Piperacillin/tazobactam plus gentamicin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancy

Piperacillin-tazobactam in pediatric cancer patients younger than 25 months: a retrospective multicenter survey

Piperacillin-Tazobactam (Pip-Taz) is an evidence-based empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in adolescents and adults. No data are available in pediatric cancer patients <25 months of age. In this retrospective, multicenter data survey, the analysis focuses on safety, tolerance, and efficacy. The daily dose administered was 240 mg/kg given in three equally divided doses. Data on 156 Pip-Taz treatment courses in 69 children <25 months from five pediatric cancer treatment centers (2001-2005) were analyzed. The median duration of treatment with Pip-Taz was 5 days (range, 1-23 days; 1-12 Pip-Taz courses per patient). Pip-Taz was started on the first day of fever in 90% of all courses, in 6% in the first 72 h, and in 4% as second- or third-line agent. Forty-five percent of all patients were neutropenic. In all patients, the outcome was favorable independent whether Pip-Taz was given as monotherapy (42 courses; 27%) or in combination. Overall, Pip-Taz was well tolerated and discontinued due to adverse events in only two patients who experienced non-life-threatening allergic reactions (skin rash and wheezing). The results of this study are preliminary due to the methodological limitations of a retrospective survey. Taking this bias into consideration, Pip-Taz appears to be a safe, and feasible alternative in pediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia <25 months of age suggesting that the inclusion of children of all age groups in future prospective controlled studies evaluating Pip-Taz is justified.

Empirical antimicrobial treatment for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia in immunocompromised hosts is associated with a high mortality. Empirical treatment in such cases is instituted to cover the common pathogens. Generally, combination antibiotic treatment is used early in the febrile neutropenia phase. Recent studies demonstrate that monotherapy with certain beta-lactam antibiotics can be equally effective. Glycopeptide antibiotics are used in the absence of an adequate response to the initial antibiotics. Empirical antifungal therapy may be given if fever does not settle in 72-96 h despite antibiotics. Newer antifungal agents have increased the available options for initial antifungal agents though more data are needed before any conclusive recommendation can be made. Recent changes in the epidemiology of multiresistant organisms necessitate local microbiological input into empiric policies with increasing need to consider cover for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, glycopeptide intermediate S. aureus, vancomycin-resistant S. aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Gram-negative bacilli that produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and multi-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii.

Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients: a randomized comparison

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of piperacillin/tazobactam with cefepime monotherapy in children with febrile neutropenia. A prospective randomized study in children and adolescent with cancer was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam every 6 h (maximum 4.5 g/dose) or cefepime 50 mg/kg every 8 h (maximum 2 g/dose). Treatment modification was defined as all the changes in the empirical antimicrobials after the first 96 h. Overall treatment success was defined as cure of febrile episode with or without modification. Cost of hospitalization, antimicrobial drugs, and supportive therapy were calculated. Fifty febrile neutropenic episodes (25 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group, 25 in the cefepime group) in 27 pediatric cancer patients were evaluated. The groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body weight, primary diagnosis, disease status, initial neutrophil count, and duration of neutropenia. Microbiologically and clinically documented infection rate was 46%. There was no infection-related mortality in the study period. The treatment success of initial empirical therapy without modification was not different in the 2 groups (56% in piperacillin/tazobactam group and 48% in cefepime group). Anti-anaerobic drugs were added more frequently in the cefepime group. Duration of fever, neutropenia, treatment, and cost of therapy were not different in the treatment groups. Piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy is as effective as cefepime monotherapy in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients.

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.

[Treatment of febrile neutropenia episodes in children, with a piperacillin-tazobactam and netilmicin combination]

OBJECTIVES

The authors had for aim to assess the effectiveness and toxicity of a piperacillin-tazobactam-netilmicin combination, and the possibility of avoiding using glycopeptide, in children with febrile neutropenic episodes induced by chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective study was made, including children treated for a febrile neutropenic episode (absolute neutrophile count < 0.5 x 10(9)/l) by a piperacillin-tazobactam-netilmicin combination. If fever persisted 48 hours after the beginning of antibiotic therapy, a glycopeptide could be added. The responses to the treatment were defined as follows: 1) total success (no fever or documented infection) at 48 hours and at 72 hours following the beginning of treatment; 2) partial success (apyrexia beyond 72 hours without any therapeutic change); 3) failure (persistent infectious signs 48 hours after the introduction of glycopeptide).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine episodes were assessable, corresponding to 41 patients, treated for a solid tumour (29), an acute leukaemia in remission (11), or a metabolic disease (1). The febrile episodes were divided into fever of unknown origin (71%), microbiologically documented fever (12%), and clinically documented fever (17%). No death occurred, no toxicity was reported. With this antibiotic therapy, total success at 72 hours was observed in 72% in case of fever of unknown origin and 45% in case of documented infections. The success rate reached 84% when a glycopeptide was added (30% of the cases).

CONCLUSION

The piperacillin-tazobactam-netilmicin combination is very effective and well tolerated in probabilistic treatment of febrile neutropenia induced by chemotherapy, but does not allow to decreasing the frequency of glycopeptide administration.

Empiric therapy of bacterial infections in patients with severe neutropenia

The urgent need to treat presumptive infections in neutropenic patients has meant that initial therapy is empiric based on the pathogens most likely to be responsible for the patient's rise in temperature or other symptoms of infection. The spectrum of causative pathogens has changed over time and reflects the availability and use of antimicrobial agents. Gram-positive organisms predominated in the 1940s and onward until the widespread use of early penicillins and cephalosporins effectively addressed this problem. The upsurge in infections in the 1970s and 1980s caused by Gram-negative organisms, particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp., has been supplanted by a new wave of infections caused by Gram-positive organisms, this time predominantly Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and the viridans streptococci. The fourth-generation cephalosporins (cefpirome) among other broad-spectrum beta-lactams, by virtue of their enhanced antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive pathogens and greater beta-lactamase stability, are promising candidates for use in the empiric management of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Early clinical trial results are promising and should lead the way for further use of these compounds in this indication.

Piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem: a double-blind, randomized formulary feasibility study at a major teaching hospital

With the introduction of piperacillin/tazobactam to the North American market, hospitals have been faced with the task of making a decision regarding its formulary role. In view of its broad spectrum of activity, piperacillin/tazobactam could be considered as a formulary alternative to imipenem. To evaluate the formulary feasibility of substituting piperacillin/tazobactam for imipenem, a comparative assessment of these agents in the empiric treatment of serious bacterial infections was undertaken at this tertiary care hospital. This trial was conducted as a randomized, double-blind, single-center study. Consenting adult patients (>16 years of age) who were prescribed imipenem were randomized to receive either 4 g of i.v. piperacillin/tazobactam or imipenem 500 mg of i.v. Q6H with or without concurrent antibiotics. Doses were adjusted according to renal function. There were no restrictions regarding the use of nonstudy antibiotics before and during the study period. Patients with beta-lactam allergies or meningitis or who had received greater than 72 h of previous imipenem therapy were excluded. Patients were evaluated at the end of treatment, at discharge, and at 30 days postdischarge. Endpoints included both clinical and microbiologic efficacy as well as drug toxicity. Over the 433-day study period, 360 imipenem treatment courses were initiated. Of these, 150 treatment courses (75 piperacillin/tazobactam courses and 75 imipenem courses) met study criteria and were subsequently randomized. The distribution of prescriber services for enrolled patients was similar to that for all patients receiving imipenem during the study period (p = 0.15). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic parameters between enrolled and excluded patients. For those patients enrolled in the study, demographic characteristics, treatment course indication(s), and accompanying antibiotics were similar across treatment arms. The mean duration of study drug therapy was 7.7 days (SD, 6.2) for imipenem and 7.5 days (SD, 6.7)for piperacillin/tazobactam (p = 0.84). In the majority of cases, treatment discontinuation occurred as a result of a favorable treatment course outcome, stepdown to a narrower spectrum parenteral agent, or stepdown to an oral agent and did not differ between study drugs (p = 0.73). Clinical and microbiologic treatment course outcomes were also similar across treatment arms. Clinical outcome was deemed successful or improved for 68% of imipenem and 70% of the piperacillin/tazobactam treatment courses (p = 0.54). Fifty-three percent of treatment courses were microbiologically confirmed. Of the 58 courses that were assessed for microbiological outcome, 93% demonstrated successful eradication of the causative pathogens. There was no difference between study drugs (96% imipenem; 90% piperacillin/tazobactam; p = 0.61). The proportion of treatment courses with at least one adverse event was similar between the study drugs (p = 1.0). Nausea and/or vomiting were/was observed more commonly in the imipenem arm (p = 0.03). Discontinuation of therapy due to drug toxicity occurred in 16% of imipenem and 5% of piperacillin/tazobactam treatment courses (p = 0.06). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean treatment course cost for imipenem ($762; range, $55-$3192) versus piperacillin/tazobactam ($696; range, $79-$2967; p = 0.59). In summary, piperacillin/tazobactam seems to represent a suitable alternative to imipenem for several clinical indications including intraabdominal infections, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, and skin/soft tissue infections in which the causative pathogens are susceptible. However, in view of the prevalence of multiresistant Gram-negative aerobic pathogens at this institution, we do not believe that imipenem can be removed from the drug formulary. In addition, at the currently studied dosing regimen, there seems to be no evidence of a direct cost advantage associated with

