Comparison of imipenem versus cefuroxime plus tobramycin as empirical therapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients and efficacy of vancomycin and aztreonam in case of failure. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empirical therapy for neutropenic fever in children with malignancy. Treatment of neutropenic infection: a randomized trial comparing latamoxef (moxalactam) with cephradine plus tobramycin. Randomized study of cefepime versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia. Randomised study comparing imipenem/cilastatin to ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever. Comparison of meropenem with amikacin plus ceftazidime in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia: a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients without previous prophylactic antibiotics. Meropenem Study Group of Turkey. Randomized study of ceftazidime versus gentamicin plus cefotaxime for infections in severe granulocytopenic patients. Ceftazidime with or without amikacin for the empiric treatment of localized infections in febrile, granulocytopenic patients. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing piperacillin-tazobactam with and without amikacin as empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia. Latamoxef versus carbenicillin plus gentamicin or carbenicillin plus mecillinam in leukopenic, febrile patients with solid tumors. [Imipenem/cilastatin versus ceftazidime-amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients]. Open randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Imipenem-cilastatin versus sulbactam-cefoperazone plus amikacin in the initial treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Meropenem versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a randomized study. Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Imipenem/cilastatin versus amikacin plus piperacillin in the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective, randomized multi-clinic study. Cefepime or carbapenem treatment for febrile neutropenia as a single agent is as effective as a combination of 4th-generation cephalosporin + aminoglycosides: comparative study. A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Piperacillin-tazobactam is more effective than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a randomized comparison. Ceftazidime compared with piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of fever in neutropenic patients with cancer. A multicenter randomized trial. The Intercontinental Antimicrobial Study Group. [Assessment of the efficacy of treating infections in hematopoietic proliferative diseases: Monotherapy with ceftazidime and tobramycin combined with amoxycillin/ampicillin]. Prospective randomized trial of piperacillin monotherapy versus carboxypenicillin-aminoglycoside combination regimens in the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections. Cost-effectiveness of cefepime + netilmicin or ceftazidime + amikacin or meropenem monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with malignancy in Turkey. Evaluation of ticarcillin/clavulanic acid versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin for fever and neutropenia in pediatric patients with leukemia and lymphoma. [Randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus a cefotaxime-tobramycin combination in acute leukemia in therapeutic aplasia]. Ceftriaxone vs. azlocillin and netilmicin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic children. Ceftazidime monotherapy is as effective as ceftazidime combined with gentamicin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Comparison of cefepime versus ceftriaxone-amikacin as empirical regimens for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in acute leukemia patients. A randomized trial comparing imipenem/cilastatine alone with latamoxef plus tobramycin in febrile neutropenic patients with lung cancer. Ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin in febrile neutropenic children. Efficacy and tolerability of imipenem-cilastatin versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin as empiric therapy of presumed bacterial infection in neutropenic cancer patients. Piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin as initial empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with acute leukemia. A randomised trial of empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological disorders: ceftazidime versus azlocillin plus amikacin. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with piperacillin plus amikacin as empiric therapy for neutropenic fever in children with lymphoma and solid tumors. Cefepime versus ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer: a prospective randomized trial of the treatment efficacy and cost. Amikacin plus piperacillin versus ceftazidime as initial therapy in granulocytopenic patients with presumed bacteremia. [First-line treatment of febrile episodes in leukemia in adults. Randomized, multicenter study of ceftazidime in single antibiotic therapy versus a cefotaxime-amikacin combination]. Single-drug versus combination empirical therapy for gram-negative bacillary infections in febrile cancer patients with and without granulocytopenia. A comparative study of imipenem versus piperacillin plus gentamicin in the initial management of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. Early hospital discharge versus continued hospitalization in febrile pediatric cancer patients with prolonged neutropenia: A randomized, prospective study. Treatment of septicaemia in immunocompromised patients with ceftazidime or with tobramycin and cefuroxime, with special reference to renal effects. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program. Comparative efficacy and toxicity of moxalactam and the combination of nafcillin and tobramycin in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin versus carbapenem monotherapy as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood hematological malignancies. Randomized trial of cefepime monotherapy or cefepime in combination with amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia. Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.
143 aplastic episodes with fever in 91 haematological patients with granulocytopenia were treated empirically in a randomized prospective study using either imipenem (Imi) or a combination of tobramycin and cefuroxime (T/C). Response after 72 h was significantly better in patients receiving Imi (44/75 vs 27/68, p < 0.05). This was seen especially in patients with bacteriologically proven infections where the isolated staphylococci and streptococci were more susceptible to Imi. In both groups, patients who failed to respond to the initial antibiotic therapy were given vancomycin and aztreonam (V/A). The response rate after another 72 h, measured using the same criteria as after the first 72 h, did not differ statistically between the groups. One patient in each study group died from the bacterial infection, both from Gram-positive bacteraemia. Duration of fever was significantly shorter in the Imi group (4 days vs 7 days, p < 0.04). Serum peak and trough concentrations of the antibiotics were comparable. Both regimens were well tolerated. Our results show that monotherapy with imipenem is superior to the combination of tobramycin and cefuroxime during the first 72 h of therapy and can be safely administered to neutropenic patients with predominantly Gram-positive infections. A combination of vancomycin and aztreonam, given when initial imipenem treatment has failed, was effective in only a few patients. Adjuvant glycopeptide therapy from the outset in the treatment of febrile granulocytopenic patients did not seem worthwhile. Fifty-four pediatric cancer patients with a total of 100 febrile neutropenic episodes treated at China Medical College Hospital were randomized to receive meropenem or ceftazidime plus amikacin from January 2001 to April 2002. The characteristics of 76 assessable febrile episodes (39 with meropenem and 37 with ceftazidime plus amikacin) were compared between the 2 groups. The success rate with unmodified therapy was not significantly different between the meropenem group (72%) and the ceftazidime-plus-amikacin group (57%). The incidence of side effects was similar between the 2 groups and these side effects were reversible. Microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection, and unexplained fever accounted for 35%, 37%, and 28% of episodes, respectively. The clinical response rates in subgroups of documented infection and unexplained fever did not significantly differ between the 2 treatment groups. Meropenem was significantly more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin in children at high risks of developing severe infection who had profound neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 100/mm3), prolonged neutropenia (ANC < 500/mm3 lasting for > 10 days), or clinically deteriorating shock (p=0.045). As an empirical treatment, meropenem seems to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime plus amikacin for febrile episodes in children with cancer and neutropenia. Meropenem is more effective for pediatric cancer patients at the high risk of severe infection. Sixty neutropenic patients with infection were studied in a randomized trial comparing treatment with latamoxef (moxalactam) alone or with cephradine and tobramycin. The two treatment groups were comparable in respect to their clinical sites of infection, degree of neutropenia underlying malignancy, and organisms. Forty-two bacterial isolates were obtained from various clinically infected sites. All but two of these isolates were sensitive to latamoxef (30 highly sensitive, ten moderately sensitive). In contrast 29 of the isolates were resistant to cephradine and eight were resistant to both cephradine and tobramycin. Control of infection was achieved in 72% of patients treated with latamoxef and 55% treated with cephradine plus tobramycin. Latamoxef appears to be an effective antibiotic for the treatment of neutropenic patients with infection. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with cefepime for patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia.
