Comparative study of cefepime versus ceftazidime in the empiric treatment of pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

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.

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.

Cefepime and Ceftazidime Safety in Hospitalized Infants

BACKGROUND

Cefepime and ceftazidime are cephalosporins used for the treatment of serious Gram-negative infections. These cephalosporins are used off-label in the setting of minimal safety data for young infants.

METHODS

We identified all infants discharged from 348 neonatal intensive care units managed by the Pediatrix Medical Group between 1997 and 2012 who were exposed to either cefepime or ceftazidime in the first 120 days of life. We reported clinical and laboratory adverse events occurring in infants exposed to cefepime or ceftazidime and used multivariable logistic regression to compare the odds of seizures and death between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1761 infants received 13,293 days of ceftazidime, and 594 infants received 4628 days of cefepime. Laboratory adverse events occurred more frequently on days of therapy with ceftazidime than with cefepime (373 vs. 341 per 1000 infant days, P < 0.001). Seizure was the most commonly observed clinical adverse event, occurring in 3% of ceftazidime-treated infants and 4% of cefepime-treated infants (P = 0.52). Mortality was similar between the ceftazidime and cefepime groups (5% vs. 3%, P = 0.07). There was no difference in the adjusted odds of seizure [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.03)] or the combined outcome of mortality or seizures [OR = 1.00 (0.96-1.04)] in infants exposed to ceftazidime versus those exposed to cefepime.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of infants, cefepime was associated with fewer laboratory adverse events than ceftazidime, although this may have been due to a significant difference in clinical exposures and severity of illness between the 2 groups. There was no difference in seizure risk or mortality between the 2 drugs.

Outpatient versus inpatient IV antibiotic management for pediatric oncology patients with low risk febrile neutropenia: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent, serious complication of intensive pediatric chemotherapy regimens. The aim of this trial was to compare quality of life (QOL) between inpatient and outpatient intravenous antibiotic management of children and adolescents with low risk febrile neutropenia (LRFN).

PROCEDURE

In this randomised non-blinded trial, patients between 1 and 21 years old, receiving low/moderate intensity chemotherapy were pre-consented and, on presentation to emergency (ED) with FN satisfying low risk criteria, randomised to either outpatient or inpatient care with intravenous cefepime 50 mg/kg (12 hourly). All patients continued antibiotics for at least 48 hours, until afebrile for 24 hours and demonstrating a rising absolute neutrophil count ≥200/mm(3). Several domains of QOL were examined by daily questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients presented to ED with 159 episodes of fever. Thirty-seven FN presentations involving 27 patients were randomised to inpatient (18) and outpatient (19) management. Combined QOL mean scores for parents were higher for the outpatient group and scores for three specific parent variables (keeping up with household tasks/time spent with partner/time spent with other children) were higher among outpatients. There was no difference in parent confidence/satisfaction in care between groups. Patients scored better in the outpatient group overall and for sleep and appetite. The mean length of fever was equivalent between groups and there were no serious adverse events attributable to cefepime or outpatient care.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient cefepime management of LRFN provided significant benefit to parents and patients across several QOL domains and appeared both feasible and safe.

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.

Management of gram-positive bacterial infections in patients with cancer

Bacterial infections, particularly those due to gram-positive bacteria, continue to predominate in patients with cancer. Coagulase-negative and coagulase-positive staphylococci and enterococci remain as common pathogenic microorganisms. Clostridium difficile has emerged as a significant pathogen. Major clinical syndromes include vascular catheter-related infection, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea and colitis. Rising antimicrobial resistance among gram-positive bacteria is of serious concern. The clinical utility of penicillin against streptococci and vancomycin against coagulase-negative and coagulase-positive staphylococci and enterococci may be rapidly diminishing. Liberal empiric use of vancomycin during neutropenic fever needs careful reconsideration. Newer promising anti-gram-positive bacterial drugs with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci include daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline and telavancin. However, toxicity concerns, limited data in immunocompromised populations and high cost prevent the widespread use of these drugs among patients with cancer.

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.

Infections in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies

Despite significant advances in supportive care, infection remains second only to malignancy as a cause of death in pediatric oncology patients, and infection accounts for a large fraction of treatment-related costs. Multiple risk factors contribute to infection-related morbidity, chief among them the immunosuppressive effects of leukemia itself and of cytotoxic chemotherapy, prolonged hospitalization and antibiotic use, and loss of barrier integrity associated with mucositis and the need for indwelling central access. While viruses are the most common causes of infection, bacteria are responsible for most life-threatening complications. Gram-negative bacilli are a concern for all patients undergoing treatment, while a subset of gram-positive organisms, particularly viridans streptococci, become significant pathogens in children receiving profoundly immunosuppressive therapy. Invasive fungal infections are also a serious risk for morbidity and mortality in this population. Availability of new antimicrobial agents has made it possible to treat infectious complications more effectively, but their availability is also leading to an increased prevalence of highly resistant pathogens. Future work in pediatric oncology will need to include measures to reduce the immunosuppressive effects of anti-cancer therapy, provide targeted treatment for infections, and better identify groups of patients at high risk for infectious complications, who may benefit from antimicrobial prophylaxis or more aggressive empirical therapy.

