Imipenem/Cilastatin versus Cefepime as Empiric Monotherapy for Fever in Neutropenic Patients after ematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the potential advantages of imipenem/cilastatin in control of fever in neutro-penic HSCT recipients.Patients and Method: In this single-center study, 111 consecutive febrile episodes in 104 neutropenic HSCT recipients with a mean age of 26 years were randomized to treatment either with Imipenem/cilastatin 1 g, IV, q8h or cefepime (our standard regimen) 2 g, IV, q8h. If fever persisted, se¬quential antibiotics were added in 72-hour intervals: vancomycin, amikacin and amphotericin-B. The study population was at serious risk of a poor outcome, since 73.5% of febrile episodes occurred after allogeneic and 26.5% of febrile events occurred after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplanta¬tion.
Results: The median total duration of neutropenia was 10 days, and the median leukocyte count at study inclusion was 0.16 × 109/l. The two patient groups were comparable in terms of Age, gender, un¬derlying disease, conditioning regimen, clinical and bacterial documentation, severity and duration of neutropenia and mucositis, GI decontamination and G-CSF administration. Bacteremia was found in 20.6%, other microscopically documented infections in 9.8%, clinically documented infections in 20.6% and fever of unknown origin in 49% of the febrile episodes. Most (102) febrile episodes were evaluable for response. No significant difference was found between imipenem/cilastatin and cefepime in terms of success rate (73.1% versus 62%), empirical addition of vancomycin (38% versus 26.2%) or median duration of antibiotic therapy (7 days in both).The difference between imipenem/cilastatin and cefepime was statistically significant for median duration of fever (1.5 versus 2 days) and median time of resolution of neutropenia (12 versus 14 days). The overall response rates to initial monotherapy was significantly higher for HSCT recipients with thalassemia, MM, lymphoma, AA, than recipients with ALL, AML, CML, CLL (P<0.001) and for episodes of fever of unknown origin than episodes of clini¬cally documented infections (87.8% versus 12.2%). In episodes of success without modification, the median duration of neutropenia before entry was longer than episodes when vancomycin was added (P<0.027).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 imipenem/cilastatin).
Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin and cefepime are effective and well tolerated when used as initial empirical treatment for HSCT recipient with prolonged neutropenia. But imipenem/cilastatin may be more effective than cefepime, as evidenced by a significantly better response in two outcome measures and in one subgroup of patients (AML).
Rubio M, Palau L, VivasJR et al: predominance of gram positive microorganism .Infect Control Hosp Epi- demiol 15:101, 1994.
Hess U, Bohme C, Rey K, et al: Monotheapy with piperacilltn/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an emphiric therapy for fe- ver in neutropenic patients.Support Care Cancer 1998:6:402-409.
Ferrara JL, Deeg HJ. Graft-versus-host disease (Re- view). N Engl J Med 1991; 24(10): 667--74.
Winston DJ, Ho WG, Bruckner DA, et al: Beta- lactam antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic pa- tients: A randomized trial comparing cefoperazone plus piperacillin, ceftazidime plus piperacillin, and imipenem alone. Ann Intern Med 115: 849--859, 1991
Pizzo PA, Hathorn JW, Hiemenz J, et al: A random- ized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neu- tropenia. N Engl J Med 315: 552-558, 1986
Barradell, L. B. & Bryson, H. M.: Cefepime: a re- view of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic proper- ties and therapeutic use. Drugs 47, 471--505, 1994.
Thomas ED, Storb R, Clift RA, et al. Bone marrow transplantation (second of two parts) (Review). N Engl J Med 1975; 292(17):895--902.
Eggimann P, Glauser M. P, Aoun M, et al: Ce- fepime monotherapy for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Journal of Antim- icrobial Chemotherapy 34, Suppl. B, 151--63, 1993.
Sanders JW, Powe NR, Moore RD: Ceftazidime monotherapy for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: A meta-analysis. J Infect Dis 164: 907--916, 1991
Hughes WT, Armstrong DA, Bodey GP, et al: 1997 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutro- penic patients with unexplained fever. Clin Infect Dis 25: 551--573, 1997
Elliott C, Pater JL: The effect of different measures of outcome on the results of studies of empiric antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Clin Invest Med 11: 327--330, 1988
Hartmut Bertz, Holger W. Auner, Florian Weissinger, et al: Antimicrobial therapy of febrile com- plicationsafter high-dose chemo-/radiotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Ann Hematol, 82: 167--174, 2003
Freifeld A, Walsh T, Marshall D et al monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in cancer patients:S random- ized comparison of ceftazidime versus imipenem.J Clin Oncol 13:165--175.