                Patients with solid tumors treated with HDC and PBSCS, that developed fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 500 cells/microL) were eligible, and randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime plus amikacin or cefepime.
                Fifty-one episodes were randomized, and all were evaluable (27 received ceftazidime plus amikacin arm, and 24 cefepime). Major efficacy endpoints did not show significant differences, with success rates of 44.4% and 54.2% (p = 0.481) for the combination arm and the monotherapy arm, respectively. The proportion of patients that became afebrile in the first 24 hours was significantly higher in the cefepime group (41.7% vs 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.012). However, due to its premature closure and small sample size, this study lacks the adequate power to definitely address this question.
                Cefepime monotherapy appeared to have an equivalent efficacy and safety as empiric treatment in febrile neutropenia episodes in a highrisk population compared with ceftazidime and amikacin. Nevertheless, this study is not adequately powered to answer this question. Given the small number of patients randomized and the single-center nature of this study, these results must be cautiously interpreted. Prompt initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy is the cornerstone in the therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients. Ceftriaxone plus gentamicin (ceftriaxone/gentamicin) is the most widely used combination of empiric antibiotics in the Department of Medical Oncology, Singapore General Hospital. However, imipenem/cilastatin has been shown to be a practical alternative. To compare the efficacy and cost effectiveness of monotherapy with our usual combination antibiotic therapy, 50 evaluable neutropenic cancer patients admitted for fever were randomised to empiric imipenem/cilastatin or ceftriaxone/gentamicin. Ceftriaxone/gentamicin was started in 24 patients. The initial clinical response rate to ceftriaxone/gentamicin was 62.5% and 84.6% to imipenem/cilastatin (P = 0.075). The average cost of antibiotics per patient started on ceftriaxone/gentamicin including cost of change of antibiotics was S$63 per day of antibiotic use and for imipenem/cilastatin it was S$252 (P < 0.02). In conclusion, although more patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin had an initial clinical response than those receiving ceftriaxone/gentamicin, this difference was not statistically significant. It would appear that imipenem/cilastatin is equivalent to ceftriaxone/gentamicin for the treatment of neutropenic sepsis. However, ceftriaxone/gentamicin was more cost effective. Eighty three patients with neutropenia and cancer were randomised to receive either 1 g meropenem tds or amikacin 15 mg/kg single dose daily plus ceftazidime 2 g tds. No prophylactic antibiotics were allowed before entry to the trial. Seventy seven patients were available for analysis. Infection was microbiologically or clinically documented in 53 episodes (69%). The overall success rate without adjustment was 49% in monotherapy, 37.5% in the combination group. These rates were increased to 65% and 56%, respectively when secondary infection episodes requiring a different class of chemotherapy were taken into account. Median duration for defervescence was 3 days in successfully treated patients in both groups. Only minor reversible side effects were noted in both treatment arms. Meropenem monotherapy seemed as effective and safe as amikacin plus ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. A randomized study of gentamicin plus cefotaxime versus ceftazidime alone was performed in 87 patients, with a neutrophil count of less than 1000/mm3 at the start of the treatment. The overall cure rate for the ceftazidime group was 71% and for the gentamicin plus cefotaxime 47%. This difference was shown to be statistically significant at a level of P less than 0.05. The cure rates for the microbiologically proven infections were 90 and 63% respectively. Serious adverse effects, causing preliminary withdrawal of therapy, have not been observed. In a prospective randomized study, 90 granulocytopenic febrile patients presenting with a localized infection were treated empirically with ceftazidime alone or in combination with amikacin (1.5 g/day). Two thirds had received selective oral antimicrobial prophylaxis before therapy. The treatment groups were comparable in terms of the depth and duration of granulocytopenia as well the distribution of the infection categories and rate of bacteremia. There was no difference with respect to the final response: 53% for the monotherapy group versus 48% for the combination group, and both regimens appeared to be equally safe. The duration of fever, clinical symptoms, antibiotic therapy, and granulocytopenia were comparable for both treatment groups, and approximately 90% of patients survived the infection. Only one patient given monotherapy required amikacin. It is concluded that aminoglycosides are not necessary for the empiric treatment of infectious complications in granulocytopenic patients if antibacterial prophylaxis has been given beforehand. In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g 3 times daily intravenously) plus placebo versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin (7.5 mg/kg twice daily intravenously) for the treatment of 760 febrile, adult patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced profound (<500 neutrophils/mm3) and prolonged (>10 days) neutropenia. A total of 733 patients were assessable for efficacy of the drug regimens, and an overall successful outcome was reported in 49% (179 of 364) of the patients who received monotherapy, compared with 53% (196 of 369) of patients who received combination therapy (P=.2). Response rates were similar with both regimens, as were incidences of bacteremia and clinically documented and possible infections. In our epidemiological setting, the initial empiric combination therapy was not associated with improved outcomes when compared with initial monotherapy. Sixty-six febrile episodes associated with leukopenia were observed in 56 patients with solid tumors, WBC less than 1.5 X 10(9)/l and temperature greater than or equal to 38.5 degrees C. Stratification to antibiotic treatment regimen was made with regard to prior cis-dichlorodiamineplatinum (cis-platinum) treatment or not. Patients who had received no cis-platinum were randomized between carbenicillin 10 g every 8 h plus gentamicin 80 mg every 8 h or latamoxef 2 g every 8 h (group I). Patients having received cis-platinum were treated with carbenicillin 10 g every 8 h plus mecillinam 800 mg every 8 h or latamoxef 2 g every 8 h (group II). The first dose of latamoxef was preceded by 10 mg of vitamin K i.v. In group I, clinical response was observed in 10 of 19 febrile episodes (52.6%) treated with carbenicillin plus gentamicin and in 10 of 14 (71.4%) treated with latamoxef (p greater than 0.05). In group II, 6 of 14 febrile episodes treated with carbenicillin plus mecillinam responded (42.9%) while 11 of 19 (57.9%) responded to latamoxef (p greater than 0.05). No bleeding due to antibiotic treatment was observed. No statistical difference between standard antibiotic therapy and latamoxef was seen in this subset of patients. To compare the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatine and ceftazidime-amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.
                Open, prospective and randomized clinical study.
                Fifty two patients (26 female) aged 16 to 80 years old with 60 episodes of neutropenia were studied. They were randomly assigned to receive imipenem/cilastatine in doses of 500 mg iv qid or the combination of ceftazidime 1 to 1.5 g iv tid and amikacin 7.5 mg/kg iv bid.
                Global response to initial therapy was 53% in patients receiving imipenem/cilastatine and 37% in those receiving ceftazidime-amikacin (p = ns). When other antimicrobial were added, a 90 and 85% infection eradication success was achieved respectively. Six febrile episodes in the group receiving imipenem/cilastatine and 12 episodes in the group receiving ceftazidime-amikacin had Gram positive cocci as the sole infectious agent (p < 0.04). A lower duration of neutropenia had a favorable influence on treatment outcome. Three patients receiving imipenem/cilastatine (10%) and four receiving ceftazidime-amikacin (13%) died. Superinfections and toxicity related to antibiotics were minimal in both groups.
                Imipenem/cilastatine and the combination of ceftazidime with amikacin were equally effective in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. An open-label randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime versus piperacillin plus gentamicin (P+G) given intravenously for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with underlying malignancy was conducted at two oncology centers. Over a 30-month period 111 patients were enrolled and 99 patients were found to be suitable for evaluation. At the 72-h time of evaluation, cefepime monotherapy and P+G combination therapy produced comparable clinical response rates (78% for both). P+G and cefepime produced comparable response rates in microbiologically documented (78 versus 71%), clinically documented (100 versus 100%), and possible (75 versus 79%) infections. The P+G and cefepime treatments achieved comparable microbiological eradication of gram-negative (100 versus 71%) (P = 0.09) and gram-positive (44 versus 70%) (P = 0.37) organisms. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of superinfection between the groups; however, more superinfections of fungal origin were noted in the P+G group. Cefepime was demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with malignancies, and its lack of nephrotoxicity compared to P+G was noteworthy. Cefepime appears to be a candidate for monotherapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. The treatment of infectious complications in cancer patients has evolved as a consequence of the developments in the chemotherapy of cancer patients. In this prospective, randomized study, we compared imipenem-cilastatin and sulbactam-cefoperazone with amikacin in the empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic (< 1000/mm3) patients with liquids and solid tumours. Of 30 evaluable episodes, 15 were treated with imipenem-cilastatin and 15 were treated with sulbactam-cefoperazone plus amikacin. 73% of episodes were culture-positive: gram-positive pathogens accounted for 62% of the isolates. Bacteremia was the most frequent site of infection. The initial clinical response rate for both regimens was 60% (p > 0.05). No major adverse effects occurred. This study demonstrated that imipenem-cilastatin monotherapy and combination therapy of sulbactam-cefoperazone plus amikacin were equally effective empiric therapy for febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients. Meropenem is the first of a new class of carbapenems which may be administered without cilastatin. This study was performed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of meropenem monotherapy (1 g/8 h) compared with the standard combination of ceftazidime (2 g/8 h) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) for the empirical treatment of infective febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients.
                This was a three-center, randomized, non-blind parallel group trial. The primary objective was to compare the clinical efficacy of meropenem monotherapy with that of ceftazidime plus amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile infective episodes in neutropenic patients. This was evaluated by the number of patients surviving on unmodified therapy at 72 h (primary end point) and by the clinical response at the end of therapy (secondary end point).
                A total of 93 febrile episodes (46 meropenem, 47 ceftazidime/amikacin) were evaluable. Bone marrow transplant patients accounted for 49.5% of all cases. There was a high incidence of Gram-positive infections but no pseudomonal infections. Microbiologically documented infections, clinically documented infections and unexplained fever accounted for 45%, 10% and 45% of episodes, respectively. There was a similar proportion of patients in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin groups on unmodified empiric therapy at 72 h (80.4% vs 76.6%, p = 0.65,) and cured at the end of therapy (37% vs 36.2%, p = 0.9). No significant difference in tolerability was observed between the groups. Meropenem was well tolerated; of note, there were no cases of nausea/vomiting or seizure related to its use.
                Meropenem monotherapy was well tolerated and produced response rates similar to those obtained with ceftazidime/amikacin. The low overall success rates with both treatments concur with those of other recent studies and are probably due to a combination of several factors, including the adoption of strict assessment criteria. A prospective randomized study was conducted to determine the efficacy of imipenem-cilastatin (hereafter referred to as imipenem) (500 mg four times daily) versus combination therapy for febrile neutropenic patients receiving either no prophylaxis or ciprofloxacin for prevention of infections. Combination therapy consisted of gentamicin (80 mg every 8 h) plus either cefuroxime (1,500 mg every 8 h) or cephalothin (1,000 mg every 4 h) for suspected catheter-related infections. Ninety-four neutropenic fever episodes in 87 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall clinical rate of response to imipenem was significantly higher than that to combination therapy (91 versus 74%; P = 0.05). The difference in efficacy was most pronounced in patients with microbiologically documented infections (89 versus 53%; P = 0.025), which were predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Differences in susceptibility may have caused the better rate of response to imipenem. Two of 29 gram-positive bacteria were imipenem resistant, whereas 10 were resistant to cephalothin and cefuroxime and 12 were resistant to gentamicin. No causative gram-negative bacterium and 24 gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 61 fever episodes with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral). In contrast, nine causative gram-negative and five gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 33 episodes without prophylaxis. The difference in distribution proved to be statistically significant for gram-negative (P = 0.0001) as well as gram-positive (P = 0.025) bacteria, indicating that ciprofloxacin effectively prevented the occurrence of gram-negative bacteria and may have contributed to the relatively large number of gram-positive bacteria isolated. Empirical initial therapy with imipenem may be a valuable alternative to combination therapy for neutropenic fever episodes. In this open, controlled, randomized multi-clinic trial, monotherapy with imipenem/cilastatin was compared to amikacin plus piperacillin as empiric antibacterial therapy in 210 neutropenic cancer patients. Of patients randomized, 53 (25%) had bacteriologically documented infections and of those 30 had septicemia. A further 80 patients (38%) were evaluable for clinical efficacy but did not have documented infections. Seventy-seven patients (37%) were non-evaluable due to effective antibiotic treatment before the trial, early institution of other antibiotics during the trial, verified non-bacterial infections, no neutropenia or other reasons. There were no significant differences in terms of efficacy between imipenem/cilastatin and amikacin plus piperacillin but a consistent trend towards higher rates of clinical cure or improvement and of elimination of causative pathogens was noted in the imipenem/cilastatin group. In patients who were severely neutropenic (less than 0.1 x 10(9) granulocytes/l), similar cure rates were obtained in the two treatment groups--again with a tendency towards better results in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Among evaluable patients with septicemia, one patient in the imipenem/cilastatin group had persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia during treatment. Five patients in the amikacin plus piperacillin group had persistent bacteremia during treatment; all but one (a Pseudomonas aeruginosa) caused by strains resistant to amikacin or piperacillin. Clinical and laboratory adverse effects were mild in the imipenem/cilastatin group although nausea was significantly more common than in the amikacin plus piperacillin group. Among patients on amikacin plus piperacillin, one died in renal failure, possibly related to treatment. Drug-related serious adverse events were reported in two additional amikacin plus piperacillin patients; one with drug fever and one with hearing loss. Microbiological adverse effects occurred in similar frequencies in the two groups. It is concluded that imipenem/cilastatin is a promising candidate for monotherapy of bacterial infections in neutropenic cancer patients. 1998, a consensus meeting was held in Miyazaki, Japan, to develop an approach to management of febrile neutropenia (FN). The K-HOT study group decided to examine whether this proposal was applicable to clinical practice in a multicenter study. Patients who developed fever with neutrophil counts <1,000/microL were randomized to receive either a single antibiotic, cefepime or one of the carbapenems, or a combination of cefepime and an aminoglycoside. Patients who became afebrile within the first 3 days were continued on the same treatment. Patients who remained febrile were switched to a combination regimen if they were randomized to receive a single agent, and patients on combination medication were changed from cefepime to another cephalosporin. A total of 165 patients were entered into the trial. One hundred fifty-three patients were evaluable for response. The average age was 52 years, and 70% of the patients had acute leukemia. Severe neutropenia, defined as <100/microL at the time of FN, was seen in 62% of the patients on entry and during the course of treatment 71% of patients experienced neutrophil counts of <100/microL. Microbiologically documented infection was seen in 6.5% for monotherapy, and 10.5% for a combination treatment, and fever of unknown origin occurred in 75.3% and 59.2% of the patients in each regimen, respectively. Excellent to good response was seen in two-thirds of the patients in all treatment groups. Adverse events were minimal, and three early deaths were observed at days 9, 16, and 16 among patients treated with a single antibiotic and three in the combination regimen group at days 14, 15, and 20. These results indicate that cefepime or a carbapenem alone is as effective as a combination of cefepime and an aminoglycoside for treating FN.
                Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Neutropenic patients with cancer are traditionally treated with empiric antibiotic combinations when they become febrile. The availability of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ceftazidime and imipenem has made it possible to initiate therapy with a single agent (monotherapy). The objectives of this trial were to compare ceftazidime and imipenem as single agents for the therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients and to ascertain whether the addition of an aminoglycoside (amikacin) to either of these agents would provide an advantage.
                A prospective clinical trial was conducted in which eligible neutropenic patients with cancer were randomized to one of four treatment arms: ceftazidime alone; imipenem alone; ceftazidime plus amikacin; and imipenem plus amikacin. Efficacy analysis was done for 750 assessable episodes. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was also performed to examine the unique contribution of various prognostic factors.
                The overall response rates were 76% with imipenem plus amikacin, 72% with imipenem, 71% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 59% with ceftazidime alone. Single-organism gram-positive infections occurred in 101 of 750 episodes. Without a change in antibiotics, the response rates were 50% with imipenem, 40% with imipenem plus amikacin, 39% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 38% with ceftazidime. Most responded to vancomycin or other antibiotics, and the mortality associated with gram-positive infections was only 5%. Regardless of the antibiotic regimen, the majority of uncomplicated gram-negative infections responded to therapy and the majority of complicated gram-negative infections failed to respond. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis showed that recovery of the neutrophil count was the most favorable prognostic factor in a patient's response to infection, whereas the presence of gram-positive infection, acute leukemia, pulmonary or enteric infection, and therapy with ceftazidime were unfavorable factors.
                Single-agent therapy with imipenem is as effective as more conventional combination antibiotic therapy for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer. Efficacy and costs of empirical antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients are important issues. Several strategies have been reported to be similarly effective: monotherapy with cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem or duotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic or ceftriaxone in combination with an aminoglycoside. Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is promising, but its role in this setting still has to be defined.
                Of 212 consecutive febrile episodes in 130 neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies randomized to receive either piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 8 h; group A) or ceftriaxone (2 g once daily plus gentamicin 5 mg/kg once daily; group B), 183 episodes (98 group A, 85 group B) were evaluable for response.
                Defervescence within 72 h without modification of the antibiotic therapy was achieved in 56/98 episodes (57.1%) in group A and in 30/85 (35.3%) in group B (P=0.0047). If fever persisted, teicoplanin plus gentamicin (group A) or teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin (group B) were added. All patients still febrile then received meropenem, teicoplanin and amphotericin B. With these modifications of antibiotic therapy, 89.8% of patients in group A had responded at 21 days but only 71.8% in group B (P=0.005). The mean total antibiotic drug cost in group A was only 39.4% of that in group B (euro 445 versus euro 1129; P=0.010).
                Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is significantly more effective and cost-efficient than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin as first-line therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenic patient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections.
                A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
                876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation.
                Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator.
                Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events.
                As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07%; 95% Cl, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; Cl, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; Cl, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; Cl, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001).
                Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia. Efficacy of the ceftazidime monotherapy in 120 febrile children with neoplastic diseases and granulocytopenia was compared with that of tobramycin combined with amoxycillin/ampicillin. The obtained results were similar in both types of antibiotic therapy. However, granulocytopenia was higher and septicemia was more frequent in children treated with ceftazidime. Isolated bacteria were more sensitive to ceftazidime than to tobramycin with amoxycillin/ampicillin. Both regimens were tolerated well. Despite a low number of patients in both groups, one may conclude that ceftazidime is more efficient in patients with granulocytopenia. Less adverse reactions, lower number of infections, less frequent medical procedures, elimination of the potentially toxic aminoglycosides and lower cost of therapy advocate the use of ceftazidime monotherapy. Piperacillin as a single agent was compared in a prospective randomized trial with carboxypenicillin-aminoglycoside combinations in empirical therapy of serious bacterial infections. The difference in the clinical response rates with piperacillin (77% of 26 infection episodes) and combination therapy (75% of 24 infection episodes) were not statistically significant. Fewer adverse effects occurred in the piperacillin-treated group (42%) than in the combination-treated group (71%) (P = 0.0399 by Fisher's exact test), although neither nephrotoxicity nor hypokalemia alone was significantly less frequent in patients receiving piperacillin. However, the emergence of resistant organisms during therapy was more frequent among patients receiving piperacillin alone (42% of patients) than among patients receiving combination therapy (17% of patients) (P = 0.465 by Fisher's exact test). Moreover, emergence of resistance accounted for 5 of 9 patients with treatment failure, superinfection, or both when piperacillin was used as a single agent, compared with 2 of 10 similar patients in the combination group (P = 0.1299 by Fisher's exact test). The use of piperacillin as a single agent in the treatment of serious bacterial infections is not advocated, and the addition of an aminoglycoside to prevent emergence of resistance during empirical therapy of such infections is strongly recommended. Infection remains the major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised children with malignancy. In addition, the economic impact of antibiotic treatment should always be evaluated, especially in developing countries. In our center between January 1998 and January 1999, 73 children with hematological malignancies [acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML)]; 9 children with solid tumors (rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma) had 87 febrile neutropenic episodes (related to chemotherapy). These children were randomized prospectively into three treatment groups. The first group (n: 28) received cefepime plus netilmicin, while the second group (n: 29) was treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin and the third (n: 30) with meropenem as monotherapy. The aim of the study was to compare the success rates and cost of fourth generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside and monotherapy of meropenem with ceftazidime plus amikacin, which is the standard therapy for febrile neutropenia. Microbiologically documented infections were 29.9%, clinically documented infections were 9.2% and 60.9% of the febrile neutropenic episodes were considered to be FUO. Gram-positive microorganisms were the most commonly isolated agents from blood cultures [MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in 6 patients and MSSA (Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus) in 4 patients]. The success rates were 78.5%, 79.3% and 73.3 % for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd groups respectively. In 4 patients (4.5%) fever responded only to amphotericin-B therapy. There was no statistically significant difference between the three treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, safety and tolerance (chi2 test, p>0.05), but while the third and fourth generation cephalosporins + aminoglycosides were comparable for cost, the monotherapy regimen was the most expensive. The main determining factors for the choice of treatment of febrile neutropenic children, especially in a developing country, are cost, presence of indwelling catheter and the bacterial flora of the unit, as well as efficacy. The empirical use of antibiotic treatments is widely accepted as a means to treat cancer patients in chemotherapy who have fever and neutropenia. Intravenous monotherapy, with broad spectrum antibiotics, of patients with a high risk of complications is a possible alternative.
                We conducted a prospective open-label, randomized study of patients with lymphoma or leukemia who had fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy. Patients received either monotherapy with ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (T) or ceftriaxone plus amikacin (C+A).
                Seventy patients who presented 136 episodes were evaluated, 68 in each arm of the study. The mean neutrophil counts at admission were 217cells/mm(3) (T) and 201cells/mm(3) (C+A). The mean duration of neutropenia was 8.7 days (T) and 7.6 days (C+A). Treatment was successful without the need for modifications in 71% of the episodes in the T group and 81% in the C+A group (p=0.23). Treatment was considered to have failed because of death in two episodes (3%) in the T group and three episodes (4%) in the C+A group, and because of a change in the drug applied in one episode in the T group and two episodes in the C+A group. Overall success was 96% (T) and 93% (C+A). Adverse events that occurred in group T were not related to the drugs used in this study.
                In pediatric and adolescent patients with leukemia or lymphoma, who presented with fever and neutropenia, during chemotherapy, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid was as successful as the combination of ceftriaxone plus amikacin. It should be considered an appropriate option for this group of patients at high risk for infections. In a prospective study, 157 patients with prolonged aplasia (PMN less than 500/mm3 during more than 21 days), hospitalized in a protected environment unit, were randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime alone or cefotaxime + tobramycin for initial febrile episodes. Age, sex, underlying diseases, duration of neutropenia, digestive decontamination regimen, clinical and microbiological characteristics of infections were similar in the two groups. Patients were evaluated for their initial response to antibiotics (defervescence in 48 hours, maintained 7 days) and long term response (prevention of another infection during aplasia). The overall initial response to ceftazidime was 48/71 (68 per cent) and to cefotaxime + tobramycin 55/86 (64 per cent). The long term response to ceftazidime was 33/71 (46.5 per cent) and to cefotaxime + tobramycin 31/86 (36 per cent). In conclusion, ceftazidime alone was as effective as cefotaxime + tobramycin in the first line treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Efficacy of the cephalosporin, ceftriaxone, was compared with that of the combination of the aminoglycoside, netilmicin, and the penicillin, azlocillin, in the treatment of febrile episodes in immunocompromised neutropenic children undergoing chemotherapy for neoplastic disease. During 100 separate febrile episodes, 40 strains of bacteria were isolated from the blood of 34 patients and a further 55 strains from other sites. Nine strains (four of which were staphylococci) to both netilmicin and azlocillin. There was no difference in clinical response between the two therapeutic regimens as assessed 4 and 7 days after treatment began. Ceftriaxone had the considerable practical advantages of once daily dosage without a need for blood monitoring. Ceftriaxone would appear to be effective as initial monotherapy in the treatment of bacterial infections in severely neutropenic children. To evaluate the efficacy of ceftazidime monotherapy in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients, a randomized trial was performed of ceftazidime (C) vs. ceftazidime and gentamicin (C + G) with the addition of teicoplanin (T) for those patients with a long intravenous line-associated infection. Success without modification at the end of treatment was seen in 32.7% (C), 28.3% (C + G), 52.4% (C + T) and 65.2% (C + G + T). Monotherapy with ceftazidime is as effective as when used in combination with an aminoglycoside in neutropenia. High-intensity regimes of chemotherapy have led to longer and more severe episodes of neutropenia with a resulting increase in morbidity and mortality due to infections. Which empiric antibiotic regimen to use in these cases is still under debate.
                We performed a randomized comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of cefepime versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin as the initial treatment in an escalating, empirical, antibiotic therapy regimen in febrile neutropenic patients. Both adults and children were included. All patients had less than 500 neutrophils/microl at the time of infection. Patients were randomized to receive either cefepime or ceftriaxone plus amikacin. If infection continued 72 h later, patients in both groups received vancomycin, and if infection had not disappeared 7 days after starting antibiotics, amphotericin B was started.
                Twenty patients were included in each group. Both treatment and control groups were comparable for age and sex, among other factors. There were 18 cures in the cefepime group and 17 in the ceftriaxone plus amikacin group (p = 0.9). No patient discontinued therapy because of toxicity.
