Vancomycin is not an essential component of the initial empiric treatment regimen for febrile neutropenic patients receiving ceftazidime: a randomized prospective study. Vancomycin added to empirical combination antibiotic therapy for fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group and the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group. Randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus cephalothin in empiric treatment of febrile episodes in severely neutropenic patients. Empiric antimicrobial therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Randomized prospective comparison of amikacin plus piperacillin with or without parenteral trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. A randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus flucloxacillin in the empiric treatment of febrile episodes in severely neutropenic patients. Vancomycin versus placebo for treating persistent fever in patients with neutropenic cancer receiving piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of empirical teicoplanin in febrile neutropenia with persistent fever after imipenem monotherapy. Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Prospective randomized clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile, granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients. Empiric use of vancomycin during prolonged treatment-induced granulocytopenia. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with acute leukemia. A randomized study of tobramycin plus ticarcillin, tobramycin plus cephalothin and ticarcillin, or tobramycin plus mezlocillin in the treatment of infection in neutropenic patients with malignancies.
The use of vancomycin as part of the initial antibiotic therapy of febrile neutropenic patients has become a controversial issue. Some studies support its incorporation in the initial regimen, and others suggest that vancomycin can be added later. We examined this issue in a prospective, randomized trial. We randomized 127 febrile neutropenic patients to receive either ceftazidime alone or ceftazidime plus vancomycin as the initial empiric antibiotic treatment. We added vancomycin to the ceftazidime arm of the study when fever persisted after 96 h of monotherapy, when new fever occurred after this time, or when a moderately ceftazidime-resistant gram-positive bacterium was isolated. Each of these regimens had similar initial response rates, similar durations of initial fever, similar frequencies of new fever during therapy, similar microbiological cure rates, similar superinfection rates, and similar survival rates. We observed more renal and cutaneous toxicities in patients receiving vancomycin and ceftazidime as initial therapy. We conclude that ceftazidime is appropriate as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients and that the addition of vancomycin is appropriate when fever persists after 4 days of monotherapy or when fever recurs following an initial response. A total of 747 febrile granulocytopenic patients with cancer were randomized to receive ceftazidime plus amikacin (CA) with or without vancomycin (V) as initial empirical therapy. Single gram-positive bacteremias responded in 29 (43%) of 68 patients treated with CA and in 48 (72%) of 67 treated with CAV (P = .001). For single gram-negative bacteremias and clinically documented and possible infections the response rates of CA and CAV were 80% and 63% (P = .17), 55% and 75% (P = .009), and 74% and 81% (P = .16), respectively. However, for patients with gram-positive bacteremia and for all other patients, there were no differences by treatment regimens in the proportion of febrile patients on each trial day (P = .85, P = .82, respectively) or in the duration of fever (P = .22, P = .93, respectively). Moreover, no patient with gram-positive bacteremia died during the first 3 days of true empirical therapy. Antibiotic-associated nephrotoxicity was more frequent in patients treated with vancomycin (6% vs. 2%, P = .02). These results do not support the empirical addition of vancomycin to initial antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and granulocytopenia. In a prospective randomized study, ceftazidime monotherapy was compared with a combination of ceftazidime plus cephalothin in 102 febrile neutropenic patients. Thirty bacteriologically documented infections, of which 23 were bacteremias, in 48 clinically assessable patients were treated with ceftazidime alone. Twenty-four bacteriologically proven infections, of which 18 were bacteremias, in 42 clinically assessable patients were treated with a combination of ceftazidime and cephalothin. The clinical response rates in assessable patients were 77% for ceftazidime monotherapy and 88% for the combination. The bacteriological clearance rate was 70% for ceftazidime monotherapy and 79% for the combination. Efficacy against gram-negative pathogens appeared to be excellent, with 93% clearance for ceftazidime monotherapy and 100% clearance for the combination. The bacteriological clearance of gram-positive infections was only 60% for both regimens, with failures mainly due to Streptococcus faecalis and Streptococcus sanguis, which are primarily resistant to both ceftazidime and cephalothin. After addition of vancomycin to those infections which did not respond to empiric therapy, bacteriological clearance rates of 94% (ceftazidime plus vancomycin) and 90% (ceftazidime and cephalothin plus vancomycin) were achieved. Three superinfections were registered in the ceftazidime group and two were seen in the combination group. Other adverse effects of ceftazidime were minimal and were not enhanced by combination with cephalothin. It is concluded that ceftazidime is an effective drug for the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients, especially if one is prepared to modify therapy if resistant gram-positive strains or mycotic infections are encountered. Neither the clinical nor bacteriological