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.

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.

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

Cefepime is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with enhanced coverage against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. We did a systematic review of randomised trials that compared cefepime with another beta-lactam antibiotic, alone or with the addition of a non-beta-lactam antibiotic to both study groups. We searched Central, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, new US Food and Drug Administration drug applications, conference proceedings, and references of the included studies. Two reviewers independently did the search and data extraction. 57 trials were included. All-cause mortality-the primary outcome-was higher with cefepime than other beta-lactams (risk ratio [RR] 1.26 [95% CI 1.08-1.49]). Sensitivity analyses by the trials' methodological quality revealed higher RRs for trials reporting adequate allocation-sequence generation (1.52 [1.20-1.92]) and allocation concealment (1.36 [1.09-1.70]). Baseline risk factors for mortality were similar. No significant differences between groups in treatment failure, superinfection, or adverse events were found. This Review provides evidence and offers possible explanations for increased mortality among patients treated with cefepime in randomised trials.

Cefepime versus ceftazidime: considerations for empirical use in critically ill patients

Sepsis and nosocomial infections continue to be a significant problem in intensive care, contributing heavily to mortality and prolonged hospital stay. Early and appropriate antibiotic therapy is critical for optimising outcomes. However, the emergence of highly resistant bacteria, coupled with reduced development of novel antibiotics, means that there is a real threat of development of untreatable nosocomial infections. Cefepime and ceftazidime are broad-spectrum cephalosporins that are widely used to treat Gram-negative nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Available data suggest that cefepime may have advantages over ceftazidime owing to a broader spectrum of activity and reduced potential for development of bacterial resistance. However, whether either of these agents is superior can only be determined by a head-to-head study evaluating clinical and bacteriological outcomes. Such a study to determine whether apparent differences translate into clinically relevant differences in outcome is indicated.

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.

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.

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

A prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime and meropenem in the empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients. Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinical documented infection, or fever of unknown origin. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success or failure. In this period 37 children with solid tumors including lymphoma, 25 males, 12 females, had neutropenia on 65 occasions. Microbiologically documented infections occurred in 21 episodes (32.31%). Frequency of positive bacteria isolated was higher than gram-negative bacteria. There was no infection-related death. There were no statistical differences between the cefepime and meropenem groups for duration of fever or neutropenia, response rate, and necessity for modification. Cefepime appears to be as effective and safe as meropenem for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.

Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Early, empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is the established practice for febrile neutropenia. Several beta-lactams are accepted for monotherapy. We asked whether patients' outcomes are influenced by the chosen beta-lactam.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams administered as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenia, with or without vancomycin. The search included The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs databases, bibliography, conference proceedings, trial registries and FDA new drug approvals. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment and extracted the data. Trials assessing the same beta-lactam were pooled using the fixed effect model. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The primary outcome assessed was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Thirty-three trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. Cefepime was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 30 days than other beta-lactams (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.94, 3123 participants). Carbapenems were associated with fewer treatment modifications, including addition of glycopeptides, than ceftazidime or other comparators. Adverse events were significantly more frequent with carbapenems, specifically pseudomembranous colitis (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.24-3.04, 2025 participants). All-cause mortality was unaltered. Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared only with cefepime and carbapenems, in six trials. No significant differences were demonstrated with paucity of data for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of cefepime for febrile neutropenia is associated with increased mortality and should be carefully considered pending further analysis. Empirical use of carbapenems entails fewer treatment modifications, but an increased rate of pseudomembranous colitis. Ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem appear to be suitable agents for monotherapy.

Treatment of pediatric febrile neutropenia in the era of vancomycin-resistant microbes

PURPOSE

The increasing frequency of Gm(+) infections in febrile neutropenic (FN) patients has resulted in increased use of vancomycin (VN). Likely as a result, VN-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) has become a significant concern in FN patients. We sought to understand how the emergence of VN resistant microbes has changed the antibiotic management of pediatric FN.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to responsible investigators of the Children's Oncology Group.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty responses were analyzed. Forty-four percent initially used monotherapy, with 82% of those using ceftazidime. Twenty-seven used VN with another agent, generally ceftazidime. After the emergence of VRE and VN-resistant staphylococcus (VRS), monotherapy increased to 58%. Ceftazidime continued to be most frequently used. There was a 57% reduction in the use of VN with 88% of centers not currently using VN in their initial treatment of FN. Forty-seven percent of the centers that continue to use VN have VRE, while 90% that have discontinued its use have VRE/VRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Ours is the first study to survey current practices in the treatment of pediatric FN and to document changes in practice patterns due to emerging antibiotic resistance patterns. We demonstrate increased use of monotherapy for FN, and a 57% decrease in the use of VN. Local considerations influence antibiotic choices with a significant difference in VRE prevalence between those centers that continue to use VN as compared to those that have discontinued it.

