Experience with cefepime versus meropenem as empiric monotherapy for neutropenia and fever in pediatric patients with solid tumors

Comparative efficacy and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactams for pediatric febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipseudomonal β-lactams have been used for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, the efficacy and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactams in pediatric patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to comprehensively compare the efficacy and side effects of optional antipseudomonal β-lactams for pediatric FN.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to December 18, 2020. Eligible randomized controlled trials in which pediatric FN patients were treated with an empiric monotherapy of antipseudomonal β-lactams were selected. Data synthesis was performed using WinBUGS 14.0 software and meta packages implemented in R 3.6.2. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was treatment success without modification; the secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), all-cause mortality, and new infections. The GRADE tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID CRD42021226763.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 2517 patients were included. The results showed no statistically significant difference between the optional antipseudomonal β-lactams in the outcomes of treatment success without modification, all AEs, all-cause mortality, and new infections for pediatric FN. Based on the results of Bayesian rank probability, meropenem was ranked highest among all the treatment options with regard to treatment success without modification benefit; ceftazidime and meropenem were associated with a lower risk of AEs; cefoperazone/sulbactam and piperacillin/tazobactam were associated with a lower risk of mortality, and piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem were associated with a lower risk of new infections. The quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were found to be better with regard to treatment success without modification, with a comparable safety profile. Therefore, our findings support the use of meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam as a treatment option for pediatric FN patients.

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.

Doripenem versus meropenem as first-line empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia: a prospective, randomized study

Febrile neutropenia is often observed in patients with hematologic malignancies, especially in those with acute leukemia. Meropenem has potent and broad antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, and is recommended as first-line empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia. In contrast, the safety and efficacy of doripenem in patients with febrile neutropenia and hematologic malignancies is limited. In this randomized, prospective, cooperative, open-label trial, we compared doripenem (1.0 g every 8 h) to meropenem (1.0 g every 8 h) as first-line empiric antibacterial treatment of febrile neutropenia. To evaluate efficacy and safety, 133 hospitalized patients with acute leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, who developed febrile neutropenia during or after chemotherapy, were randomized to each drug. Resolution of fever within 3 to 5 days without treatment modification (i.e., the primary endpoint) did not significantly differ between the doripenem and meropenem groups (60.0% vs. 45.6%, respectively; P = 0.136). However, resolution of fever within 7 days of treatment was significantly higher in the doripenem group than in the meropenem group (78.4% vs. 60.2%, respectively; P = 0.037). Similar rates of adverse events (grades 1-2) were observed in both groups. Thus, we conclude that both drugs are safe and well-tolerated for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, and that the clinical efficacy of doripenem is noninferior to that of meropenem. UMIN Clinical Trial Registry number: 000006124.

Cefepime Efficacy and Safety in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite reports questioning its efficacy, cefepime remains a first-line option in febrile neutropenia. We aimed to re-evaluate the role of cefepime in this setting.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify randomized comparisons of (1) cefepime vs alternative monotherapy or (2) cefepime plus aminoglycoside vs alternative monotherapy plus aminoglycoside, published until November 28, 2016.

RESULTS

Thirty-two trials, reporting on 5724 patients, were included. Clinical efficacy was similar between study arms (P = .698), but overall mortality was greater among cefepime-treated patients (risk ratio [RR] = 1.321; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.035-1.686; P = .025). Also of note, this effect seemed to stem from trials using low-dose (2 grams/12 hours, 100 mg/kg per day) cefepime monotherapy (RR = 1.682; 95% CI, 1.038-2.727; P = .035). Cefepime was also associated with increased mortality compared with carbapenems (RR = 1.668; 95% CI, 1.089-2.555; P = .019), a finding possibly influenced by cefepime dose, because carbapenems were compared with low-dose cefepime monotherapy in 5 of 9 trials. Treatment failure in clinically documented infections was also more frequent with cefepime (RR = 1.143; 95% CI, 1.004-1.300; P = .043). Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was more common among patients that received high-dose cefepime (P = .026), whereas low-dose cefepime monotherapy resulted in fewer adverse events, compared with alternative monotherapy (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Cefepime demonstrated increased mortality compared with carbapenems, reduced efficacy in clinically documented infections, and higher rates of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation. The impact of cefepime dosing on these outcomes is important, because low-dose regimens were associated with lower toxicity at the expense of higher mortality.