                Cefepime is a safe and very effective therapy for patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia; in addition, it is a cheaper regimen in our country, and lacks the potential toxicity of the aminoglycosides.
                Copyright 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel We conducted a randomized trial to compare the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatine (IPM/CS) monotherapy with that of a combination of latamoxef (LMOX) and tobramycin (TOB) in the initial management of fever and neutropenia in patients with lung cancer. Leukocytopenic febrile patients (less than 3,000 leukocytes per microliters; temperature greater than 38 degrees C) with lung cancer given induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive intravenous treatment with either 1 g IPM/CS twice daily or 2 g LMOX plus 90 mg TOB twice daily. A total 101 febrile episodes were studied. Fifty-one episodes were treated with IPM/CS and 50 with LMOX+TOB. Fifty-nine of the febrile episodes were bacteriologically confirmed, while an organism could not be isolated despite the presence of obvious clinical infection in the remaining 42. The response rate was 82% with IPM/CS and 80% with combination therapy. This difference was not statistically significant. The response rate regarding gram-negative infections was 10 out of 14 (71%) in the IPM/CS group and seven out of 12 (58%) in the LMOX+TOB group. This difference was also not significant (P = 0.484). The response rate in severely neutropenic patients (neutrophils less than 100/microliters) was low (P = 0.078). Three patients in the IPM/CS group were withdrawn from the study due to skin rash and vomiting. Therapy with IPM/CS monotherapy was as effective as a combination regimen. Although the effectiveness of antibiotic monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients remains unproven, ceftazidime has been shown previously to be effective monotherapy for the empiric treatment of selective patients. The efficacy and safety of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin was evaluated in the treatment of febrile children (range 8 months to 18 years) with neutropenia secondary to cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Of the evaluable 89 patients, 45 received ceftazidime and 44 received ceftazidime plus tobramycin for 5 to 10 days. At the end of therapy, 30 (67%) of the 45 ceftazidime-treated patients were clinically cured compared with 38 (86%) of 44 combination-treated patients. Thirteen (29%) of the patients treated with ceftazidime failed to respond clinically to treatment, versus four (9%) of the patients treated with ceftazidime/tobramycin (p = 0.046). This study suggests that ceftazidime as monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children may be inferior to combination therapy for optimal clinical response in these patients. The efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy with imipenem-cilastatin (I-C) were compared with that of ceftazidime plus full-course therapy with an aminoglycoside (tobramycin) (C&T) in the treatment of presumed bacterial infection in neutropenic cancer patients. A total of 106 adult patients diagnosed with presumed bacterial infection and an underlying malignancy with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 500/mm3 were enrolled in this open-label study. A total of 131 febrile episodes occurred. Forty-five patients in the I-C group and 41 in the C&T group, who were well matched on demographic and baseline characteristics, were evaluable for efficacy and safety. Seventy-two hours after the start of therapy, no significant between-group differences in treatment outcomes, including withdrawals or deaths, were seen. Thirty-five (78%) of 45 patients in the I-C group and 29 (71%) of the 41 in the C&T group had successful outcomes at the final evaluation. Superinfection occurred in 8 (18%) I-C patients and 3 (7%) C&T patients. Within the subgroup of patients with an initial ANC < 100/mm3, the final evaluation showed no significant differences in treatment outcome between groups. Of the 131 in the safety population 30 (46%) I-C patients and 28 (42%) C&T patients had one or more adverse experiences; drug-related adverse events occurred in 25 (38%) patients in the I-C group and 11 (17%) patients in the C&T group. The data suggest that imipenem-cilastatin should be considered for initial empiric therapy of presumed bacterial infection in neutropenic cancer patients. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) versus PIP/TAZO plus amikacin in febrile neutropenic children with acute leukemia (AL). Children with AL who had febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to treatment with PIP/TAZO versus PIP/TAZO plus amikacin. Modification was defined as addition of other antimicrobials and/or antifungal agents to the empirical therapy. Protocol failure was defined as withdrawal of the empirical regimen and introduction of other antimicrobials due to failure in controlling infection. Seventy-two febrile episodes of 42 patients with a median age of 4.5 years (3.5 months to 19 years) were evaluated. There were 37 and 35 episodes in PIP/TAZO and combination arms, respectively. Success without modification, with modification, protocol failure, duration of treatment were 45.9%, 35.1%, 18.9%, and 10 days in PIP/TAZO arm and 42.9%, 37.1%, 20%, and 12 days in combination arm, respectively (P > .05). There was no significant difference between the empirical therapy arms regarding median duration of neutropenia and defervescence of fever. Empirical therapy was substituted by other drugs in 6 and 5 episodes in PIP/TAZO and combination arms, respectively. There was no infection-related death. There was reversible increase in serum creatinine in 1 episode on the combination arm. Monotherapy with PIP/TAZO was effective and safe for initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in children with AL. However, local bacterial resistance patterns should be considered in daily practice. Combination of amikacin with PIP/TAZO did not improve treatment success, but it may increase nephrotoxicity. One hundred and two patients with neutropenia (less than 1 x 10(9)/L) secondary to primary hematological disorders or chemotherapy for hematological malignancies were prospectively randomised, upon the development of fever or other signs of infection, to receive empirical antibiotic treatment with either ceftazidime (+/- flucloxacillin) (n = 52) or azlocillin plus amikacin (+/- flucloxacillin) (A&A, n = 50). The two groups were equivalent with respect to clinical and laboratory parameters prior to antibiotic therapy and flucloxacillin was added to approximately 25% of the patients in each group on the clinical suspicion of Gram positive infection. When assessed at 96 hours, the complete response rates were 59.6% for the ceftazidime treated patients and 44% for A&A treated patients. Partial response rates were 17% and 20% respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. Eight patients died whilst on the trial, three of those initially randomised to ceftazidime and five initially randomised to A&A. Moderate to severe hypokalemia was encountered significantly less often in the ceftazidime treated group (p less than 0.01), whilst other parameters of toxicity were equivalent. No primary or acquired resistance to ceftazidime was encountered. Separate analysis of those patients who did not receive flucloxacillin yielded identical results. We conclude that ceftazidime (+/- flucloxacillin) is as efficacious as azlocillin plus amikacin (+/- flucloxacillin) in the empirical antibiotic management of such patients and is associated with a lower incidence of moderate to severe hypokalemia. The purpose of this study was to compare meropenem monotherapy with combination therapy for empirical treatment of neutropenic fever in children with lymphoma and solid tumors. Ninety episodes of neutropenic fever in children (0.7-16.0; mean age 7.7 years) with solid tumors in a single center were randomized to receive either meropenem (50 mg/kg/dose-maximum 1 g, every 8 hours) or piperacillin (200 mg/kg/dose, every 6 hours) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg daily). Failure was defined as treatment modification. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) accounted for 62.2 percent of all episodes, and solid tumors (37.8%) for the rest. Blood cultures were positive in 23 percent of all episodes. Sixty-seven percent of all isolated microorganisms stained Gram-positive. Overall success was 70.0 percent (63/90). The success with meropenem was comparable to that seen with piperacillin plus amikacin: 76.6 versus 64.6 percent (p = 0.25). The failure rate was 33 percent with Gram-positive culture and 78 percent with Gram-negative or mixed cultures. The solid tumor group had significantly less bacteremia (4/34 versus 17/56; p < 0.05) and treatment failure (3/34 versus 24/56; p < 0.001) than the NHL group. No serious drug-related adverse event was noticed. Meropenem monotherapy was as effective as piperacillin plus amikacin combination in the empirical treatment of neutropenic fever in children with lymphoma and solid tumors. 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. 69 febrile granulocytopenic episodes without an initial focus of infection were assessed for empiric treatment either with high-dose amikacin plus piperacillin or ceftazidime. 90% of patients in each group survived the granulocytopenic episode; 15 (44 +/- 17%) episodes treated with the combination and 23 (66 +/- 16%) given ceftazidime responded without any modification of initial therapy and half defervesced within 72 h. Persistent fever was the most frequent reason for altering treatment which was done empirically in 90% of cases, but two-thirds of patients required further treatment modification. An infectious focus mainly involving the lung developed during granulocytopenia in 21 patients (30%), of which 17 occurred during antimicrobial therapy. Only 1 infection was shown to be due to bacteria, while 7 were due to fungi. Amikacin levels were similar to those expected following a normal dose (mean peak of 34.7 and mean trough of 12.6 mg/l). Therapy with the combination resulted in a higher serum creatinine (p less than 0.001) and a lower potassium level (p less than 0.001) in comparison with monotherapy. Potassium supplementation was required in 45 +/- 17% of patients given the combination compared with only 4 +/- 7% of those treated with ceftazidime. While both regimens appeared to be equally effective as initial therapy, the need for modification was high in both patient groups. Monotherapy being both simpler to administer and less toxic seems therefore to be the logical choice although the period of empiric therapy must be fully exploited in order to improve diagnosis and therefore antimicrobial management. A prospective study was conducted in 10 haematology departments of university hospitals on 174 leukaemic patients with prolonged bone marrow aplasia and presenting with a febrile episode. The patients were allocated at random to either ceftazidime or the cefotaxime-amikacin combination. The two treatment group were similar as regards age, sex, underlying blood disease, duration of neutropenia, presence of a venous catheter, type of digestive tract contamination, clinical and bacteriological findings. Results were assessed mainly on the course of the fever at 48 hours and on the clinical and bacteriological changes observed until the patients came out of aplasia. Documented infections were specifically analyzed. There was no significant difference in terms of success or failure between the two treatment groups. Ceftazidime administered as monotherapy proved as effective as the cefotaxime-amikacin combination in the empirical first-line treatment of febrile episodes in leukaemic patients with neutropenia. Empirical therapy with cefoperazone was compared with cefoperazone plus amikacin in granulocytopenic and nongranulocytopenic febrile patients. In nonneutropenic patients the overall response rate to cefoperazone was 88%; 10 of 12 gram-negative bacteremic patients were cured. Cefoperazone plus amikacin resulted in an 88% overall response rate and cured 14 of 15 patients with bacteremia. In neutropenic patients the overall response rate was 77% with cefoperazone alone and 73% with cefoperazone plus amikacin; the cure rates for gram-negative bacteremias were 8 of 11 and 6 of 12 patients, respectively. Our findings support the concept of single-drug empirical therapy with cefoperazone in febrile cancer patients, whether granulocytopenic or not, especially when gram-negative bacteremias are predominantly caused by Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. The issue of Pseudomonas spp. and other more resistant pathogens needs further assessment with a larger number of patients. Three-hundred and twelve episodes of fever in 234 neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies were treated empirically with either imipenem or a combination of piperacillin and gentamicin. There were no significant differences in the percentages of patients responding to therapy at either 72 h (59% and 56% of assessable episodes in the imipenem and combination groups respectively) or at the end of treatment (55% and 53% of assessable episodes in the imipenem and combination groups respectively). Patients in the piperacillin plus gentamicin group experienced significantly more renal tubular damage whereas those who received imipenem suffered more nausea or vomiting. We conclude that imipenem monotherapy represents an acceptable alternative to piperacillin plus gentamicin as empirical therapy of the febrile neutropenic patient. Hospitalization with single or multi-agent antibiotic therapy has been the standard of care for treatment of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. We hypothesized that an empiric antibiotic regimen that is effective and that can be administered once-daily will allow for improved hospital utilization by early transition to outpatient care.
                Febrile pediatric cancer patients with anticipated prolonged neutropenia were randomized between a regimen of once-daily ceftriaxone plus amikacin (C + A) and imipenem monotherapy (control). Afebrile patients on C + A satisfying "Early Discharge Criteria" at 72 hr continued treatment as outpatients. We compared the outcome, adverse events, duration of hospitalization, and cost between both groups.
                A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 129 febrile episodes in pediatric cancer patients with prolonged neutropenia. No adverse events were seen in 32 children (84% of study arm) treated on an outpatient basis. We found a statistically significant difference between the duration of hospitalization of the C + A group [median 5 days] and control [median 9 days](P < 0.001), per episode antibiotic cost (P < 0.001) and total episode cost (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the response to treatment at 72 hr or after necessary antimicrobial modifications.
                We conclude that pediatric febrile cancer patients initially considered at risk for sepsis due to prolonged neutropenia can be re-evaluated at 72 hr for outpatient therapy. The convenience, low incidence of adverse effects, and cost benefit of the once-daily regimen of C + A may be particularly useful to reduce the overall treatment costs and duration of hospitalization.