Cefepime versus ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer: a prospective randomized trial of the treatment efficacy and cost

The efficacy, safety, and cost of cefepime and ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy in children with febrile neutropenia is compared. A prospective randomized study in children with cancer was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either cefepime 150 mg/kg/day or ceftazidime 150 mg/kg/day combined with amikacin 15 mg/kg/day. Treatment modification was defined as all the changes in the empirical antimicrobials after the first 72 h. Overall treatment success was defined as cure of febrile episode with or without modification. Costs of hospitalization, antimicrobial drugs, and supportive therapy were calculated. Fifty febrile netropenic episodes were evaluated. Infectious agents were microbiologically identified in 28% of episodes. The incidence of gram-negative and gram-positive isolates was equal. Overall treatment success was 100% and success of initial empirical therapy without modification was 52 and 40% in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin groups, respectively. The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimen was 64 and 52 % in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin arms, respectively. Glycopeptide and antifungal drugs were added more frequently in the ceftazidime + amikacin group. Duration of fever, hospitalization, and antimicrobial drug administration were longer in the ceftazidime + amikacin arm. The costs of the antimicrobial drugs, hospitalization, and total cost were lower in the cefepime arm. Cefepime monotherapy is as effective as ceftazidime + amikacin combination in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients and must be preferred due to shorter defervescence of fever, shorter hospitalization, and lower therapy cost.

Management of fever in neutropenic patients with different risks of complications

Risk stratification of febrile neutropenic patients can have important implications in terms of management. The first prospectively validated risk scoring system was developed in 1992. A subsequent scoring system was developed in 2000, in which a score of < or =21 predicts a <5% risk for severe complications. Oral combination therapy in an ambulatory or home care setting is acceptable for low-risk patients. Hospital admission is mandatory for high-risk patients. Intravenous monotherapy can be given if neutropenia is anticipated to be of short duration; it is also acceptable if neutropenia is expected to be more prolonged but the patients is stable and do not have an infectious focus. All other patients should receive combination therapy with an aminoglycoside, if infection with a gram-negative pathogen is suspected, or a glycopeptide, if a gram-positive organism is suspected. However, antimicrobial therapy with coverage against gram-negative organisms should always be provided because of the significant mortality associated with these infections.

Antibacterial agents in pediatrics

Antibiotics are among the most widely prescribed therapeutic agents in children. Several new trends in antibiotic usage for pediatric care have emerged. New mechanisms of antibacterial resistance have required a broader repertoire of antibiotic usage, including new agents directed at multidrug resistance. After promotion of judicious antibiotic use, there has been a decline in the number of pediatric prescriptions for antibiotics. Recent legislation addresses the necessity for pediatric clinical drug trials, ensuring development of further antibacterial agents for use in pediatric patients.

[Cefepime-amikacin combination in febrile neutropenic children with malignant hemopathy or tumor]

Our aim was to evaluate retrospectively the efficacy of a therapeutic strategy with a first line combination based on cefepime-amikacin in febrile neutropenic children treated with chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-five neutropenic febrile episodes in 43 children treated by the association cefepime-amikacin, were evaluated according to the clinical status, the depth and duration of neutropenia, the underlying disease and the initial treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine (60%) episodes were successfully treated by the association cefepime-amikacin. Among the 26 persisting febrile episodes, adjunction of vancomycin and amphotericin B was effective in 11 (76% of total rate success) and 5 (84% of total rate success) cases respectively. The efficacy of the first line antibiotherapy was not different as regards to the duration and the depth of neutropenia. Otherwise, febrile episodes after chemotherapy against solid tumours were rapidly controlled by the first and second line of the anti-microbial strategy. Children treated for haematological malignancies presented a lower response rate (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In febrile and neutropenic children treated with chemotherapy, the association cefepime-amikacin appeared to be a safe empirical treatment. In a neutropenic child, the immunodeficiency and possibly the clinical status should be the major factors of the infectious prognosis more than the duration of aplasia.

Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Monotherapy with cefepime or ceftazidime is an effective alternative to combination therapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenic adult cancer patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, open label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted at Chang Gung Children's Hospital from January 1, 2000, to April 15, 2001. Patients with fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of < or = 500/mm3) were randomized to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose as two or three doses daily). Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection or unexplained fever. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success and failure.

RESULTS

Ninety-five pediatric cancer patients with 120 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive empiric treatment with cefepime or ceftazidime. After 72 h of treatment, 82.8% (48 of 58) of the eligible patients in the cefepime group continued with unmodified therapy, compared with 87.9% (51 of 58) in the ceftazidime group. The neutrophil count was <100/mm3 at randomization for 76% of the patients in the cefepime group and 83% of those in the ceftazidime group; the median durations of neutropenia (<500/mm3) were 8.5 and 6.5 days, respectively. Of the 96 evaluable episodes the overall success rate with unmodified empiric therapy until the end of the treatment course in the cefepime group was comparable with that in the ceftazidime group (69% vs. 71%, P = 0.95). The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 79.2% for the cefepime group and 77.1% for the ceftazidime group. The bacterial eradication rate was 33% for the cefepime group and 20% for the ceftazidime group (P = 0.85), and the rates of new infections were 10.4% vs. 4.2% (P = 0.67), respectively. Both study drugs were well-tolerated. Three (6.4%) patients in the cefepime group and 2 (4.3%) patients in the ceftazidime group died.

CONCLUSION

Cefepime appeared to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.