Bohme A, Shah PM, Stille W et al: Piperacil- lin/tazobactam versus cefepime as initial empirical antim- icrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: a pro- spective randomized pilot study. Eur J Med Res. 20; 3(7):324--30, 1998 Jul.
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group the National Cancer Institute of Can- ada-Clinical Trials Group: Vancomycin added to empiri- cal combination antibiotic therapy for fever in granulocy- topenic cancer patients. J Infect Dis 163: 951--958, 1991
Cometta A, Zinner S, De Bock R et al, for Interna- tional Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of EORTC: piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin as an empiric theraoy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agent Chemother39:445--452, 1995.
EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Coop- erative Group: Efficacy and toxicity of single daily dosis of amikacin and ceftazidime in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 119:584-593.
Monlalar J, Segura A, Bosch C, et al: cefepime monotherapy as an empirical initial treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia .Med Oncol. 19(3):161--6(2002).
Kenneth Todar Univercity of Winconsin-Madison Department of Bacteriology: The normal flora of human, 2002.
Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Current trends in the epidemiology of nosocomial bloodstream infections in patients with hematological malignancies and solid neoplasms in hospitals in the United States. Clin Infect Dis.; 36:1103--1110, 2003.
Glauser, M. P: Clinical results with cefepime in can- cer patients with fever and neutropenia (abstract). Cana- dian Journal of Infectious Diseases 6, Suppl. C, 202C. (1995).
Crawford SW. Bone-marrow transplantation and re- lated infections. Semin Respir Infect 1993; 8(3):183--90.
Feld R, DePauw B, Berman S et al: Meropenem ver- sus ceftazidime in the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol. 1; 18(21):3690--8, 2000.
Blijlevens NMA, van-’t Land B, Donnelly JP. Gram- positive bacteremia coincides with impaired gut integrity in HSCT recipients. Int J Infect Dis; 6:2S32--2S33, 2002.
Biron P, Fuhrmann C, Cure H et al: Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. J Antim- icrob Chemother. 42(4):511-8, 1998.
Aparicio J, Oltra C etal: randomized comparison of ceftazidime and imipenem as initial monotherapy for feb- rile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 32A (10):1739, 1996.
Centers for disease control and prevention: Hospital infection control practices Advisory committee recom- mendation for preventing the spread of vancomycin resis- tance .MMWR 44:1, 1995.
Pizzo PA, Hathorn JW, Heimenz J et al: a random- ized trial comparing combination antibiotic therapy to monotherapy in cancer patients with fever and neutro- penia . N Engl J Med 315: 552, 1986.
Behre G, Link H, Maschmeyer G et al: Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with cef- tazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Ann Hematol. 76(2):73--80, 1998
Bohme A, Shah PM, Stille W et al : Piperacil- lin/tazobactam versus cefepime as initial empirical antim- icrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: a pro- spective randomized pilot study. Eur J Med Res. 20; 3(7):324--30, 1998.
Vandercam B, Gerain J, Humblet Y et al: Mero- penem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Ann Hematol. 79(3):152--7, 2000.
Feld R, DePauw B, Berman S et al: Meropenem ver- sus ceftazidime in the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol. 1; 18(21):3690--8, 2000.
Cometta A, Calandra T, Gaya H et al: monothrapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with cef- tazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer.Antimicrob Agent Chemother 40:1108--1115, 1996.
Del Favero, A., Bucaneve, G. & Menichetti, F. Em- piric monotherapy in neutropenia: a realistic goal? Scan- dinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 96, 34-7, 1995.
Pizzo PA, Hathorn JW, Hiemenz J, et al. Random- ized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neu- tropenia. N Engl J Med 1986; 315(9):552--8
Hughes WT, Armstrong DA, Bodey GP, et al: 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer, 2002.
Files | ||
Issue | Vol 2, No 2 (2005) | |
Section | Articles | |
Keywords | ||
Febrile neutropenia Monotherapy Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Randomized trial |
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |