Randomized Trial of Cefepime Monotherapy or Cefepime in Combination with Amikacin as Empirical Therapy for 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.

Management of Complex Infections in Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis in Adults

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a syndrome of excessive immune system activation and inflammatory response due to a variety of primary and secondary factors that can cause a range of clinical symptoms and, in severe cases, life-threatening conditions. Patients with HLH are at increased risk of infection due to their abnormal immune function as well as chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy at the time of treatment. At the same time, the lack of specific clinical features makes complex infections in HLH challenging to diagnose and treat. The management of complex infections in HLH requires a multidisciplinary and integrated approach including the early identification of pathogens, the development of anti-infection protocols and regimens, and the elimination of potential infection factors. Especially in HLH patients with septic shock, empirical combination therapy against the most likely pathogens should be initiated, and appropriate anti-infective regimens should be determined based on immune status, site of infection, pathogens, and their drug resistance, with timely antibiotic adjustment by monitoring procalcitonin. In addition, anti-infection prophylaxis for HLH patients is needed to reduce the risk of infection such as prophylactic antibiotics and vaccinations. In conclusion, complex infection in HLH is a serious and challenging disease that requires vigilance, early identification, and timely anti-infective therapy.

Use of cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin/tazobactam as initial treatment for febrile neutropenia in patients with hematological malignancy — a real-life experience

Background

Antimicrobials like fourth-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, or β-lactams are widely used in treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN). The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of cefepime, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam as initial treatment for chemo-induced FN in patients with hematological malignancy.

Methods

This was an observational study conducted in the Department of Hematology of Dhaka Medical College Hospital from July 2020 to June 2021 including 99 adult FN patients with hematological malignancy who were randomized equally to three treatment arms to receive cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin/tazobactam as an empirical antibiotic. Response to therapy was defined as improvement in symptoms (e.g., defervescence) or in laboratory values including neutrophil counts on day 3 and day 7 after the initiation of the therapy. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the efficacy of the treatment regimens.

Results

Response rate to initial treatment with different antibiotic regimens was similar without any statistically significant difference (60.6%, 63.6%, and 51.5% on day 3 and 63.6%, 75.8%, and 66.7% on day 7 for cefepime, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively, p-value > 0.05) irrespective of underlying diagnosis, the severity of neutropenia, and cause of fever.

Conclusion

Initial therapy with cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin/tazobactam is safe and equally effective in chemo-induced FN in patients with hematological malignancy. This finding may be considered in clinical practice for optimum therapeutic outcomes.

Decreased febrile neutropenia during inpatient chemotherapy for urologic cancer during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

Since 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the widespread practice of hand hygiene and wearing face masks, not only among medical personnel, but also among the general population. Thus, the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the incidence of febrile neutropenia should be verified. This study aimed to examine the incidence of febrile neutropenia in hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy at Kanazawa University Hospital. Among inpatients at the Department of Urology receiving chemotherapy, we compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia between 317 cases in 2018-2019 and 276 cases in 2020. We retrospectively analyzed the factors of febrile neutropenia via binomial logistic regression analysis based on patient characteristics and the characteristics of primary diseases, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 20/317 cases in 2018-2019 and 1/276 cases in 2020, with a significant decrease in the latter (p = 0.005). In a multivariate analysis, we identified the following independent risk factors for febrile neutropenia: non-coronavirus disease 2019 era (p = 0.005), first course of therapy (p = 0.005), malnutrition (p = 0.032), and past history of febrile neutropenia (p = 0.018). Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, hygiene policies for medical personnel and quarantine measures for patients were thoroughly implemented. Therefore, the incidence of febrile neutropenia in 2020 decreased to 1/15 of the previous incidence. Thus, the hygiene for medical personnel and patients during the expected period of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is important for febrile neutropenia prevention.

How I Treat Febrile Neutropenia

The management of febrile neutropenia is a backbone of treating patients with hematologic malignancies and has evolved over the past decades. This article reviews my approach to the evaluation and treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Key topics discussed include antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis, the initial workup for fever, the choice of the empiric antibiotic regimen and its modifications, and criteria for discontinuation. For each of these questions, I review the literature and present my perspective.

