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.

Guidance Statement for the Management of Febrile Neutropenia in Pediatric Patients Receiving Cancer-Directed Therapy in Central America and the Caribbean

PURPOSE

Our objective was to provide regionally appropriate, resource-conscious recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric patients with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A multinational panel of Central American and Caribbean clinicians who deliver pediatric oncology care prioritized clinically important questions and then used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to provide recommendations on the selected topics.

RESULTS

Twenty-two questions and 2 definitions were included in the guideline, which was intended to establish minimum care standards for pediatric patients treated in regional centers. Of all the included studies, 6.9% were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, and no studies were performed in countries represented on the panel.

CONCLUSION

The panel made recommendations on the basis of existing evidence but identified important gaps in knowledge from the region and from resource-limited settings that may affect the clinical applicability of these recommendations. These deficiencies suggest a research agenda that will enable future guidelines to be more responsive to the local context.

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.

Guideline for the Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Children With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients: 2017 Update

Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients. Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases that includes a patient advocate. For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systematic reviews of observational studies. For questions of therapy, we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of any intervention applied for the empirical management of pediatric FN. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify levels of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results Recommendations related to initial presentation, ongoing management, and empirical antifungal therapy of pediatric FN were reviewed; the most substantial changes were related to empirical antifungal therapy. Key differences from our 2012 FN CPG included the listing of a fourth-generation cephalosporin for empirical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define patients with high-risk invasive fungal disease (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in prolonged FN, and a weak recommendation to withhold empirical antifungal therapy in IFD low-risk patients with prolonged FN. Conclusion Changes to the updated FN CPG recommendations will likely influence the care of pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Future work should focus on closing research gaps and on identifying ways to facilitate implementation and adaptation.