                (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Fifty-two immunocompromised patients with suspected septicaemia were randomized on 61 occasions to treatment with ceftazidime or with tobramycin and cefuroxime. Most (90%) of the patients had haematological malignancies and were neutropenic (granulocytes less than 1 X 10(9)/1 in 40 of the 61 episodes). Blood cultures were positive in 22 (39%) febrile episodes and in four other instances positive cultures were obtained from other sources. Clinical cure or improvement was noted in 10 of 12 culture verified infections in the tobramycin and cefuroxime group and 11 of 14 episodes in the ceftazidime-group. The effect on the kidney of the two antibiotic regimens was studied by following the serum levels of creatinine, urea and beta 2-microglobulin and the urinary excretion of alanine aminopeptidase, N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (beta-NAG) and beta 2-microglobulin. No clinically important renal side effects were observed. However, an increase in the urinary excretion of AAP was seen in both groups with significantly greater elevation in the tobramycin and cefuroxime group. Urinary beta-NAG increased only in the tobramycin and cefuroxime group. Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have been standard therapy for suspected infections in granulocytopenic cancer patients, especially those with profound long-lasting granulocytopenia. With the advent of new broad-spectrum bactericidal antibiotics such as extended-spectrum cephalosporins or carbapenems, the need to combine beta-lactams with aminoglycosides became more controversial. The objective of this prospective randomized multicenter study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of meropenem monotherapy with those of the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Of 1,034 randomized patients, 958 were assessable in the intent-to-treat analysis for response to antibacterial therapy, including 483 in the meropenem group and 475 in the ceftazidime-plus-amikacin group. The median durations of neutropenia were 16 and 17 days, respectively. A successful outcome was reported in 270 of 483 (56%) patients treated with monotherapy compared with 245 of 475 (52%) patients treated with the combination group (P = 0.20). The success rates in the monotherapy group and the combination group were similar by type of infection (single gram-negative bacteremia, single gram-positive bacteremia, clinically documented infection, and possible infection). The occurrence of further infections assessed in patients for whom the allocated regimen was not modified did not differ between the two groups (12% in both groups). Mortality due to the presenting infection or further infection was relatively low (8 patients treated with the monotherapy compared with 13 patients treated with the combination). A total of 1,027 patients were evaluable for adverse events; the proportion of those who developed adverse effects was similar between the two groups (29% in both groups), and only 19 (4%) patients in the monotherapy group and 31 (6%) in the combination group experienced an adverse event related or probably related to the study drug. Allergic reactions were the only reason for stopping the protocol antibiotic(s) (3 and 5 patients, respectively). This study confirms that monotherapy with meropenem is as effective as the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empiric treatment of fever in persistently granulocytopenic cancer patients, and both regimens were well tolerated. nan Between July 1993 and September 1996, 107 consecutive febrile episodes in 83 neutropenic cancer patients with a median age of 41 years were randomized to treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 8 h i.v. or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h plus amikacin 15 mg/kg i.v. per day. In the case of fever > 38 degrees C 48 h after initiation of the antibiotic therapy, vancomycin 500 mg every 6 h i.v. was added. The study population was at serious risk of a poor outcome, since 67% of the patients had leukemia or lymphoma, 19% of the febrile events occurred after autologous bone marrow or blood stem cell transplantation, the median total duration of neutropenia was 16 days, and the median neutrophil count at study inclusion was 0.09 x 10(9)/1. The two patient groups were comparable in terms of risk factors. Bacteremia was found in 37%, other microscopically documented infections in 16%, and clinically documented infections in 26% of the febrile episodes. Most (96) febrile episodes were evaluable for response. No significant difference was found between piperacillin/ tazobactam and ceftazidime plus amikacin in terms of success rate (81% versus 83%), empirical addition of vancomycin (42% versus 38%), median time to fever defervescence (3.3 versus 2.9 days) or median duration of antibiotic therapy (7.2 versus 7.4 days). No patient died from the infection. Both antibiotic regimens were well tolerated, the study treatment being stopped only in 1 patient because of toxicity (cutaneous allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam). On the basis of the 107 febrile events encountered, we conclude that piperacillin/tazobactam is a safe and effective monotherapy. To define the definitive value of piperacillin/ tazobactam as a monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients a large randomized trial is warranted. A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam and amikacin combination with carbapenem monotherapy for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute myeloblastic leukemia. Patients aged 2-16 years with hematological malignancies who had febrile neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam, q6h) combined with amikacin (PTA) (7.5 mg/kg, q12h) or meropenem or imipenem (20 mg/kg, q8h) (C). Response to antimicrobial therapy, evaluated for etiological agents, was measured. Duration of fever, neutropenia, and hospitalization, mortality, and the need for additional antibiotics or antifungal drugs were compared for the treatment success between the two groups. Out of 87 febrile neutropenic episodes that were evaluable for comparison, 46 patients received PTA and 41 patients were treated with carbapenems (imipenem or meropenem). Overall, the microbiologically documented infection rate was 21.9%, with Staphylococcus epidermidis as the most common cause of bacteremia. The rate of treatment modification was 56.5% in the PTA group and 53.6% in the carbapenem group with no statistical difference (p > .05). There was no infection-related mortality during the study period. There was no difference between the two regimens for durations of fever, neutropenia, and hospitalization (p > .05 for all categories). PTA was as effective as carbapenem monotherapy as an initial empirical regimen in febrile neutropenic episodes of pediatric hematological malignancies. A multicenter open randomized trial was conducted to compare cefepime monotherapy with cefepime/amikacin combination (dual) therapy in treating febrile neutropenic patients with hematologic disorders. Among the 189 evaluable patients, 5.8% had microbiologically and 10.6% had clinically documented infections. Excellent response was seen in 32.6% and 45.7% of monotherapy and dual therapy recipients, respectively, at day 3 (P=.065). At day 3, patients with neutrophil counts of <500/ mu L receiving dual therapy had a better response than did those receiving monotherapy (45% vs. 27.6%; P=.024). The same was true for patients with leukemia. Adverse events were minimal, and early death was observed in 7 patients in the dual therapy group and 5 patients in the monotherapy group. Overall, cefepime monotherapy is as effective as dual therapy for the initial treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Further study is warranted for patients with severe neutropenia and leukemia who may benefit from dual therapy. Infections remain the major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic cancer patients. The current study addresses the question whether monotherapy with the new broad-spectrum carbapenem meropenem exhibits efficacy comparable to that of the standard combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Seventy-one patients with hematological malignancies (55%) or solid tumors (45%), neutropenia < 500/microliter, and fever > 38.5 degrees C were randomly assigned to either meropenem (1 g every 8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) intravenously. Meropenem (n = 34) and ceftazidime/amikacin (n = 37) were equivalent with respect to the clinical response at 72 h (62% versus 68%) (p > 0.05) and at the end of unmodified therapy (59% versus 62%). Gram-positive bacteremia responded poorly in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin group (29% versus 25%), whereas all gram-negative bacteremias responded except for one in the meropenem group caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All patients survived to 72 h. One patient in each group died of gram-positive sepsis resistant to study medication. No significant side effects occurred in any regimen. This study suggests that meropenem monotherapy might be as effective as combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.