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.

The efficacy and safety of cefepime or meropenem in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer. A randomized phase II study

Febrile neutropenia frequently develops after chemotherapy. There is little evidence to indicate the type of antimicrobial agents that should be used in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors. The objective is to determine the efficacy and safety of cefepime (CFPM) and meropenem (MEPM) in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in lung cancer patients in a prospective randomized study. FN patients with lung cancer were randomly divided into CFPM or MEPM groups. The primary end-point was the response rate. The secondary end-points were the defervescence rates at 72 h, 7 days, 14 days and the incidence of adverse events. Twenty-one patients were treated with CFPM and 24 patients were treated with MEPM. One patient died of FN. The CFPM treatment completion rate was 17.65% (95% CI; 0.00-35.77%), while the MEPM treatment completion rate was 38.10% (95% CI; 17.33-58.87%). The defervescence rates at 72 h, 7 days, and 14 days were 70.59%, 86.67%, and 100.00%, respectively in the CFPM group; and 65.00%, 84.21%, and 92.31% in the MEPM group. Adverse events were observed in 33.33% of the CFPM group and 45.83% of the MEPM group. The response rate of the CFPM group was 94.12% (95% CI; 73.02-98.95%), while that of the MEPM group was 85.71% (95% CI; 65.36-95.02%). No differences were found in the efficacy or safety of CFPM and MEPM in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer.

Randomized comparison of piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin versus cefoperazone-sulbactam plus amikacin for management of febrile neutropenia in children with lymphoma and solid tumors

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) plus amikacin (AMK) (PIP/TAZO+AMK) versus cefoperazone-sulbactam (CS) plus AMK (CS+AMK) for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer. The study was designed prospectively and randomized in 0- to 18-year-old children with lymphoma or solid tumor who were hospitalized with FN diagnosis. Consecutively randomized patients received either PIP/TAZO 360 mg/kg/day in 4 doses plus AMK 15 mg/kg/day in 3 doses or CS 100 mg/kg/day in 3 doses plus AMK 15 mg/kg/day in 3 doses intravenously. Treatment modification was defined as any change in the initial empirical antibiotic therapy. A total of 116 FN episodes were managed in 46 patients (26 boys and 20 girls) with a median age of 6.5 years (range .8-17.0) during the study period. Success rates without modification of therapy were 47.5% and 52.6% in PIP/TAZO+AMK group and CS+AMK group, respectively (P >.05). No statistical difference was found between treatment groups in terms of durations of neutropenia, fever, and hospitalization. The overall success rate in all groups was 97.4%. No major side effect was observed in either group during the course of the study. Our study is the first to compare the effectiveness of PIP/TAZO+AMK and CS+AMK therapies. Both combinations were effective and safe as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

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.

Comparison of sulbactam-cefoperazone with carbapenems as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic children with lymphoma and solid tumors

Febrile neutropenia (FEN) is a leading complication of intensive chemotherapy. With this prospective randomized study, the authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of sulbactam-cefoperazone (SC) versus carbapenems, as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with lymphoma and solid tumors. Febrile neutropenic children (age ≤16 years) hospitalized at the authors' center for lymphomas or solid tumors between March 2007 and June 2009 were included in the study. Patients randomly received SC or carbapenem. Patients were reevaluated at 72 hours and in case of persistent fever, an aminoglycoside and/or a glycopeptide was added to the antibiotic treatment. When a resistant pathogen was isolated, the antibiotic therapy was modified. Treatment responses was defined as success without modification, overall success, or failure. Two hundred and eight episodes were documented in 128 patients (F/M: 56/72), with a median age of 7 years (0.5-17.4 years). Absolute neutrophil count and duration of neutropenia in patients treated with SC and carbapenems were 133/mm(3) (0-500) and 113/mm(3) (0-500), and 4 days (1-21) and 5 days (2-20), respectively. In the SC and carbapenem groups, 82 (78.8%) and 84 episodes (80.7%) improved with treatment, whereas 21 (20.2%) and 19 (18.3%) episodes required treatment modification respectively. One patient from each treatment group died according to febrile neutropenia. The overall success rates were 99% in both groups (P = .94). Empiric SC therapy was found to be as effective as carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric febrile neutropenic patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia.

Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving.

What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens.

Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care–associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams

BACKGROUND

Several beta-lactams are recommended as single agents for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams as single agents in the treatment of febrile neutropenia. To compare the development of bacterial resistance, bacterial and fungal superinfections during or following treatment with the different beta-lactams.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 3, 2010. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, FDA drug applications, conference proceedings and ongoing clinical trial databases up to August 2010. References of included studies were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antipseudomonal beta-lactam to another antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic, both given alone or with the addition of the same glycopeptide to both study arms, for the initial treatment of fever and neutropenia among cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors applied inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently. Missing data were sought. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and pooled using the fixed effect model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using a domain-based evaluation and its effect of results was assessed through sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included. The antibiotics assessed were cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem and meropenem. Adequate allocation concealment and generation were reported in about half of the trials and only two trials were double-blinded. The risk for all-cause mortality was significantly higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.86, 21 trials, 3471 participants), without heterogeneity and with higher RRs in trials at low risk for bias. There were no differences in secondary outcomes but for a non-significantly higher rate of bacterial superinfections with cefepime. Mortality was significantly lower with piperacillin-tazobactam compared to other antibiotics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92, 8 trials, 1314 participants), without heterogeneity. Carbapenems resulted in similar all-cause mortality and a lower rate of clinical failure and antibiotic modifications as compared to other antibiotics, but a higher rate of diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in locations where antibiotic resistance profiles do not mandate empirical use of carbapenems. Carbapenems result in a higher rate of antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. There is a high level of evidence that all-cause mortality is higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams and it should not be used as monotherapy for patients with febrile neutropenia.

Efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed clinical trials on the safety and efficacy of cefepime in pediatric patients in view of recent reports, which suggested that cefepime is associated with increased 30-day all-cause mortality rates.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other published and unpublished sources. Randomized clinical trials of cefepime in patients<19 years of age were selected.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical trials were included. All-cause mortality rates did not differ between cefepime and comparator groups (risk difference, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.01-0.02). The risks of overall clinical failure (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.82-1.04; P>.05) and failure in microbiologically confirmed infections (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.22; P>.05) were not greater in subjects treated with cefepime. Rates of adverse events were similar in each group in all trials except 1. All studies had significant methodological flaws.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons of the safety and efficacy of cefepime relative with other antimicrobial agents in pediatric patients are limited by small numbers of trials and enrolled subjects and poor study methodology. This review, however, suggests that cefepime therapy in pediatric patients is not associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes.

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 plus ceftazidime versus sulbactam/ampicillin plus aztreonam as empirical therapy for fever in severely neutropenic pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam plus ceftazidime (PIPC/TAZ+CAZ) versus sulbactam/ampicillin plus aztreonam (SBT/ABPC+AZT) as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia were assessed in children with hematologic disease and solid tumor.

PROCEDURE

A prospective randomized study was performed to evaluate the clinical response of 70 febrile episodes in the PIPC/TAZ+CAZ arm and 64 evaluable febrile episodes in the SBT/ABPC+AZT arm of the study. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 120 hours, with treatment outcome criteria defined as follows. Success was defined as disappearance of fever, clinical improvement, eradication of the infecting organism, and maintenance of a response for at least 7 days after discontinuation of treatment.

RESULTS

An infection was documented microbiologically in 14 episodes (20%) in the PIPC/TAZ+CAZ arm and in 8 episodes (13%) in the SBT/ABPC+AZT arm. The success rate was 57.1% in the PIPC/TAZ+CAZ arm and 62.5% in the SBT/ABPC+AZT arm (P>0.05). No major adverse effects were observed in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPC/TAZ+CAZ and SBT/ABPC+AZT are effective and safe for initial empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric patients. The clinical efficacy of SBT/ABPC+AZT is equivalent or superior to that of PIPC/TAZ+CAZ, the effect of which is already proven against febrile neutropenia. Therefore, SBT/ABPC+AZT may be a treatment of choice for febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients.

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.