Ceftazidime in combination with glycopeptide antibiotic is an effective first-line therapy for patients undergoing high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support

Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin and teicoplanin are commonly used to treat gram-positive infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is uncertainty regarding the effects of teicoplanin compared to vancomycin on kidney function with some previous studies suggesting teicoplanin is less nephrotoxic than vancomycin.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of nephrology textbooks, review articles with relevant studies and sent letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to investigators involved in previous studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data using standardised data extraction forms. Study investigators were contacted for information not available in the original manuscripts. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2,610 patients) in this review. Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity compared to vancomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90).The effects of teicoplanin or vancomycin were similar for clinical cure (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08), microbiological cure (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03) and mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to1.30). Six studies reported no cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) needing dialysis. Adverse events were less frequent with teicoplanin including cutaneous rash (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.92), red man syndrome (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.59) and total adverse events (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00). A lower risk of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin was observed in patients either with (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88) or without aminoglycosides (RR 0.31, 95% 0.07 to 1.50), and also when vancomycin dosing was guided by serum levels (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Teicoplanin and vancomycin are both effective in treating those with proven or suspected infection; however the incidence of adverse effects including nephrotoxicity was lower with teicoplanin. There were no cases of AKI needing dialysis. It remains unclear whether the differential effect on kidney function should influence which antibiotic be prescribed, although it may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for AKI needing dialysis.

Randomized study of cefepime versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVE

This randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with cefepime for patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia.

SUBJECTS

Patients with solid tumors treated with HDC and PBSCS, that developed fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 500 cells/microL) were eligible, and randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime plus amikacin or cefepime.

RESULTS

Fifty-one episodes were randomized, and all were evaluable (27 received ceftazidime plus amikacin arm, and 24 cefepime). Major efficacy endpoints did not show significant differences, with success rates of 44.4% and 54.2% (p = 0.481) for the combination arm and the monotherapy arm, respectively. The proportion of patients that became afebrile in the first 24 hours was significantly higher in the cefepime group (41.7% vs 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.012). However, due to its premature closure and small sample size, this study lacks the adequate power to definitely address this question.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefepime monotherapy appeared to have an equivalent efficacy and safety as empiric treatment in febrile neutropenia episodes in a highrisk population compared with ceftazidime and amikacin. Nevertheless, this study is not adequately powered to answer this question. Given the small number of patients randomized and the single-center nature of this study, these results must be cautiously interpreted.

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial

Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Owing to inclusion criteria, it was possible for the same patient to be randomized several times. A total of 219 individual patients were admitted to a prospective randomized clinical study: 24 patients were included twice. Patients (23.5%) remained afebrile. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (n = 74 patients, group I) or piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 87 patients, group II). Response to first-line antibiotic treatment was seen in 55% (group I) and 53% (group II). After the addition of vancomycin, a further 19% (group I) and 24% (group II) of the patients became afebrile. Causes of fever were: microbiologically documented infection in 36 and 34 patients of group I and II; Clostridium difficile in eight and 12 patients of group I and II, and fever of unknown origin in 30 and 41 patients of group I and II. One patient died in each group. Single-agent therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam is as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever and is well tolerated. Direct and indirect costs of both treatment regimes are equivalent.

Empirical antimicrobial monotherapy in patients after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation: a randomised, multicentre trial

We report on 232 patients undergoing autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) entered into a multicentre, randomised trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of meropenem (MPM) with that of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) as empirical antimicrobial first-line therapy for febrile neutropenia. In 27.6% of patients in the MPM group and 22.4% in the P/T group, therapy was initially supplemented with a glycopeptide for venous catheter infection or bacteraemia because of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Complete response rate after 72 h was 63.8% in the MPM group and 49.6% in the P/T group (P = 0.034). Overall complete response rate after treatment modification was 94.0% in the MPM group and 93.1% in the P/T group. Median time to defervescence was 2 d in the MPM group and 3 d in the P/T group. The most frequently isolated pathogens were Gram-positive cocci. Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. One patient (0.4%) died from infection. Empirical first-line therapy with MPM as well as with P/T is safe and effective in febrile episodes emerging after ASCT. Higher response rates to primary treatment can be achieved with MPM.

Teicoplanin in patients with acute leukaemia and febrile neutropenia: a special population benefiting from higher dosages

OBJECTIVE

To define the optimal dosage regimen of teicoplanin that ensures early therapeutically relevant trough concentrations (C(min)) [>10 mg/L at 24 hours and possibly close to 20 mg/L at 48 hours] in patients with acute leukaemia who develop febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Prospective observational pharmacokinetic study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients (n = 33) with normal renal function previously treated with antineoplastic chemotherapy because of acute lymphocytic or acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia, and subsequently developing febrile neutropenia treated with empirical antimicrobial therapy.

