Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1994 Mar;38(3):415–421. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.3.415

Cefepime compared with ceftazidime as initial therapy for serious bacterial infections and sepsis syndrome.

H Kieft 1, A I Hoepelman 1, M Rozenberg-Arska 1, J M Branger 1, J H Voskuil 1, A B Geers 1, M Kluyver 1, H C Hart 1, E Poest-Clement 1, L van Beugen 1, et al.
PMCID: PMC284473  PMID: 8203833

Abstract

In an open randomized multicenter comparative study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of cefepime (CP; 2.0 g given intravenously every 12 h) and ceftazidime (CZ; 2.0 g given intravenously every 8 h) as initial treatment for adult patients with suspected serious bacterial infections. A total of 133 patients entered the study, of whom 114 were evaluable for clinical and microbiological response assessment: 56 received CP and 58 received CZ. About 50% (30 who received CP and 25 who received CZ) fulfilled the criteria of the sepsis syndrome. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to sex distribution, mean age, underlying diseases, treatment duration, APACHE II score, and type of infection. The most commonly cultured microorganisms were members of the family Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The causative microorganisms were eradicated from 92% (37 of 40) of patients with a microbiologically documented infection who underwent treatment with CP; they were eradicated from 86% (42 to 49) of patients who received CZ. The responses of only clinically documented infections in the CP group were 90% (27 of 30 patients); in the CZ group they were 87% (26 of 30 patients). When patients fulfilled the criteria of the sepsis syndrome (septic shock excluded), the causative microorganisms were eradicated from 89% (16 of 18) of CP-treated patients and 86% (12 of 14) of CZ-treated patients. None of these differences was statistically significant. Mortality was the same in both groups (four patients in each group) and was not attributable to the study medication. In conclusion, CP is at least as effective and as safe as CZ, as initial antimicrobial therapy for suspected serious bacterial infections in nonneutropenic patients with or without the sepsis syndrome. CP has the additional advantage in that it can be given twice daily, which may lead to a decrease in hospital costs.

Full text

PDF
415

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bodey G. P., Ho D. H., LeBlanc B. In vitro studies of BMY-28142, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Feb;27(2):265–269. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.2.265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bone R. C., Fisher C. J., Jr, Clemmer T. P., Slotman G. J., Metz C. A., Balk R. A. Sepsis syndrome: a valid clinical entity. Methylprednisolone Severe Sepsis Study Group. Crit Care Med. 1989 May;17(5):389–393. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clarke A. M., Zemcov S. J., Wright J. M. HR 810 and BMY-28142, two new cephalosporins with broad-spectrum activity: an in-vitro comparison with other beta-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 Mar;15(3):305–310. doi: 10.1093/jac/15.3.305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eron L. J., Goldenberg R. I., Park C. H., Poretz D. M. Ceftazidime therapy of serious bacterial infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Feb;23(2):236–241. doi: 10.1128/aac.23.2.236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fuchs P. C., Jones R. N., Barry A. L., Thornsberry C. Evaluation of the in vitro activity of BMY-28142, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 May;27(5):679–682. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.5.679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Garner J. S., Jarvis W. R., Emori T. G., Horan T. C., Hughes J. M. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control. 1988 Jun;16(3):128–140. doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90053-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gentry L. O., Rodriguez-Gomez G. Randomized comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime for treatment of skin, surgical wound, and complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Nov;35(11):2371–2374. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.11.2371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Giamarellou H. Low-dosage cefepime as treatment for serious bacterial infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Nov;32 (Suppl B):123–132. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.suppl_b.123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Giamarellou H., Perdikaris G., Galanakis N., Davoulos G., Mandragos K., Sfikakis P. Pefloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of a variety of gram-negative-bacterial infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Aug;33(8):1362–1367. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.8.1362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Guerra J. G., Casalino E., Palomino J. C., Barboza E., del Castillo M., Gonzalez del Riego M., Huapaya V., Antúnez de Mayolo E. Imipenem/cilastatin vs. gentamicin/clindamycin for the treatment of moderate to severe infections in hospitalized patients. Rev Infect Dis. 1985 Jul-Aug;7 (Suppl 3):S463–S470. doi: 10.1093/clinids/7.supplement_3.s463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gustaferro C. A., Steckelberg J. M. Cephalosporin antimicrobial agents and related compounds. Mayo Clin Proc. 1991 Oct;66(10):1064–1073. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61731-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoepelman A. I., Kieft H., Aoun M., Kosmidis J., Strand T., Verhoef J., Gillespie S. H., Riddell J., Varghese G., Meunier F. International comparative study of cefepime and ceftazidime in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Nov;32 (Suppl B):175–186. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.suppl_b.175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoepelman I. M., Rozenberg-Arska M., Verhoef J. Comparison of once daily ceftriaxone with gentamicin plus cefuroxime for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Lancet. 1988 Jun 11;1(8598):1305–1309. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92121-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacoby G. A., Sutton L. beta-Lactamases and beta-lactam resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Nov;28(5):703–705. doi: 10.1128/aac.28.5.703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kessler R. E., Bies M., Buck R. E., Chisholm D. R., Pursiano T. A., Tsai Y. H., Misiek M., Price K. E., Leitner F. Comparison of a new cephalosporin, BMY 28142, with other broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Feb;27(2):207–216. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.2.207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim K. S., Bayer A. S. Efficacy of BMY-28142 in experimental bacteremia and meningitis caused by Escherichia coli and group B streptococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Jul;28(1):51–54. doi: 10.1128/aac.28.1.51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Knaus W. A., Draper E. A., Wagner D. P., Zimmerman J. E. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818–829. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Meyer R. D. Risk factors and comparisons of clinical nephrotoxicity of aminoglycosides. Am J Med. 1986 Jun 30;80(6B):119–125. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90489-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Neu H. C., Chin N. X., Jules K., Labthavikul P. The activity of BMY 28142 a new broad spectrum beta-lactamase stable cephalosporin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1986 Apr;17(4):441–452. doi: 10.1093/jac/17.4.441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Oster S., Edelstein H., Cassano K., McCabe R. Open trial of cefepime (BMY 28142) for infections in hospitalized patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jun;34(6):954–957. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.6.954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Phelps D. J., Carlton D. D., Farrell C. A., Kessler R. E. Affinity of cephalosporins for beta-lactamases as a factor in antibacterial efficacy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 May;29(5):845–848. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.5.845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Pizzo P. A., Hathorn J. W., Hiemenz J., Browne M., Commers J., Cotton D., Gress J., Longo D., Marshall D., McKnight J. A randomized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 1986 Aug 28;315(9):552–558. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198608283150905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith C. R., Ambinder R., Lipsky J. J., Petty B. G., Israel E., Levitt R., Mellits E. D., Rocco L., Longstreth J., Lietman P. S. Cefotaxime compared with nafcillin plus tobramycin for serious bacterial infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984 Oct;101(4):469–477. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-101-4-469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tsuji A., Maniatis A., Bertram M. A., Young L. S. In vitro activity of BMY-28142 in comparison with those of other beta-lactam antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Apr;27(4):515–519. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.4.515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Täuber M. G., Hackbarth C. J., Scott K. G., Rusnak M. G., Sande M. A. New cephalosporins cefotaxime, cefpimizole, BMY 28142, and HR 810 in experimental pneumococcal meningitis in rabbits. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Mar;27(3):340–342. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.3.340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Vuye A., Pijck J. In vitro antibacterial activity of BMY-28142, a new extended-spectrum cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Apr;27(4):574–577. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.4.574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES