A randomized study of teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin plus piperacillin for the empirical treatment of fever in neutropenic patients

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.

Teicoplanin in combination: role in the management of the febrile neutropenic patient

The spectrum of microorganisms responsible for infection in neutropenic patients has changed in the last decade, with Gram-positive organisms now predominant. New antibiotic strategies have been required and have evolved to cope with this change. In particular, the optimal timing of glycopeptide antibiotic use has been addressed. Both teicoplanin and vancomycin are highly effective agents for susceptible Gram-positive organisms. Teicoplanin has advantages in terms of ease of administration and lower toxicity, while vancomycin has proved durable over many years' use. There are now firm indications for the use of glycopeptide antibiotics in febrile neutropenic patients, including clinically defined central venous catheter infection and microbiologically documented infection with susceptible organisms. The empirical use of the glycopeptide antibiotics in combination with other agents as first-line treatment, however, is less certain. The utility of this approach remains controversial and ultimately depends on the extent to which local practice favours the emergence of Gram-positive infections in neutropenic patients.

Ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside in combination with a beta-lactam for the treatment of febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and toxicity of ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside, both in combination with a beta-lactam, for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

For this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination for the treatment of febrile neutropenia and reported data on effectiveness, mortality, and/or toxicity, we searched PubMed (1950-2004), Current Contents, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of retrieved articles, including review articles, as well as abstracts presented at international conferences. Data for 3 primary and 2 secondary outcomes were extracted by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in the analysis. Comparable or better outcomes were observed with the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination: clinical cure without modification of the initial regimen (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.74; P=.05), clinical cure in the subset of patients with documented Infections (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31; P=.03), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.35; P=.49), withdrawal of the study drugs due to toxicity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.32; P-.51), and nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P<.001). The ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination was also associated with better clinical cure compared to the aminoglycoside/beta-actam combination in the subset of RCTs with non-low-risk patients (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.01-1.88; P=-.04), as well as in the subset of studies that included the same beta-lactam in both treatment arms (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of ciprofloxacin with a beta-actam antibiotic should be considered an important therapeutic option in hospitalized febrile neutropenic patients who have not received a quinolone for prevention of infections and in settings in which quinolone resistance is not common.

Piperacillin plus aztreonam for treatment of neutropenic fever

BACKGROUND

A combination of beta-lactam plus an aminoglycoside is the most frequently used regimen for febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients. However, aminoglycoside-related toxicity occasionally makes this regimen difficult to use as the first-line drug therapy. In the present study, we chose aztreonam as the alternative to aminoglycoside in combination with piperacillin for neutropenic fever in pediatric patients and we evaluated its effectiveness.

METHODS

A total of 31 febrile episodes in 16 patients with malignant neoplasms were evaluted. Piperacillin (200 mg/kg per day) plus aztreonam (150 mg/kg per day) were administered intravenously following a routine fever work-up.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 67%. The response rate when neutrophil count was less than 100/mm3 was 63%. The side effects were mild and rare. In three patients, all of the microbiologically documented infections were caused by alpha-streptococcus, which required a change in the regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of piperacillin and aztreonam provides an effective and non-toxic regimen for first-line therapy in febrile patients with neutropenia. In contrast, the results of the present study suggest the need for caution with regard to alpha-streptococcus infections.

A new ciprofloxacin stepdown program in the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia: a clinical and economic analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine treatment outcomes and economic impact of a ciprofloxacin stepdown program for high-risk febrile neutropenic adults from the hospital's perspective.

DESIGN

Unblinded, two-phase, single-center study.

SETTING

Adult leukemia and stem cell transplant unit.

PATIENTS

High-risk adults with febrile neutropenia.

INTERVENTION

Two conditions were analyzed: a multidisciplinary ciprofloxacin stepdown program involving a reduction in parenteral ciprofloxacin dose from 400 to 200 mg (i.v.-i.v.) and conversion to oral ciprofloxacin (i.v.-p.o.) when criteria were met; and no i.v.-i.v. stepdown program.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six sequential treatment courses were compared with 42 treatment course from 6-month periods in preintervention (P1) and postintervention (P2) phases. Assessed parameters were clinical and microbiologic outcomes, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and direct medical resource use and costs (1998 $Canadian) for the episode of febrile neutropenia. A decision analytic model was used to map probabilities and costs and to conduct sensitivity analyses. To supplement standard statistical testing, 1,000 bootstrap samples were created, and the mean cost difference was calculated between phases for each sample. Patient demographics, percentage i.v.-p.o. stepdown, and duration of therapy were similar between phases. Clinical success (83% P1, 81% P2), microbiologic eradication (15% P1, 24% P2), and possible ADRs (6% P1, 9% P2) did not differ. Intravenous-to-intravenous dose stepdown occurred in 33% of P2 and no P1 treatment courses (p<0.001). Resource use and costs were similar between phases, although a reduction was seen in the drug's mean total cost/day ($58 P1, $52 P2, p=0.04). There was also a trend toward a decrease in mean total treatment costs ($4,843 P1, $3,493 P2, p=0.08). In 1,000 bootstrap samples, 99.8% showed a cost advantage for P2. The model was robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

This intervention influenced administration of ciprofloxacin without apparent compromise of patient outcomes and resulted in a reduction in total costs of treating febrile neutropenia.

Empiric antimicrobial therapy of febrile neutropenic patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous (i.v.) ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin in neutropenic febrile patients undergoing high dose myeloablative therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients undergoing HSCT for leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and solid tumours received open-label ceftazidime 2 g i.v. every 8 h and ciprofloxacin 400 mg i.v. every 12 h if they developed fever while they were neutropenic. Success with or without modification of this regimen was defined as survival through the neutropenic period; failure was defined as death secondary to infection. Of 106 patients treated with this regimen, the success rate was 99%. Sixty-one of the patients (57.5%) defervesced within 48-72 h and remained afebrile without regimen modification. In 41.5% of the cases (44/106), the regimen was modified because of persistent fever. One patient died secondary to sepsis. The combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing myeloablative therapy and HSCT is highly effective and is associated with minimal toxicity.

Ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

This pilot study was done to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin in patients developing febrile neutropenia while undergoing high-dose myeloablative therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients undergoing high-dose chemoradiotherapy and HSCT for leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and solid tumors received open-label ceftazidime 2 g intravenously every 8 hours and ciprofloxacin 400 mg intravenously every 12 hours if they developed fever while they were neutropenic. Success with or without modification of this regimen was defined as survival through the neutropenic period; failure was defined as death secondary to infection. Among 45 patients treated with this regimen, the success rate was 98%. Sixty-two percent (28 of 45) of the patients achieved defervescence within 48 to 72 hours and remained afebrile without regimen modification. In 16 patients (36%) the regimen was modified because of persistent fever. The combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing myeloablative therapy and HSCT appears to be highly effective and is associated with minimal toxicity.

Ciprofloxacin. An updated review of its pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability

Ciprofloxacin is a broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent. Since its introduction in the 1980s, most Gram-negative bacteria have remained highly susceptible to this agent in vitro; Gram-positive bacteria are generally susceptible or moderately susceptible. Ciprofloxacin attains therapeutic concentrations in most tissues and body fluids. The results of clinical trials with ciprofloxacin have confirmed its clinical efficacy and low potential for adverse effects. Ciprofloxacin is effective in the treatment of a wide variety of infections, particularly those caused by Gram-negative pathogens. These include complicated urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhoea and chancroid), skin and bone infections, gastrointestinal infections caused by multiresistant organisms, lower respiratory tract infections (including those in patients with cystic fibrosis), febrile neutropenia (combined with an agent which possesses good activity against Gram-positive bacteria), intra-abdominal infections (combined with an antianaerobic agent) and malignant external otitis. Ciprofloxacin should not be considered a first-line empirical therapy for respiratory tract infections if penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae is the primary pathogen; however, it is an appropriate treatment option in patients with mixed infections (where S. pneumoniae may or may not be present) or in patients with predisposing factors for Gram-negative infections. Clinically important drug interactions involving ciprofloxacin are well documented and avoidable with conscientious prescribing. Recommended dosage adjustments in patients with impaired renal function vary between countries; major adjustments are not required until the estimated creatinine clearance is < 30 ml/min/1.73m2 (or when the serum creatinine level is > or = 2 mg/dl). Ciprofloxacin is one of the few broad spectrum antibacterials available in both intravenous and oral formulations. In this respect, it offers the potential for cost savings with sequential intravenous and oral therapy in appropriately selected patients and may allow early discharge from hospital in some instances. In conclusion, ciprofloxacin has retained its excellent activity against most Gram-negative bacteria, and fulfilled its potential as an important antibacterial drug in the treatment of a wide range of infections. Rational prescribing will help to ensure the continued clinical usefulness of this valuable antimicrobial drug.

A randomized clinical trial of ceftriaxone and teicoplanin versus ceftazidime and teicoplanin as antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients and bone marrow transplant recipients

A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing combination therapy with ceftriaxone and teicoplanin versus ceftazidime and teicoplanin in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients and bone marrow transplant recipients was performed. One hundred and two patients were randomized, but two patients were considered unevaluable for efficacy, and three patients were withdrawn due to incorrect randomization. Of the remaining 97 patients, infection resolved without modification of therapy in 31/49 (63%) patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin versus 27/48 (56%) patients treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin (P = 0.48). Of all 97 patients treated therapy was modified in 18/49 (36%) with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin and 21/48 (43%) with ceftazidime/teicoplanin. Nineteen patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin received netilmicin and 21 patients treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin also received netilmicin according to the study design (escalation therapy). When netilmicin was added infection resolved in 78% of patients treated with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin versus 84% of those treated with ceftazidime/teicoplanin. It was concluded that combination therapy with ceftriaxone/teicoplanin is an alternative to combination therapy with ceftazidime/teicoplanin, and has the advantage of once daily administration.

Aztreonam plus vancomycin versus gentamicin plus piperacillin as empirical therapy for the treatment of fever in neutropenic patients: a randomised controlled study

The efficacy of aztreonam in combination with vancomycin was compared with that of gentamicin plus piperacillin as empirical antibiotic treatment for fever in 61 neutropenic patients. Aztreonam plus vancomycin was as effective, but no more effective, than gentamicin plus piperacillin. Aztreonam showed excellent clinical and in vitro efficacy against Gram-negative pathogens. Failure to respond to aztreonam plus vancomycin was, in most cases, due to presumed or documented fungal infection; by contrast, failure to respond to gentamicin plus piperacillin was frequently to be due to resistant or superadded infection with Gram-positive bacteria.

Update on Infections in the Immunocompromised Host

Recent advances in medical care have provided more effective therapies for the treatment of various malignancies and increased the number of successful bone marrow and organ transplantations. However, these advances often place the patient in a severely immunocompromised state for several days or weeks resulting in one or more life-threatening infections. This article discusses some general principles, current pharmacotherapeutic strategies, and novel treatment strategies for the management of immunocompromised patients.