A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with Hematologic malignancies

被引:79
作者
Bow, E. J.
Rotstein, C.
Noskin, G. A.
Laverdiere, M.
Schwarer, A. P.
Segal, B. H.
Seymour, J. F.
Szer, J.
Sanche, S.
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Dept Internal Med, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[2] Univ Manitoba, Dept Med Microbiol, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[3] CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Div Infect Dis, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Saskatchewan, Div Infect Dis, Dept Med, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
[6] Hop Maison Neuve Rosemont, Dept Microbiol & Infect Dis, Montreal, PQ H1T 2M4, Canada
[7] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Bone Marrow Transplant Serv, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Div Hematol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[9] SUNY Buffalo, Div Infect Dis, Roswell Pk Canc Ctr, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA
[10] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Infect Dis, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1086/505393
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. The empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients with cancer requires antibacterial regimens active against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. This study was performed to demonstrate the noninferiority of monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam, compared with cefepime. Methods. We conducted a randomized-controlled, open-label, multicenter clinical trial among high-risk patients from 34 university-affiliated tertiary care medical centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia who were undergoing treatment for leukemia or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were hospitalized for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients received piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 h) or cefepime (2 g every 8 h) intravenously. The primary outcome was success (defined by defervescence without treatment modification) at 72 h of treatment, end of treatment, and test of cure in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, microbiological efficacy, the additional use of glycopeptide antibiotics, emergence of resistant bacteria, and safety. Results. For 528 subjects (265 received piperacillin-tazobactam and 263 received cefepime), success rates were 57.7% and 48.3%, respectively (P = .04) at the 72-h time point, 39.6% and 31.6% (P = .06) at end of treatment, and 26.8% and 20.5% (P = .11) at the test-of-cure visit. The analyses demonstrated noninferiority for piperacillin-tazobactam at all time points (P <= .0001). Treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam was independently associated with treatment success in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.64; P = .035). Both regimens were well tolerated. Conclusions. This study demonstrates the noninferiority and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy, compared with cefepime, for the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:447 / 459
页数:13
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Cost-effectiveness of cefepime plus netilmicin or ceftazidime plus amikacin or meropenem monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with malignancy in Turkey [J].
Agaoglu, L ;
Devecioglu, O ;
Anak, S ;
Karakas, Z ;
Yalman, N ;
Biner, B ;
Eryilmaz, E ;
Goksan, B ;
Unuvar, A ;
Agirbasli, H ;
Can, M ;
Bilgen, H ;
Gedikoglu, G .
JOURNAL OF CHEMOTHERAPY, 2001, 13 (03) :281-287
[2]  
ANAND A, 1994, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V89, P519
[3]   A randomized prospective multicentre trial of cefpirome versus piperacillin-tazobactam in febrile neutropenia [J].
Bauduer, F ;
Cousin, T ;
Boulat, O ;
Rigal-Huguet, F ;
Molina, L ;
Fegueux, N ;
Jourdan, E ;
Boiron, JM ;
Reiffers, J .
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA, 2001, 42 (03) :379-386
[4]   Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients [J].
Behre, G ;
Link, H ;
Maschmeyer, G ;
Meyer, P ;
Paaz, U ;
Wilhelm, M ;
Hiddemann, W .
ANNALS OF HEMATOLOGY, 1998, 76 (02) :73-80
[5]   Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: Comparison of the 1994 and 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology surveys regarding ASCO clinical practice guidelines [J].
Bennett, CL ;
Weeks, JA ;
Somerfield, MR ;
Feinglass, J ;
Smith, TJ .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1999, 17 (11) :3676-3681
[6]   Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: The American Society of Clinical Oncology survey [J].
Bennett, CL ;
Smith, TJ ;
Weeks, JC ;
Bredt, AB ;
Feinglass, J ;
Fetting, JH ;
Hillner, BE ;
Somerfield, MR ;
Winn, RJ .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1996, 14 (09) :2511-2520
[7]   The association between physician reimbursement in the US and use of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors as adjunct therapy for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: Results from the 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology survey [J].
Bennett, CL ;
Bishop, MR ;
Tallman, MS ;
Somerfield, MR ;
Feinglass, J ;
Smith, TJ .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1999, 10 (11) :1355-1359
[8]   Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia [J].
Biron, P ;
Fuhrmann, C ;
Cure, H ;
Viens, P ;
Lefebvre, D ;
Thyss, A ;
Viot, M ;
Soler-Michel, P ;
Rollin, C ;
Grès, JJ .
JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 1998, 42 (04) :511-518
[9]  
Bohme A, 1998, Eur J Med Res, V3, P324
[10]  
BOOGAERTS MA, 1995, J ANTIMICROB CHEMOTH, V36, P185