Cefepime Versus Cefepime Plus Amikacin as an Initial Antibiotic Choice for Pediatric Cancer Patients With Febrile Neutropenia in an Era of Increasing Cefepime Resistance

BACKGROUND

We investigated the treatment outcomes before and after the addition of amikacin to cefepime monotherapy as an initial empirical antibiotic treatment in pediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

This was a retrospective historical cohort study. The subjects were pediatric cancer patients who visited the emergency room at the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, due to chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, between January 2011 and December 2016. Since September 2014, the empirical antimicrobial treatment regimen for febrile neutropenia was changed from high-dose cefepime monotherapy to combination therapy of adding a single dose of amikacin.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five bacteremia episodes in 164 patients were reported during the study period. Bacteremia caused by cefepime-resistant Gram-negative bacteria was observed in 16% of patients before September 2014 and in 21% of the patients after September 2014 (P = 0.331). Use of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatments increased from 62% to 83% following addition of amikacin to cefepime treatment (P = 0.003). The duration of fever was shorter in the cefepime plus amikacin group than in the cefepime group (22 vs. 34 hours, P = 0.014); however, rates of septic shock and pediatric intensive care unit hospitalizations were not significantly different between the 2 groups (septic shock, both 7%, P = 0.436; pediatric intensive care unit 3% vs. 1%, P = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no additional benefit of amikacin addition to high-dose cefepime monotherapy. Therefore, adding amikacin to cefepime monotherapy in conditions where cefepime-resistant Gram-negative bacteremia amounts to 20% or less may not be justified.

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.

Detection of bacteria in blood circulation in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Bacterial translocation, in which intestinal bacteria pass through the intestinal wall, enter the blood circulation, and spread to other sites of the body, is thought to cause bacteremia and sometimes febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients who receive cancer chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected blood samples from 39 patients with various cancers at baseline and after chemotherapy began (during chemotherapy) and explored how frequently bacteria could be detected in the blood using a highly-sensitive, bacterial rRNA-targeted reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay.

RESULTS

Bacterial traces, typically Escherichia coli and Enterobacter spp., were detected in 10 patients (25.6%) at baseline and 11 patients (28.2%) during chemotherapy. The bacterial traces were positive either at baseline or during chemotherapy in 3 (60%) of 5 patients who had FN, and 6 (46%) of 13 patients aged 65 years or older.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the notion that bacterial translocation occurs in patients with cancer regardless of whether they receive chemotherapy and can lead to the development of FN and other treatment-related infections.

The relationship between mortality and microbiological parameters in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies

Objectives:

To determine effective risk factors on mortality in febrile neutropenic cases with hematologic malignancy. Patients with hematologic diseases are more prone to infections and those are frequent causes of mortality.

Methods:

This retrospective study was performed using data of 164 febrile neutropenic cases with hematologic malignancies who were followed up in a hematology clinic of a tertiary health care center between 2011-2015. The relationship between descriptive and clinical parameters rates and rates of mortality on the 7^th and the 21^st days were investigated.

Results:

Patients with absolute neutrophil count<100/mm³, duration of neutropenia longer than 7 days, pneumonia or gastrointestinal foci of infection, central catheterization (p=0.025), isolation of Gram (-) bacteria in culture, carbapenem resistance, septic shock, and bacterial growth during intravenous administration of antibiotic treatment were under more risk for mortality on both the 7^th and the 21^st days. The final multivariate logistic regression results showed that pneumonia (p<0.0001), septic shock (p=0.004) and isolation of Gram-negative bacteria (p=0.032) were statistically significant risk factors.

Conclusion:

Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of serious infections, which are important causes of morbidity and mortality, are crucial in patients with febrile neutropenia. Thus, each center should closely follow up causes of infection and establish their empirical antibiotherapy protocols to accomplish better results in the management of febrile neutropenia.

Combinational approach using in situ hybridization targeting 23S ribosomal RNA genes and blood cultures for bacterial identification in patients with neutropenia and fever

BACKGROUND

A new 23S ribosomal RNA genes-targeted in situ hybridization (ISH) probe to detect global bacterial genomic DNA (59 species from 35 genera; referred to as the GB probe) phagocytized in leukocytes was recently developed. This method provided early and direct evidence of bacterial infection with high sensitivity and specificity in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis ascites. However, the utility of this method in febrile neutropenia (FN) is unknown.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the utility of the ISH approach using the GB probe and previously reported probes in patients with neutropenia and fever undergoing chemotherapy at our institution between June 2011 and July 2013. Blood samples for culture analysis and ISH tests were collected simultaneously at the onset of fever; the latter were performed repeatedly.