DESIGN

First, the standard dosage group (n = 11) was administered standard loading and maintenance doses of teicoplanin (400 mg every 12 hours for three doses followed by 400 mg once daily). Blood samples were collected at defined times as part of routine monitoring and assessed for teicoplanin plasma concentration by fluorescence polarisation immunoassay. Secondly, the high dosage group (n = 22) received a high loading regimen (800 + 400 mg 12 hours apart on day 1, 600 + 400mg 12 hours apart on day 2) followed by a high maintenance regimen (400 mg every 12 hours) from day 3 on.

RESULTS

In the standard dosage group, no patient had the recommended teicoplanin C(min) of >or=10 mg/L within the first 72 hours, and only five of the 11 patients (45%) had a C(min) of >or=10 mg/L after 120 hours. No patient had a C(min) of >or=20 mg/L. In the high dosage group, teicoplanin C(min) averaged >or=10 mg/L within 24 hours, and this value was achieved within 48 hours in all but one patient. Of note, C(min) at 72 hours exceeded 20 mg/L in ten of the 22 patients (45%). No patient experienced significant impairment of renal function.

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient group, therapeutically relevant C(min) may be achieved very early in the treatment period with loading doses of 12 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg 12 hours apart on day 1, and 9 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg 12 hours apart on day 2, regardless of renal function. Subsequently, in patients with normal renal function a maintenance dosage of 6 mg/kg every 12 hours may be helpful in ensuring C(min) close to 20 mg/L. Assessment of C(min) after 48-72 hours may be useful to individualise teicoplanin therapy. Factors increasing volume of distribution and/or renal clearance of teicoplanin (fluid load, hypoalbuminaemia, leukaemic status) may explain the need for higher dosages.

Continuous infusion of ceftazidime for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma receiving high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

This prospective study was performed to examine the safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion of ceftazidime in patients who developed febrile neutropenia after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) and to determine if the underlying disease represents a risk factor for infectious complications. From September 1995 to May 2000, 55 patients with breast cancer (BC, group I, 54 females, one male) and 32 patients with multiple myeloma (MM, group II, 10 female, 22 male) were included in this study. The febrile patients received a 2 g intravenous bolus of ceftazidime, followed by a 4 g continuous infusion over 24 h using a portable infusion pump. If the fever persisted for 72 h a glycopeptide antibiotic was added. The median age was 42 years (range 22-59) in group I and 52 years (range 35-63) in group II. Thirty-five BC patients (64%) and 20 MM patients (63%) responded to the monotherapy with ceftazidime. After addition of a glycopeptide antibiotic, an additional 11 BC patients vs 10 MM patients became afebrile. The causes of fever in group I were fever of unknown origin (FUO) in 49 patients, microbiologically documented infection (MDI) in five patients, and clinically documented infection (CDI) in one patient. The causes of fever in group II were FUO in 22 patients, MDI in eight patients and CDI in two patients. Forty-one febrile episodes in BC patients (75%) and 22 episodes in the MM patients (69%) were successfully managed by out-patient treatment, resulting in a saving of an average of 20 days of inpatient care. Significantly more episodes of MDI and CDI occurred in patients with MM (P = 0.05). The results indicate that BC and MM patients with febrile neutropenia after HDCT and PBSCT can be treated as outpatients with close monitoring to ensure safety. This approach represents a better use of health care resources.

Efficacy of continuous infusion of ceftazidime for patients with neutropenic fever after high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Neutropenia is an important complication of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Neutropenic patients presenting with fever are routinely hospitalized for treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Neutropenia up to 10 days is associated with a low-risk profile, and antimicrobial therapy administered on an outpatient basis might be an alternative to admission to hospital. This prospective study evaluates the safety of a continuous infusion of ceftazidime in neutropenic patients after HDCT and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). From September 1995 to October 1999, 81 patients received a 2 g intravenous bolus of ceftazidime, followed by a 4 g continuous infusion per 24 h of ceftazidime using a portable infusion pump. If the fever persisted for 72 h, a glycopeptide antibiotic was added. The median patients' age was 44 years. Fifty-two of 81 patients (64%) responded to the monotherapy with ceftazidime. After addition of a glycopeptide antibiotic, a further 17 patients (21%) became afebrile. The causes of fever were septicaemia in 11 patients, pneumonia in two and fever of unknown origin in 68 patients. Fifty-eight episodes (72%) were successfully managed by outpatient treatment alone. The reason for admission to hospital was the change to imipenem/cilastin, which had to be administered three times per day (12 patients), severe mucositis with parenteral nutrition (eight patients), or a Karnovsky index </=60 (three patients). In six of these cases, outpatient treatment was resumed after a brief period of in-patient care. In no case was the treatment terminated because of failure of the pump. With daily follow-up and close monitoring for development of complications, it is possible to discharge patients earlier after HDCT and PBSCT, thereby decreasing costs.