Piperacillin-tazobactam as empiric monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies

The efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam as first line empiric therapy was assessed in 54 febrile neutropenic episodes in 42 patients (27 male, 15 female) with haematological malignancy. Nineteen (35%) episodes were bacteraemias (15 Gram-positive, 4 Gram-negative), 5 (9%) were clinically documented (Hickman line sites) and 30 (56%) were pyrexias of unknown origin. Study therapy was initiated after a median of 4 days of neutropenia (range 1-30). Eighteen (33%) episodes responded to piperacillin-tazobactam without a need for treatment modification. Four (7%) episodes initially responded to piperacillin-tazobactam but required treatment modification for fungal superinfection. Of the 19 bacteraemias, 6 (32%) were eradicated or presumed eradicated by piperacillin-tazobactam. Of the 32 (60%) episodes which failed to respond to piperacillin-tazobactam, 11 (34%) responded to anti-fungal therapy; 14 (44%) responded to a glycopeptide and 5 (16%) responded to a second-line broad spectrum antibacterial agent. Two (6%) patients died, both in the presence of progressive malignancy. There was no significant toxicity associated with piperacillin-tazobactam. We conclude that piperacillin-tazobactam is effective as empiric monotherapy in neutropenic fever and may reduce the requirement for glycopeptides.

Piperacillin/tazobactam. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential

Combining tazobactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, with the ureidopenicillin, piperacillin, successfully restores the activity of piperacillin against beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Tazobactam has inhibitory activity, and therefore protects piperacillin against Richmond and Sykes types II, III, IV and V beta-lactamases, staphylococcal penicillinase and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. However, tazobactam has only species-specific activity against class I chromosomally-mediated enzymes. Resistant organisms include some Citrobacter spp., Enterobacter spp., Serratia spp., Xanthomonas maltophilia and Enterococcus faecium. Consistent with its in vitro activity, preliminary clinical data indicate that the fixed combination of piperacillin/tazobactam (dose ratio 8:1) is effective in the treatment of moderate to severe polymicrobial infections, including intra-abdominal, skin and soft-tissue and lower respiratory tract infections. In limited comparative trials, piperacillin/tazobactam demonstrated equivalent or better efficacy than standard comparator regimens in these infections. Piperacillin/tazobactam in combination with an aminoglycoside was effective in the empirical treatment of fever in patients with neutropenia and compared favourably with ceftazidime in combination with an aminoglycoside, although second-line therapy with a glycopeptide antibiotic may be indicated in unresponsive episodes. Data from phase III trials indicate that piperacillin/tazobactam has a tolerability profile typical of a penicillin agent. Piperacillin/tazobactam provides a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity in a convenient single formulation suitable for use in the treatment of polymicrobial infections. Possible limitations concern its restricted activity against class I beta-lactamases, enzymes that are becoming increasingly important in the nosocomial environment. Combined therapy with an aminoglycoside may be necessary in more serious infections.