episodes compared with a 67% cure rate for the 152 episodes treated with the aztreonam regimen (p = 0.1). Most of the polymicrobial infections (77% or 10/13) treated with the imipenem responded, whereas only 38% (5/13) of these infections responded to the aztreonam regimen. Although the cost of the imipenem regimen was less than the cost of the aztreonam regimen, it was associated significantly more with skin rashes (12/194 vs 3/189, p = 0.02). In a multivariate analysis, a poor outcome was independently associated in both instances with the persistence of neutropenia and the presence of pneumonia (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, in a multifactorial analysis that included efficacy, toxicity, and cost, the imipenem and aztreonam regimens were comparable.

Imipenem/cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections

The prototype carbapenem antibacterial agent imipenem has a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity, encompassing most Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobes and anaerobes, including most beta-lactamase-producing species. It is coadministered with a renal dehydropeptidase inhibitor, cilastatin, in order to prevent its renal metabolism in clinical use. Extensive clinical experience gained with imipenem/cilastatin has shown it to provide effective monotherapy for septicaemia, neutropenic fever, and intra-abdominal, lower respiratory tract, genitourinary, gynaecological, skin and soft tissues, and bone and joint infections. In these indications, imipenem/cilastatin generally exhibits similar efficacy to broad-spectrum cephalosporins and other carbapenems and is at least equivalent to standard aminoglycoside-based and other combination regimens. Imipenem/cilastatin is generally well tolerated by adults and children, with local injection site events, gastrointestinal disturbances and dermatological reactions being the most common adverse events. Seizures have also been reported, occurring mostly in patients with impaired renal function or CNS pathology, or with excessive dosage. Although it is no longer a unique compound, as newer carbapenems such as meropenem are becoming available, imipenem/cilastatin nevertheless remains an important agent with established efficacy as monotherapy for moderate to severe bacterial infections. Its particular niche is in treating infections known or suspected to be caused by multiresistant pathogens.

Carbapenems

Carbapenems are broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics that cover an absolute majority of all bacterial pathogens that possess a cell wall. The only clinically important exceptions are X. maltophilia, E. faecium, and some strains of methicillin-resistant staphylococci and penicillin-resistant pneumococci. So far, after several years of clinical use of imipenemcilastatin, emergence of resistance has been a problem mainly restricted to P. aeruginosa. The pharmacokinetics of carbapenems, especially imipenem, are complicated by the renal metabolism, necessitating the imipenem-cilastatin combination. This is not required for meropenem. The safety profile of carbapenems is favorable. With imipenem-cilastatin, nausea constitutes a practical problem in that administration times may have to be prolonged. The risk for neurologic reactions with imipenem-cilastatin has become a factor reducing the possibilities to use high doses. For all indications except bacterial meningitis, the now approved maximal dose of 4 g per day should suffice. In this respect, meropenem has an advantage over imipenem-cilastatin in that it can be used in the treatment of bacterial meningitis without apparent increased risk of seizures. Carbapenems are indicated mainly as empiric monotherapy in serious infections, such as intra-abdominal infections and infections in neutropenic patients. Combinations of carbapenems and other antibiotics should not be used routinely.

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.

A randomized study of imipenem compared to cefotaxime plus piperacillin as initial therapy of infections in granulocytopenic patients

The objective of the presented, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of antimicrobial monotherapy with imipenem (3 x 0.5g/d) to a combination therapy with cefotaxime (3 x 2g/d) plus piperacillin (3 x 4g/d) for empirical treatment of infections in neutropenic patients. In 165 patients, 237 infectious episodes were evaluable. The overall response rate of patients treated with cefotaxime plus piperacillin was 67/115 (58%), of those treated with imipenem 66/122 (54%). In patients not responding to the initial therapy regimen within 2 or 3 days, the antimicrobial therapy was modified. After therapy modification 85/100 patients were cured. Fever of unknown origin (FUO) showed the most favourable course compared to other infection types, with a response in 46/59 (78%) and in 35/50 (70%) cases, respectively. In comparison, pneumonias were successfully treated in only 3/21 (14%) and 7/37 (19%) cases. Even including patients with modified therapy, only 66% (21/32) of pneumonia episodes responded. The unfavourable results in pneumonias is mainly due to the high rate of 13 systemic mycoses in this group (22%). Overall, a similar response was observed in patients treated with cefotaxime plus piperacillin in comparison with imipenem. In primary bacteremias however, an advantage was observed in patients treated with imipenem (20/27; 74%) compared with cefotaxime plus piperacillin (11/23; 48%).