RESULTS

Fifty febrile episodes were evaluated. In 24 episodes of fever of unknown origin and 15 episodes of local infection (all negative for blood cultures), ISH tests identified causal bacteria in 21% and 13% of cases, respectively, at the onset of fever. In seven sepsis cases (all positive for blood culture), positive ISH test results at fever onset were achieved in 71%; for two patients with neutrophil counts of 0/μl and 171/μl, respectively, negative results were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

This new ISH approach could prove useful for early detection of bacteria in patients with neutropenia and blood culture-negative, with fever of unknown etiology after chemotherapy. Using this method in combination with blood culture, even in cases with extremely low neutrophil counts, might contribute to better management of FN.

Diagnostic value of levels of presepsin (soluble CD14-subtype) in febrile neutropenia in patients with hematological disorders

BACKGROUND

Whether presepsin (soluble CD14-subtype) is better than other markers including procalcitonin (PCT), has not been adequately investigated in febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

We prospectively examined the utility of presepsin in FN in Cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2), between November 2010 and February 2012, and between November 2013 and January 2014, respectively. The purpose of this study was to investigate 1) the relative value of serum presepsin over serum PCT in C1, and 2) the relative value of plasma presepsin as compared with serum PCT, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 with frequent, repeated sampling in C2.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine FN episodes (C1, 75; C2, 4) were evaluable. In C1, when compared with control values, presepsin was significantly higher at onset of FN (P = 0.004), while PCT was not significantly higher (P = 0.54). The median value of serum presepsin within 72 h of onset of FN in subjects with fever of unknown origin, local infection, bacteremia and septic shock was 680 (reference 314) pg/ml, 763, 782 and 1359, respectively. In C2, the mean levels of plasma presepsin from onset of FN to 72 h were classified as negative in the two patients with no suspected site of infection, and those of the remaining two patients with clinically probable infections were positive (175, 131, 346 and 329 pg/ml, respectively). In contrast, the other markers did not discriminate between this two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In FN, presepsin may be an earlier and more sensitive indicator of bacterial infection than PCT.

A clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of cefepime monotherapy versus piperacillin-tazobactam in patients of paediatric age group with febrile neutropenia in a tertiary care centre of north India

Objective

To evaluate clinically the efficacy and safety in northern India of cefepime monotherapy versus piperacillin-tazobactam in patients of paediatric age group with febrile neutropenia.

Material and Methods

Children aged ≤18 years admitted febrile with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia were randomised into two groups comprising 20 cases in each group viz. CEF (receiving cefepime only) and PIP-TAZO (receiving piperacillin-tazobactam). Based on clinical and laboratory tests, patients were classified into: microbiologically documented infections (MDI); clinically documented infections (CDI); and unexplained fever (UF). They were assessed for clinical signs and symptoms as well as laboratory parameters at the time of enrolment and subsequently on days 3 and 7.

Results

Incidence of MDI, CDI and UF were 22.5%, 47.5% and 30%, respectively. The mean duration of neutropenia (in days) was 5.45 ± 2.1 in the PIP-TAZO group and 5.5 ± 1.5 in the CEF group ( P = 0.305). The success rate defined as clearing infection effectively and improvement of neutropenia was comparable ( P = 0.705). There was a mortality rate of 20% in the PIP-TAZO group as compared to 10% in the CEF group.

Conclusion

We conclude that cefepime monotherapy and piperacillin-tazobactam are equally efficacious and safe in treating patients with febrile neutropenia. Empirical monotherapy with cefepime would prevent an unnecessary extra economic burden as well as avoiding the serious adverse or toxic effects of multi-drug regimes, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Efficacy and safety of tazobactam/piperacillin as an empirical treatment for the patients of adult and child with febrile neutropenia in Japan

Tazobactam/piperacillin (4.5 g for adults and 90 mg/kg body weight for children, every 6 h) was administered to Japanese patients with febrile neutropenia to evaluate its defervescence and clinical efficacy and safety. The pharmacokinetics in children were also examined. Defervescence efficacy at day 4 of the treatment was achieved in 50.0% of 94 adult and 62.5% of 8 pediatric patients, respectively. The defervescence efficacy rate in relation to the neutrophil count in adults was 37.5% for the patients with a neutrophil count of less than 100/μL and 62.5% for that between 100 and 500/μL. The clinical efficacy rate at day 7 and at the end or discontinuation of the treatment was 79.6% and 59.1% in adult patients, respectively, and 57.1% and 75.0% in pediatric patients, respectively. Fifteen strains of causative bacteria were isolated in 13 adult patients at baseline. All strains were eradicated within 4 days of the treatment. The side effects that occurred in adult and pediatric patients during the treatment were all known and not specific to febrile neutropenia patients. The pharmacokinetics profiles of tazobactam/piperacillin in children with febrile neutropenia are unlikely to be different from those in children with a common bacterial infection and without any immunosuppressive conditions. The study results in Japanese patients with febrile neutropenia demonstrate that tazobactam/piperacillin treatment is efficacious and safe in adults. As for pediatric patients, given the limited number of cases studied, further investigation is needed (Clinical trial number: Japic CTI-121728).

