Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin versus carbapenem monotherapy as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood hematological malignancies

Meta-analysis: combination of meropenem vs ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants' characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

RESULT

The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93-1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52-1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.

CONCLUSION

Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.

A Randomized, Open-Labeled, Prospective Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy of Frontline Empirical Intravenous Piperacillin/Tazobactam Monotherapy in Comparison with Ceftazidime Plus Amikacin for Febrile Neutropenia in Pediatric Oncology Patients

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common complication in pediatric oncology patients. Appropriate empirical antibiotics treatment is essential for treatment outcome. Methods: This study was a randomized prospective controlled study to demonstrate the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TZO) monotherapy compared with ceftazidime/amikacin in children with FN. Pediatric oncology patients at Chiang Mai University Hospital, diagnosed with FN, were randomized to receive either PIP/TZO 320 mg/kg/day divided every 8 hours or ceftazidime 100 mg/kg/ day divided every 8 hours plus amikacin 15 mg/kg/day once daily. Treatment responses were compared between the two groups. Results: One-hundred and eighteen febrile neutropenic episodes in 70 patients (42 males and 28 females) were enrolled. The median age was 7 (3-10) years. The early response and complete response to initial treatment were achieved in 48/59 (81.4%) episodes and 41/59 (69.5%) episodes in PIP/TZO group compared with 40/59 (67.8%) episodes and 33/59 (55.9%) episodes in ceftazidime/amikacin group (p-value 0.091 and 0.128, respectively). Treatment modification in PIP/TZO group was required in 18/59 (30.5%) compared with 26/59 (44.1%) patients in ceftazidime/amikacin group (p-value 0.128). Similarly, the duration of fever, duration of neutropenia and duration of antibiotics treatment were not significantly different between two groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion: The treatment responses of PIP/TZO monotherapy and ceftazidime/amikacin therapy were not significantly different. Both therapies were effective for FN in pediatric oncology patients.

Strategies for Empiric Management of Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia in Patients With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Purpose

To describe treatment failure and mortality rates with different antibiotic regimens and different management strategies for empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and performed searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if pediatric patients had cancer or were HSCT recipients and the intervention was related to the management of FN. Strategies synthesized were monotherapy versus aminoglycoside-containing combination therapy; antipseudomonal penicillin monotherapy versus fourth-generation cephalosporin monotherapy; inpatient versus outpatient management; oral versus intravenous antibiotics; and addition of colony-stimulating factors.

Results

Of 11,469 citations screened, 68 studies randomly assigning 7,265 episodes were included. When compared with monotherapy, aminoglycoside-containing combination therapy did not decrease treatment failures (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = 0.23), and no difference in mortality was observed. Antipseudomonal penicillin and fourth-generation cephalosporin monotherapy were associated with similar failure and mortality rates. Outpatient management and oral antibiotics were safe in low-risk FN with no infection-related mortality observed in any patient and no significant differences in outcomes compared with inpatient management and intravenous therapy. Therapeutic colony-stimulating factors were associated with a 1.42-day reduction in hospitalization (95% CI, 0.62 to 2.22 days; P < .001).

Conclusion

There were a moderate number of pediatric randomized trials of FN management. Monotherapy for high-risk FN and outpatient and oral management for low-risk FN are effective strategies. These findings will provide the basis for guideline recommendations in pediatric FN.

Empiric combination therapy for gram-negative bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Empirical combination antibiotic regimens consisting of a β-lactam and an aminoglycoside are frequently employed in the pediatric population. Data to demonstrate the comparative benefit of empirical β-lactam combination therapy relative to monotherapy for culture-proven Gram-negative bacteremia are lacking in the pediatric population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children treated for Gram-negative bacteremia at The Johns Hopkins Hospital from 2004 through 2012. We compared the estimated odds of 10-day mortality and the relative duration of bacteremia for children receiving empirical combination therapy versus empirical monotherapy using 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score matching without replacement, before performing regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 226 matched pairs of patients well balanced on baseline covariates. Ten-day mortality was similar between the groups (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 1.71). Use of empirical combination therapy was not associated with a decrease in the duration of bacteremia (-0.51 days; 95% CI, -2.22 to 1.48 days). There was no survival benefit when evaluating 10-day mortality for the severely ill (pediatric risk of mortality III score ≥15) or profoundly neutropenic patients (absolute neutrophil count ≤100 cells/mL) receiving combination therapy. However, a survival benefit was observed when empirical combination therapy was prescribed for children growing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms from the bloodstream (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there appears to be no advantage to the routine addition of an aminoglycoside to a β-lactam as empirical therapy for children who have Gram-negative bacteremia, children who have risk factors for MDRGN organisms appear to benefit from this practice.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

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.

A meta-analysis of antipseudomonal penicillins and cephalosporins in pediatric patients with fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Antipseudomonal penicillins (APP) and antipseudomonal cephalosporins (APC) play important roles in the management of pediatric patients with fever and neutropenia (FN). Our primary objective was to describe the risk of treatment failure in children treated with an APP or APC as initial empiric therapy for FN. Our secondary objectives were to compare APP with APC and third- with fourth-generation APC as initial empiric therapy in this population.

METHODS

We performed electronic searches of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, limiting studies to prospective pediatric trials in FN in which at least 1 treatment arm consisted of an APP or APC antibiotic with or without an aminoglycoside. Data abstraction was conducted by 2 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

From 7281 reviewed articles, 41 studies comprising 51 treatment regimens were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment failure, including antibiotic modification, occurred in 34% and 41% of patients treated with APP and APC monotherapy, respectively, and 41% and 33% of patients treated with APP- and APC-aminoglycoside combination therapy, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in treatment failure including modification, mortality, or adverse events when comparing APP with APC monotherapy, APP with APC combination therapy, or third- with fourth-generation APC therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that APP and APC monotherapy, as well as combination therapy with an aminoglycoside, are efficacious and safe therapeutic options for the empiric management of pediatric patients with FN. Specific antibiotic selection should be based on other important factors, such as cost, availability, and local epidemiologic and resistance patterns.

Supportive care in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on the rational approach of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer and discuss future research aspects in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical and laboratory variables and new biomarkers associated with an increased risk for a severe outcome including invasive bacterial infection (IBI), sepsis, and mortality have been identified for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. These variables and biomarkers are currently being used for an early risk assessment in order to identify children at low or high risk for IBI or at high risk for sepsis and death. Early identification of children with a differential risk has allowed the implementation of selective treatment regimens. More recently, host genetic differences have been associated with a differential risk for IBI. The individual gene profile based on selected polymorphisms could further fine-tune the early risk assessment allowing tailor-made management strategies.

SUMMARY

In the last decades, efforts have focused on the stratification of the heterogeneous group of children with cancer and febrile neutropenia according to their risk for developing an IBI. This effort has allowed a less aggressive treatment strategy for children at low risk, including early hospital discharge and use of intravenous and oral antimicrobials at home. More recently, advances have been made in the early identification of children in the other spectrum of infection, those at high risk for sepsis and mortality, with the aim of rapid implementation of aggressive therapy.

Imipenem-cilastatin versus piperacillin-tazobactam as monotherapy in febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

In view of the recent trend toward monotherapy in the treatment of febrile neutropenia, we evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin versus piperacillin-tazobactam as an empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with malignant diseases.

METHODS

Febrile neutropenic patients received either imipenem-cilastatin or piperacillin-tazobactam randomly. Improvement without any changes in the initial antibiotic treatment was defined as "success" and improvement with modification of the initial treatment and death was defined as "failure".

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 99 febrile neutropenic episodes were treated with monotherapy in 63 patients with a median age of 5 years. At admission, median absolute neutrophil count was 50/mm(3) and in 67% of episodes, neutrophil count was under 100/mm(3). Median duration of neutropenia was 5 days. In 22% of episodes, neutropenia persisted for more than 10 days. Piperacillin-tazobactam was used in 52 episodes and imipenem-cilastatin was used in 47 episodes. There was no difference between groups in terms of age, sex, primary diseases, neutrophil count or duration of neutropenia. In the whole group, the success rate was 67% and the failure rate was 33%, whereas in the piperacillin-tazobactam group, the rates were 71% and 29%; and in the imipenem-cilastatin group they were 62% and 38%, respectively (P > 0.05). There were no deaths. No major adverse effects were seen in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although failure was slightly higher in the imipenem-cilastatin group, this was statistically insignificant. Both of these antibiotics can be used safely for initial empirical monotherapy of febrile neutropenia.

Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime for the empirical treatment of pediatric cancer patients with neutropenia and fever: a randomized and open-label study

OBJECTIVES

This is a prospective, randomized, and open-label clinical trial that examines the efficiency and safety of PIP/TAZO monotherapy in comparison to cefepime (CEF), for the empirical treatment of pediatric cancer patients with neutropenia and fever.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-one consecutive febrile episodes in 70 neutropenic pediatric cancer patients received randomized treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) 80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam every 6 hr or CEF 50 mg/kg every 8 hr. Clinical response was determined at completion of therapy. Duration of fever, neutropenia, hospitalization, the need for modification of the therapy, and mortality rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven episodes in 69 patients (35 females, 34 males) with a median age of 4.2 years were assessed for efficiency (65 PIP/TAZO, 62 CEF). The frequency of success without modification of treatment was nearly identical for both PIP/TAZO (60.0%) and CEF (61.3%) (P > 0.05). The overall response rate, with or without modification of assigned treatment, was 96.9% for PIP/TAZO and 98.4% for CEP (P > 0.05). Infection-related mortality at the end of the febrile episode was 2.4%. Duration of fever and hospitalization were not different between the treatment groups. No major side effects were observed in neither of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PIP/TAZO treatment was as effective and safe as CEF monotherapy as an initial empirical regimen in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia.

Infections in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies

Despite significant advances in supportive care, infection remains second only to malignancy as a cause of death in pediatric oncology patients, and infection accounts for a large fraction of treatment-related costs. Multiple risk factors contribute to infection-related morbidity, chief among them the immunosuppressive effects of leukemia itself and of cytotoxic chemotherapy, prolonged hospitalization and antibiotic use, and loss of barrier integrity associated with mucositis and the need for indwelling central access. While viruses are the most common causes of infection, bacteria are responsible for most life-threatening complications. Gram-negative bacilli are a concern for all patients undergoing treatment, while a subset of gram-positive organisms, particularly viridans streptococci, become significant pathogens in children receiving profoundly immunosuppressive therapy. Invasive fungal infections are also a serious risk for morbidity and mortality in this population. Availability of new antimicrobial agents has made it possible to treat infectious complications more effectively, but their availability is also leading to an increased prevalence of highly resistant pathogens. Future work in pediatric oncology will need to include measures to reduce the immunosuppressive effects of anti-cancer therapy, provide targeted treatment for infections, and better identify groups of patients at high risk for infectious complications, who may benefit from antimicrobial prophylaxis or more aggressive empirical therapy.