cure rates could be substantially improved by adding cephalothin to ceftazidime in initial empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. In a prospective randomized trial parenteral trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole was added to amikacin plus piperacillin in order to compare triple-drug antibiotic combination with a standard regimen as empiric therapy of fever in patients with granulocytopenia. One hundred and sixty-one episodes were evaluated; 74 episodes with amikacin plus piperacillin and 87 episodes with amikacin plus piperacillin plus trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. The overall response to therapy (63% vs. 84%) as well as the response of microbiologically documented infections (60% vs. 82%) was significantly better in patients treated with the triple-drug combination (p less than 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences in response to antibiotics at different infection sites or with regard to any single pathogen was found between the two groups. Trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole seemed to be responsible for additional toxicity (nausea and vomiting) when added to amikacin plus piperacillin, but these side-effects were clearly related to the rate of infusion of trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. The findings of this study support the use of a three-drug versus a two-drug combination as empiric antibiotic regimen in febrile granulocytopenic patients. In a prospective, randomized study, ceftazidime monotherapy was compared with a combination of ceftazidime and flucloxacillin in 100 febrile neutropenic patients. Thirty-four bacteriologically documented infections, of which 26 were bacteremias, in 51 patients were treated with ceftazidime alone. Thirty-four bacteriologically proven infections, of which 29 were bacteremias, in 49 patients were treated with a combination of ceftazidime and flucloxacillin. The clinical response rate for ceftazidime monotherapy was 80%; the bacteriological cure rate was 90%. Efficacy against gram-negative pathogens appeared to be excellent, achieving a 100% cure rate. The clinical response and bacteriological cure rates for the combination were 76 and 86%, respectively. Three superinfections were registered in the ceftazidime group, and four, involving six pathogens, were registered in the combination group. Other side effects of ceftazidime were minimal. It is concluded that ceftazidime is an effective drug for the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. It offers the opportunity to avoid the aminoglycosides in first-line treatment. It may be appropriate to combine ceftazidime with cephalothin or vancomycin or to modify therapy if resistant gram-positive strains are encountered. This prospective, double-blind trial assessed whether the addition of a glycopeptide would be able to reduce the time to defervescence in neutropenic patients with cancer who had persistent fever 48-60 h after the initiation of empirical piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy. Of 763 eligible patients, 165 with persistent fever were randomized to receive piperacillin-tazobactam therapy plus either vancomycin therapy or placebo. Defervescence was observed in 82 (95%) of 86 patients in the vancomycin group and in 73 (92%) of 79 patients in the placebo group (P=.52). The distributions of the time to defervescence were not statistically significant between the 2 groups (estimated hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.43; P=.75). The number of additional episodes of gram-positive bacteremia and the percentage of patients for whom amphotericin B was empirically added to their therapy regimen were also similar in both groups. This study failed to demonstrate that the empirical addition of vancomycin therapy to the treatment regimen is of benefit to persistently febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. Glycopeptide antibiotics are used extensively in the empirical treatment of febrile patients with neutropenia. To come to a more rational and restricted application of these expensive drugs and to reduce the risk of emergence of resistance, we carried out a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled single-centre study to investigate whether the addition of teicoplanin improved the outcome of neutropenic patients who remained febrile after 72-96 h of imipenem monotherapy. Patients with known infections caused by imipenem-resistant microorganisms were excluded. From the 114 evaluable episodes (out of a total of 125) in 105 patients who met the eligibility criteria, 56 episodes were randomized to receive teicoplanin and 58 to placebo. At 72 h after the start of the assigned intervention, 52 (45.6%) of the patients were afebrile; at the end of the aplastic phase, 10 (8.8%) had succumbed. There was no difference between the two study arms. When febrile episodes were subdivided between microbiologically documented infections, clinically documented infections and fevers of unknown origin, again no significant differences were observed. With the exception of methicillin-resistant bacteria, Gram-positive infections seemed to respond well to imipenem monotherapy. It is concluded that the addition of teicoplanin on empirical grounds, i.e. for persistent fever only, is not necessary and that the use of glycopeptides should be restricted to well-defined clinical situations where methicillin-resistant bacteria are involved. Furthermore, it seems that many neutropenic patients respond slowly over more than 72-96 h even when they are treated with antibacterial drugs such as imipenem that are effective against the causative microorganism. In a prospective randomized study, 120 febrile, granulocytopenic patients received as initial therapy ceftazidime with or without teicoplanin. At the onset of fever, patients had no obvious infectious focus. For 103 assessable episodes, initial bacteremias were detected in 18 