Cefozopran, meropenem, or imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic adult patients: A multicenter prospective randomized trial

We conducted an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin using cefepime as a control in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. Three hundred and seventy-six patients received cefepime, cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatinas initial therapy for FN. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of response rates including modification at day 7 in cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin patients compared with cefepime in the per-protocol population (delta = 10%). The response rates for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin were not significantly different compared with cefepime (cefozopran: 54/90 (60%), meropenem: 60/92 (65%), and IPM/CS: 63/88 (72%) versus cefepime: 56/85 (66%) (p = 0.44, 1.0 and 0.51, respectively)), and the differences in treatment success for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime were -5.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): -20.1-8.4), -0.7% (95% CI: -14.6-13.3), and 5.7% (95% CI: -8.1-19.4), respectively. The same tendency was seen in the modified intention-to-treat population. Based on the evaluation of initial drug efficacy performed on days 3-5, there was no significant difference between the four drugs. In the subgroup with an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 100 × 10(6)/L for longer than seven days, there was significantly better efficacy in the carbapenem arm compared to 4th generation beta-lactams (52% versus 27% at days 3-5, p = 0.006, and 76% versus 48% at day 7, p = 0.002). Our results suggest that the effects of these four drugs as empiric therapy were virtually the same for adult FN patients, although non-inferiority was shown only in imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime (clinical trial number: UMIN000000462).

Diagnostic performance of serum high-sensitivity procalcitonin and serum C-reactive protein tests for detecting bacterial infection in febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

Although a few prospective studies have addressed the question as to which biomarker of infection in adult patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) is superior, procalcitonin (PCT) or C-reactive protein (CRP), the results have been inconsistent and inconclusive. This was possibly due to the poor sensitivity of previous PCT tests that have a functional sensitivity of 0.5 ng/ml.

METHODS

Between November 2010 and February 2012, we prospectively compared the diagnostic utility of serum high-sensitivity (hs) PCT (lower limit of detection, 0.02 ng/ml) and CRP levels for detecting bacterial infection in patients with FN. Serum was collected within 72 h after the onset of FN in patients with hematological disorders.

RESULTS

Seventy-five febrile episodes were evaluable. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for life-threatening infection defined as septic shock and bacteremia caused by non-coagulase negative staphylococcus were 0.824 (95% CI 0.711-0.937; P = 0.001) for hsPCT and 0.673 (0.505-0.842; P = 0.068) for CRP, respectively. In contrast, CRP, but not hsPCT, tended to increase significantly with the clinical severity, as indicated by the diagnostic classification (P = 0.002 for trend).

CONCLUSIONS

The serum hsPCT test may be more useful than the serum CRP test in the detection of life-threatening infection at an early phase after the onset of FN. In contrast, the serum CRP test may be more useful in diagnosing the severity of infection. However, neither of these tests was able to differentiate the cause of FN with a low probability of fatal outcome.

Strategies for the empirical management of infection in cancer patients with emphasis on the emergence of resistant gram-negative bacteria

Combinations of antibiotics (namely penicillins and aminoglycosides) have been advocated in the 1970s for the empirical therapy of FN in cancer patients in order to take advantage of the possible synergism between these agents and to extend the potential antimicrobial spectrum of empirical therapy. Later, with the development of potent broad spectrum antibiotics, the need for combinations became less obvious as monotherapy with these new agents appeared as effective and less toxic than previously used combinations. However, today we are facing a major challenge through the emergence of multi-resistant microrganisms. With such bacteria, we might be coming back to the pre-antibiotic era when no active agents were available. This situation is due, in part, by the excessive use of antibiotics, namely as a prophylaxis for infection, and is complicated by the fact that very few new effective antibiotics are being developed by the pharmaceutical industry. Under these circumstances, it is likely that we will have to resort to "old timers" such as the polymyxins. It is also possible that combination therapy will come back in favor to take advantage of the synergism and extend the spectrum of coverage, just as it has been the case for the management of resistant tuberculosis. At the same time, the development of multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship is mandatory for efficient infection control and minimizing emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Cefepime monotherapy for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer

We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefepime monotherapy (1 g intravenously every 8 h) for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer in a multi-institutional phase II study. Patients treated with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy for lung cancer were eligible for this study. Other eligibility criteria included fever (temperature of ≥38.0 °C) and an absolute neutrophil count of <500/mm(3) or <1000/mm(3) with an expected decline to <500/mm(3) within the next 48 h. Risk assessment was performed using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer risk-index score. Cefepime 1 g was given intravenously every 8 h. The primary endpoint was the response rate at the end of cefepime therapy. Co-administration of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor was permitted. Of 54 patients enrolled, 39 were classified in the low-risk group and 15 in the high-risk group. Overall response rate was 78% (95% CI: 64.4-88.0%). The response rates were 85% (95% CI: 69.5-94.1%) in the low-risk group and 60% (95% CI: 32.3-83.7%) in the high-risk group, respectively. One patient died from septic shock due to Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia. There was no significant adverse event. Cefepime 1 g intravenously every 8 h appears to be effective for febrile neutropenia in patients with lung cancer, especially in those with low-risk febrile neutropenia, and is well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000006157.

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.

Randomized controlled trial comparing ciprofloxacin and cefepime in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Ciprofloxacin (CPFX) is a potential alternative in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) because of its activity against Gram-negative organisms. We conducted a non-inferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous CPFX and cefepime (CFPM) for FN patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

Patients aged from 15 to 79 years with an absolute neutrophil count of <0.500 × 10(9/)l were eligible, and were randomized to receive 300 mg of CPFX or 2g of CFPM every 12h. Initial treatment efficacy, overall response, and early toxicity were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one episodes were included in this trial, and 49 episodes (CPFX vs. CFPM: 24 vs. 25) were evaluated. Treatment efficacy at day 7 was significantly higher in the CFPM group (successful clinical response: nine with CPFX and 19 with CFPM; p=0.007). The response was better in high-risk patients with neutrophil counts of ≤ 0.100 × 10(9/)l (p=0.003). The overall response during the study period was similar between the CPFX and CFPM groups (p=0.64). Adverse events were minimal, and all patients could continue the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not prove the non-inferiority of CPFX in comparison with CFPM for the initial treatment of FN. CFPM remains the standard treatment of choice for FN.

Combination antibiotic therapy for empiric and definitive treatment of gram-negative infections: insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

The widespread emergence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative organisms has compromised the utility of current treatment options for severe infections caused by these pathogens. The rate of gram-negative multidrug resistance is worsening, threatening the effectiveness of newer broad-spectrum antibiotic agents. Infections associated with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Enterobacteriaceae are having a substantial impact on hospital costs and mortality rates. The potential for these resistant gram-negative nosocomial pathogens must always be a primary consideration when selecting antibiotic therapy for critically ill patients. Empiric combination therapy directed at gram-negative pathogens is a logical approach for patients with suspected health care-associated infections, particularly those with risk factors for infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. Although in vitro synergy tests have shown potential benefits of continued combination therapy, convincing clinical data that demonstrate a need for combination therapy once susceptibilities are known are lacking. Thus, deescalation to a single agent once susceptibilities are known is recommended for most patients and pathogens. Use of polymyxins, often in combination with other antimicrobials, may be necessary for salvage therapy.

Use of empiric antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee

Administration of empiric antimicrobial therapy is standard practice in the management of neutropenic fever, but there remains considerable debate about the selection of an optimal regimen. In view of emerging evidence regarding efficacy and toxicity differences between empiric treatment regimens, and strong evidence of heterogeneity in clinical practice, the current guidelines were developed to provide Australian clinicians with comprehensive guidance for selecting an appropriate empiric strategy in the setting of neutropenic fever. Beta-lactam monotherapy is presented as the treatment of choice for all clinically stable patients while early treatment with combination antibiotic therapy is considered for patients at higher risk. Due consideration is given to the appropriate use of glycopeptides in this setting. Several clinical caveats, accounting for institution- and patient-specific risk factors, are provided to help guide the judicious use of the agents described. Detailed recommendations are also provided regarding time to first dose, timing of blood cultures, selection of a first-line antibiotic regimen, subsequent modification of antibiotic choice and cessation of therapy.

Evidence-based guidelines for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever in Korea

Neutrophils play an important role in immunological function. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to infection, and except fever is present, inflammatory reactions are scarce in many cases. Additionally, because infections can worsen rapidly, early evaluation and treatments are especially important in febrile neutropenic patients. In cases in which febrile neutropenia is anticipated due to anticancer chemotherapy, antibiotic prophylaxis can be used, based on the risk of infection. Antifungal prophylaxis may also be considered if long-term neutropenia or mucosal damage is expected. When fever is observed in patients suspected to have neutropenia, an adequate physical examination and blood and sputum cultures should be performed. Initial antibiotics should be chosen by considering the risk of complications following the infection; if the risk is low, oral antibiotics can be used. For initial intravenous antibiotics, monotherapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic or combination therapy with two antibiotics is recommended. At 3-5 days after beginning the initial antibiotic therapy, the condition of the patient is assessed again to determine whether the fever has subsided or symptoms have worsened. If the patient's condition has improved, intravenous antibiotics can be replaced with oral antibiotics; if the condition has deteriorated, a change of antibiotics or addition of antifungal agents should be considered. If the causative microorganism is identified, initial antimicrobial or antifungal agents should be changed accordingly. When the cause is not detected, the initial agents should continue to be used until the neutrophil count recovers.

Clinical efficacy and safety of biapenem for febrile neutropenia in patients with underlying hematopoietic diseases: a multi-institutional study

A multi-institutional study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of biapenem (BIPM), a carbapenem antibiotic, as an initial-stage therapeutic agent for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematopoietic diseases. A total of 216 patients from 25 medical institutions were enrolled in this study; of these, 204 were included in the safety analysis and 178 in the efficacy analysis. The combined (excellent and good) response rate was 67.9%, and antipyretic effect (subsidence + tendency to subsidence) was achieved within 3 and 5 days of treatment in 67.3 and 75.9% of patients, respectively. Thus, the clinical responses were gratifying. A response rate of 61.7% (37/60) was observed even in high-risk FN patients in whom neutrophil counts prior to and at 72 h after the start of BIPM were ≤100/μl. BIPM is considered to be a highly promising drug, with prompt onset of clinical benefit, as an initial-stage therapeutic agent for the treatment of FN in patients with hematopoietic diseases.

Low-dose beta-lactam plus amikacin in febrile neutropenia: cefepime vs. piperacillin/tazobactam, a randomized trial

Patients with fever and granulocytopenia are at risk of developing severe infection. We performed a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose cefepime plus amikacin (C-A) compared to low-dose piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (PT-A). Patients received cefepime (2 g/12 h) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) or piperacillin/tazobactam (4 g/500 mg/8 h) plus amikacin. A total of 317 episodes of febrile granulocytopenia in 190 patients were studied (152 in the C-A group, 165 in the PT-A group). A microbiologically documented infection was present in 53 (35%) episodes in the C-A group and 41 (25%) episodes in the PT-A group (p = ns); a clinically documented infection was observed in 39 (26%) and 47 (28%) episodes, respectively. Toxicity was observed in 6 (4%) episodes in the C-A group and in 5 (3%) episodes in the PT-A group. The antibiotic success rate (no change or addition of antibiotics) was recorded in 89 (59%) and 105 (64%) cases, respectively (p = ns). Mortality related to infection was similar in each arm (3.9% vs. 3.6%). Combination therapy of low-dose beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside achieves very good response rates and low rates of toxicity. It might be an attractive option in an environment of increasing resistance among gram-negative bacteria.

Cefepime and amikacin as empirical therapy in patients with febrile neutropaenia: a single-centre phase II prospective survey

The aim of the survey was to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the combination therapy cefepime and amikacin in the initial treatment of haematology patients with febrile neutropaenia. Two hundred twenty (220) episodes of febrile neutropaenia were analysed in 54 males and 82 females (median age 58 years), most patients had a severe neutropaenia with in 72% of all periods a neutrophil count of less than 100. Microbiological infection was confirmed in 72 cases (32.8%). Sixty-one (61) bacteria were isolated from blood cultures of which 22 were identified as Gram-negative bacteria and 38 as Gram-positive bacteria. Sixty-three (63) episodes (28.6%) were clinically documented, 85 episodes (38.6%) were fever of unknown origin. Clinical cure was achieved in 123 febrile episodes (56%) after initiation of the current antibiotic protocol; another 22 patients (10%) became afebrile after modifying the initial antibiotic regimen 48 hours or longer after treatment initiation. In 61 cases (27.7%) there was persistent fever or re-occurrence of fever, these cases were considered as treatment failure. Eight patients (3.6%) died during the study. This survey has demonstrated that the combination therapy with cefepime and amikacin can be considered as an effective treatment for febrile neutropaenia in high-risk haematological patients in our centre with a high incidence of resistance to Gram-negative bacteria.

The safety of cefepime in the treatment of infection

BACKGROUND

Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin usually reserved for treating severe nosocomial pneumonia, as well as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia, uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections, uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections.

