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

Systematic Review of Beta-Lactam vs. Beta-Lactam plus Aminoglycoside Combination Therapy in Neutropenic Cancer Patients

We performed a systematic review of studies that compared beta-lactams vs. beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients.

METHOD

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for studies published up to October 2023, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared anti-Pseudomonas aeruginosa beta-lactam monotherapy with any combination of an anti-Pseudomonas aeruginosa beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside were included.

RESULT

The all-cause mortality rate of combination therapy showed no significant differences compared with that of monotherapy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16, high certainty of evidence). Infection-related mortality rates showed that combination therapy had a small positive impact compared with the intervention with monotherapy (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, high certainty of evidence). Regarding treatment failure, combination therapy showed no significant differences compared with monotherapy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, low certainty of evidence). In the sensitivity analysis, the treatment failure data published between 2010 and 2019 showed better outcomes in the same beta-lactam group (RR 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.19]). Renal failure was more frequent with combination therapy of any daily dosing regimen (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60, high certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSION

We found combining aminoglycosides with a narrow-spectrum beta-lactam did not spare the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Few studies included antibiotic-resistant bacteria and a detailed investigation of aminoglycoside serum levels, and studies that combined the same beta-lactams showed only a minimal impact with the combination therapy. In the future, studies that include the profile of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the monitoring of serum aminoglycoside levels will be required.

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options.

DISCUSSION

Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk 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.

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.