of 51 patients (35%) given ceftazidime and 20 of 52 patients (38%) given the combination; 13 and 17 bacteremias caused by gram-positive bacteria occurred in these groups, respectively. There was no difference in terms of the final response (25 of 51 patients [49%] treated with ceftazidime alone versus 33 of 52 patients [63%] given the combination), and the morbidity was comparable for both treatment groups. The duration of fever and of total antibiotic therapy were similar in both groups. Initial therapy was modified in 26 patients (51%) treated with ceftazidime, with 20 surviving the infection, and in 19 patients (37%) treated with the combination, with 15 surviving. Persistent fever was the main reason for changing treatment, and no patient died of a gram-positive infection. Subsequent infective events occurred in 16 patients (31%) given ceftazidime and in 25 patients (48%) given the combination. Lung infiltrates developed in 12 and 13 patients, respectively, but more new infections occurred in the combination group. Allergic skin reactions were also more frequent in this group. Thus, while teicoplanin provides simple, reliable, and safe treatment of patients with presumed gram-positive infections, it is not useful when given empirically to this patient population, and treatment may result in more infective complications and adverse events. The increasing prevalence of bacteremia caused by gram-positive bacteria in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients prompted us to evaluate, in a prospective randomized trial, the role of teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic, when it was added to amikacin plus ceftazidime, as an empiric therapy of fever in these patients. Of 47 evaluable episodes, 22 were treated with the teicoplanin regimen and 25 were treated with the combination of amikacin and ceftazidime. The overall response to therapy of patients treated with teicoplanin was slightly better (82% improvement) than that obtained with amikacin plus ceftazidime (52%). The response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias was 80% (4 of 5) to the regimen that included teicoplanin; 25% (1 of 4) of the patients treated with amikacin plus ceftazidime responded to treatment; and for patients with gram-negative bacteremias, the response rates were, respectively, 100% (4 of 4) and 70% (7 of 10). The better results obtained with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin treatment were most evident in patients with profound (less than 100/mm3) and persistent neutropenia (83 versus 30% improvement). Furthermore, a good response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias (seven of eight; 87% improvement) was achieved in a small group of bone marrow transplant patients who were all treated with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin. No severe side effects were documented in any patient. Teicoplanin, as a drug administered as a single daily dose, seems to be a safe and useful anti-gram-positive agent when used in combination with amikacin-ceftazidime as an empiric therapy of febrile episodes in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients. Because gram-positive infections cause morbidity following intensive antileukemic chemotherapy, the effects of vancomycin versus placebo were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 60 adult patients with acute leukemia and first infectious fever during prolonged (mean of 32 days) granulocytopenia. Gram-positive sepsis was associated with first fever in 17 (28 percent) of the 60 patients. None of 31 patients randomly assigned to receive vancomycin demonstrated gram-positive infection, whereas 16 of 22 patients randomly assigned to receive placebo subsequently had gram-positive infection (seven had sepsis, and nine had local infections; p less than 0.005). All patients with gram-positive infection were then given vancomycin, and all showed prompt clinical responses. The predominant gram-positive organism causing infection was beta-lactam-resistant Staphylococcus epidermis (19 of 44 isolates). Patients randomly assigned to receive vancomycin had more rapid resolution of first infectious fever and fewer total febrile days during the granulocytopenic course than did patients randomly assigned to receive placebo. Although vancomycin had no effect on the presence or absence of documented fungal infection, patients treated with vancomycin received empiric amphotericin B for recurrent or persistent fever later (mean of 14 days after initial antibiotic coverage was begun) than did patients receiving placebo (mean of 9.9 days; p less than 0.005), and thus received fewer total days of empiric amphotericin B therapy (mean of 16.3 days) than did patients given placebo (mean of 24.6 days; p less than 0.01). These data demonstrate that empiric use of vancomycin reduces the morbidity of gram-positive infections following intensive antileukemic therapy and decreases the need for empiric use of toxic amphotericin B. Two hundred twenty-five patients with 358 febrile episodes were treated with tobramycin and ticarcillin (TT), tobramycin and mezlocillin (TM), or tobramycin, ticarcillin and cephalothin (TTC). There were no statistically significant differences in the response rates for patients who were proven to have infection (67% with TT, 69% with TTC and 53% with TM). Patients were more often cured of their infection if their neutrophil count rose during therapy. In this study, the addition of cephalothin to TT did not increase the frequency of azotemia (10% and 12%, respectively). Although mezlocillin has a broader spectrum of activity in vitro than ticarcillin, it was not more efficacious when combined with tobramycin than ticarcillin plus tobramycin for the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients.
Current evidence shows that the addition of antiGP treatment, namely glycopeptides, prior to documentation of a Gram-positive infection does not improve outcomes.