OBJECTIVE

Since reports of neurotoxic effects and of an all-cause mortality higher with cefepime than with comparators have created some concerns regarding its safety, this paper reviews data available in the PubMed database up to December 2007 on cefepime safety.

METHODS

Literature data from PubMed obtained by combining cefepime and safety, or cefepime and clinical trials, were examined.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Caution in the use of cefepime should be adopted until new evidence on cefepime safety is available.

The Prophylactic Effect of Itraconazole Capsules and Fluconazole Capsules for Systemic Fungal Infections in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Japanese Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Study

We performed a randomized, controlled study comparing the prophylactic effects of capsule forms of fluconazole (n = 110) and itraconazole (n = 108) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) during and after chemotherapy. There were 4 cases with possible systemic fungal infection in the itraconazole group, and there were 8 possible and 3 probable cases in the fluconazole group. Adverse events did not significantly differ in the 2 groups. In patients with MDS or in the remission-induction phase of chemotherapy, the numbers of cases with probable or possible infections were lower in the itraconazole group than in the fluconazole group, whereas no difference was seen in patients with AML or in the consolidation phase of therapy. In patients with neutrophil counts of >0.1 x 10(9)/L lasting for more than 4 weeks, the frequency of infection in the fluconazole group (5 of 9 patients) was significantly higher than in the itraconazole group (0 of 7 patients; P = .03). Our results suggest that both drugs were well tolerated in patients with AML or MDS who received chemotherapy and that the efficacy of itraconazole for prophylaxis against systemic fungal disease is not inferior to that of fluconazole.

Efficacy of intravenous ciprofloxacin in patients with febrile neutropenia refractory to initial therapy

We previously reported that monotherapy with carbapenem or cefepime exhibited efficacy equivalent to cefepime plus an aminoglycoside as initial therapy for febrile neutropenia (FN), achieving an adequate response in two-thirds of the patients. However, only one-third of the remaining poor responders to monotherapy became afebrile after an aminoglycoside was added to the initial carbapenem or cefepime. The present study was designed to evaluate the benefit of intravenous ciprofloxacin for neutropenic patients with fever who were refractory to initial therapy given for the first 3 days. Patients with FN--as defined by an axillary temperature >or=37.5 degrees C and a neutrophil count <1,000/microL-who had no response to initial therapy with carbapenem or cefepime for 72 hours were to receive additional ciprofloxacin 600 mg/day. They were otherwise managed according to the Japanese guidelines for FN. An adequate response was defined as a decline of temperature to <37.5 degrees C within 7 days after initiation of ciprofloxacin treatment. Thirty-one patients with FN (seventeen male and fourteen female; mean age 53.1 +/- 14.8 years) were entered in the study. The initial antibiotics were cefepime (2 - 4 g/day) in twenty and carbapenem (1 - 2 g/day) in eleven. Three patients were excluded from analysis, leaving 28 patients for evaluation of efficacy. The response rate was 16/31 patients (51.6%),with four patients judged non-assessable due to adverse effects, protocol violation or early change to other agents. Adverse events occurred in seventeen patients, but all were mild and reversible. Only three patients had adverse events (skin rash, hepatic dysfunction and elevation of alkaline phosphatase in one patient, respectively) considered related to ciprofloxacin. These findings indicate that addition of intravenous ciprofloxacin is effective against FN refractory to initial antibiotic therapy and has acceptable toxicity.

Cefepime monotherapy for treatment of febrile neutropenia in children

AIM

Empirical therapy for children with febrile neutropenia has traditionally consisted of combination antibiotics, usually a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside. However, recent trends and international guidelines have now made monotherapy a feasible option in the management of this group of patients. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of cefepime monotherapy in our population of paediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

An audit was performed on children aged 16 years and younger presenting with fever and neutropenia who were managed with empirical single-agent cefepime. The patients were analysed for clinical outcome, documented infections and side-effects of the study drug. Success was defined as clinical improvement without treatment modification. Death or any change to the empirical antibiotic was considered as failure.

RESULTS

In this study 79 children (median age 5.2 years) with 133 episodes of febrile neutropenia were prospectively studied between August 2004 and August 2005. A microbiologically documented infection was seen in 26 episodes. The success rate of cefepime monotherapy was 60%. The rate of survival through neutropenia (with or without modification) was 98%. No significant adverse effects were seen.

CONCLUSION

Cefepime monotherapy is a safe and feasible option for treatment of childhood cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

Clinical guidelines for the management of neutropenic patients with unexplained fever in Japan: validation by the Japan Febrile Neutropenia Study Group

The Japan Febrile Neutropenia Study Group (JFNSG) Trial was a multicenter, open, randomized study designed to validate the first Japanese guidelines for the management of neutropenic cancer patients with unexplained fever issued in 1998. The trial compared cefepime monotherapy with cefepime plus amikacin combination therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological disorders. The JFNSG found that monotherapy with cefepime was, in general, as effective as combination therapy. In terms of subset analyses, defervescence appeared to occur more frequently in leukemic patients and in those with profound neutropenia treated with the dual combination. The conclusion of the trial was that the 1998 guidelines were applicable to the Japanese febrile neutropenic patient population. The JFNSG met again in 2003 to revise these guidelines. An important addition to the guidelines was a distinction between low- and high-risk patients. Low-risk febrile neutropenic patients can receive oral ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin, with or without amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, on an outpatient basis, or intravenous (i.v.) monotherapy with cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem. High-risk patients can receive i.v. cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem, or an i.v. dual combination with cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem plus an aminoglycoside. Those patients with a documented infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus should also receive a glycopeptide. It remains to be determined whether existing assessment scoring systems apply to Japanese patients; whether a broad-spectrum cephalosporin plus an aminoglycoside combination is required as the initial management of patients with acute leukemia and/or profound neutropenia; which antibacterial drugs should be used when first- and second-line agents fail; what are the appropriate oral agents and dosing regimens for low-risk patients; whether serology or the polymerase chain reaction should be the preferred marker for initiating preemptive antifungal therapy; and whether the azoles or the candins should be the preferred antifungal agents.

Septic intramuscular embolism in a neutropenic patient with myelodysplastic syndrome accompanied by asymptomatic septic pulmonary emboli

Septic embolisms are rare disorders which are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. We describe a rare case of septic intramuscular embolism accompanied by asymptomatic pulmonary embolism in a neutropenic patient. Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was detected and multiple nodules were revealed in both thighs and lung. Although he was treated with sensitive antibiotics to .S. aureus, the symptoms remained unchanged during the neutropenic period. Fever subsided rapidly and his thigh pain disappeared after neutropenia resolved. A prompt diagnosis and optimal therapeutic decisions are critical for the reduction of mortality.

Monotherapy versus Dual Therapy Based on Risk Categorization of Febrile Neutropenic Patients

Cefepime monotherapy was compared with cefepime-plus-amikacin dual therapy for treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Response rates were significantly lower for patients receiving monotherapy who had neutrophil counts of <500 cells/mm3 but did not differ significantly between patients receiving dual therapy who had neutrophil counts of > or =500 cells/mm3 or <500 cells/mm3. Dual therapy is recommended for the initial treatment of patients with neutropenia with <500 cells/mm3. Dual therapy was significantly more effective in patients with neutropenia lasting <5 days. The response rates to monotherapy or dual therapy did not differ significantly when neutropenia persisted for > or =6 days, indicating that sustained neutropenia is a risk factor for failure of initial empirical therapy. The rate of response to monotherapy was lower in leukemic patients, whereas the rate of response to dual therapy did not differ between leukemic and nonleukemic groups. The rate of response to either monotherapy or dual therapy did not differ for patients with temperatures of > or =38 degrees C or 37.5 degrees C-38 degrees C. Overall, defervescence occurred in >80% of patients with mild infections, whereas only 32% of those with moderate to severe infection responded by day 3 and 69.8% by day 7.

Initial Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy: Duration and Subsequent Modifications

Neutropenic patients at low risk of complications can receive oral ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin as outpatients. These agents plus amoxicillin/clavulanate or other penicillins, cephalosporins, or penem compounds are indicated to treat infections with gram-positive organisms in patients with oral mucositis or skin lesions. Parenteral fourth-generation cephalosporins or carbapenems can be given. For high-risk patients, monotherapy with cefepime or the carbapenems can be used. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus should be treated with vancomycin or teicoplanin. For combination therapy, a third- or fourth-generation cephalosporin or carbapenem plus an aminoglycoside is desirable. Defervescence in 3-5 days for at least 7 days is suggested for subsequent management. Initial antibiotic(s) can be continued for patients who remain in good condition. For persistent fever after 3-5 days, the patient should be thoroughly reassessed. An aminoglycoside should be added for those initially treated with monotherapy. The initial cephalosporin can be changed to another cephalosporin or a carbapenem, or the initial carbapenem can be changed to a broad-spectrum cephalosporin. For patients initially receiving dual therapy, the cephalosporin or carbapenem can be changed as with monotherapy, whereas the initial aminoglycoside should be changed to another aminoglycoside or intravenous ciprofloxacin.

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.