Antibiotic strategy in orofacial/head and neck infections in severe neutropenia

A strategy for empiric antibiotic therapy for orofacial/head and neck bacterial infections that appear as clinical swellings in patients with severe neutropenia is assessed. Daily examinations were made in the hospital. Only those with peripheral blood neutrophil counts < 100/mm3 that persisted for at least 5 days after the commencement of resolution of the swelling were included in this article. The strategy consisted of sequential additions of a beta-lactam/aminoglycoside combination, metronidazole to intensify anaerobe cover and a beta-lactamase stable agent (such as vancomycin and floxacillin) as dictated by clinical signs. Progressive and complete resolution of infection occurred in 26 of 27 patients treated.

Comparison of imipenem versus cefuroxime plus tobramycin as empirical therapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients and efficacy of vancomycin and aztreonam in case of failure

143 aplastic episodes with fever in 91 haematological patients with granulocytopenia were treated empirically in a randomized prospective study using either imipenem (Imi) or a combination of tobramycin and cefuroxime (T/C). Response after 72 h was significantly better in patients receiving Imi (44/75 vs 27/68, p < 0.05). This was seen especially in patients with bacteriologically proven infections where the isolated staphylococci and streptococci were more susceptible to Imi. In both groups, patients who failed to respond to the initial antibiotic therapy were given vancomycin and aztreonam (V/A). The response rate after another 72 h, measured using the same criteria as after the first 72 h, did not differ statistically between the groups. One patient in each study group died from the bacterial infection, both from Gram-positive bacteraemia. Duration of fever was significantly shorter in the Imi group (4 days vs 7 days, p < 0.04). Serum peak and trough concentrations of the antibiotics were comparable. Both regimens were well tolerated. Our results show that monotherapy with imipenem is superior to the combination of tobramycin and cefuroxime during the first 72 h of therapy and can be safely administered to neutropenic patients with predominantly Gram-positive infections. A combination of vancomycin and aztreonam, given when initial imipenem treatment has failed, was effective in only a few patients. Adjuvant glycopeptide therapy from the outset in the treatment of febrile granulocytopenic patients did not seem worthwhile.

Strategy for antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients on selective antibiotic decontamination

In a non-randomized prospective study the need for broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy was evaluated in selectively decontaminated neutropenic patients with fever. Fifty-two adult patients with a neutrophil count < 0.5 x 10(9)/l suffered 77 febrile episodes while receiving oral antibiotics for selective decontamination. Antibiotic treatment was only initiated if additional clinical signs or the microbiological culture results pointed to the likelihood of an infection. Treatment was either empirically based (broad-spectrum) or specific (narrow-spectrum). If a causative agent was identified, therapy was adjusted accordingly. If evidence of infection was lacking after 72-96 hours, the antibiotics were discontinued, and these patients were reexamined meticulously and repeatedly. For the 40 episodes without confirmed infection, the median duration of therapy was three days (range 0-13 days) and the survival rate 100%; for the 37 episodes with confirmed infection, the median duration of therapy was 12 days (range 1-49 days, p < 0.0001) and the survival rate 85%. After adjustment of therapy the final regimen was broad-spectrum in only 18% of treated episodes. None of the six deaths could be attributed to the withholding or stopping of broad-spectrum therapy. It is concluded that in febrile neutropenic patients on selective decontamination a standard therapy regimen with prolonged administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics is not necessary. After initial intervention antibiotic therapy can safely be tailored to the needs of the individual patient.