Safety of cefoxitin: an approach to the analysis of laboratory data

Laboratory data in clinical trials: a statistician's perspective

Even though laboratory data provide the best indicators for systemic toxicities in clinical trials of investigational medications, many applied statisticians lack a basic understanding of the interpretation of such data. Understanding is essential to a statistician's ability to help evaluate a patient's overall safety experience in a trial, the latter being the primary objective for collecting laboratory data in the trial. In this paper, we discuss the purpose of conducting laboratory evaluations as well as some hidden issues concerning the current practice of laboratory data analysis. The issues include the use of reference ranges, the one-parameter-at-a-time approach, and the exploratory nature of safety data analyses.

Safety of cefepime: a new extended-spectrum parenteral cephalosporin

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety profile of cefepime, a new extended-spectrum, fourth-generation cephalosporin used to treat mild-to-severe bacterial infections, with that of ceftazidime. A total of 2,032 patients enrolled in North American and European cefepime trials were analyzed. The study population spanned adolescence to the elderly (15-100 years); the median age was 62 years. Cefepime was compared with ceftazidime (1,456 patients), a third-generation cephalosporin. Cefepime dosing was 1-4 g/day (0.5-2.0 g twice daily) for adults; ceftazidime dosing was 1-6 g/day (0.5 g every 12 hours to 2.0 g every 8 hours). A limited number of cefepime-treated patients received 2 g every 8 hours. The median length of dosing for both cefepime and ceftazidime was 7 days. In randomized trials in which cefepime (2,032 patients) was compared with ceftazidime (1,456 patients), analysis of comparative data indicated that adverse events of probable or unknown relation to study drugs were observed in 13.8% of cefepime patients and 15.6% of ceftazidime patients. The most commonly observed adverse event for cefepime was headache (2.4%), followed by nausea (1.8%), rash (1.8%), and diarrhea (1.7%). For ceftazidime, the most commonly observed adverse event was diarrhea (3.2%), followed by headache (2.5%), nausea (2.1%), rash (1.9%), and constipation (1.5%). The incidence of positive Coombs' test was higher in high-dose cefepime recipients than in ceftazidime recipients (14.5% vs 8.7%; p = 0.043), although there was no evidence of hemolysis in either treatment group. Coadministration of analgesics, diuretics, and anticoagulants did not increase incidence of adverse events associated with study-drug therapy. Adverse renal and hematologic events, as well as anaphylaxis and death, were rare in both groups. In the comparative trials with cefepime, anaphylaxis was reported in no patients receiving cefepime and in one patient receiving ceftazidime. None of the three seizures reported in patients receiving cefepime and one of six seizures in patients receiving ceftazidime were of probable or possible relationship to the study drugs. None of the 12 cases of gastrointestinal hemorrhage reported in cefepime patients or five cases reported in ceftazidime patients were judged to be related to treatment drug. Tolerance for intravenous administration in both treatment groups was similar. Cefepime did not effect any significant or unusual allergic, hematologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, or renal toxicity when administered to patients with mild-to-severe infections, including those receiving concomitant medications. The safety profile of cefepime is excellent and comparable to that of ceftazidime and those reported for other cephalosporins.

Organization and analysis of safety data using a multivariate approach

The collection of safety data is an important part of clinical trials. These safety data are often described and reported in great detail with expenditure of substantial effort and energy. Because of the wide variety of data that require scrutiny from the safety perspective, however, statistical comparisons of the safety profiles of different treatments often lack focus and structure and result in situations where the comparisons for each individual item lack power and thus are inconclusive. In this paper, we propose to organize the safety data into a more manageable form by consolidating them into a number of K classes characterized by body systems and determined in conjunction with the underlying disease as well as the treatments involved. Within each class, we propose assignment to each patient of an overall intensity grade based on all relevant information. The consolidation of the safety data as proposed provides an informative summary for the safety profile of each treatment. The analysis of such organized data concentrates on comparison of the mean intensity grades for different treatments within the K classes simultaneously with use of scores that reflect the acceptability of the various intensity levels to an individual. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the proposed multivariate comparison has much higher power than the univariate one to detect differences in certain cases. We provide examples to illustrate the proposed procedure.

Evaluation of cefoxitin prophylaxis for cesarean section

Prophylactic cefoxitin was evaluated in 101 patients undergoing cesarean section. A three-dose regimen of either cefoxitin or placebo was administered randomly in a double-blind manner, 46 patients receiving cefoxitin and 55 placebo, with the first dose given after the cord was clamped. In the placebo group, 29% of the patients developed pelvic or wound infection, compared to 4% in the cefoxitin group (P less than 0.003). No patient required re-operation, re-admission, or had a life threatening infection. Ten risk factors for infection were analyzed to help ascertain which patients would benefit from prophylaxis. Cefoxitin, with a broad spectrum of aerobic and anaerobic coverage, was found to be an effective and safe prophylactic agent when given to all patients undergoing cesarean section.