Summary
The objective of the presented, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of antimicrobial monotherapy with imipenem (3×0.5g/d) to a combination therapy with cefotaxime (3×2g/d) plus piperacillin (3×4g/d) for empirical treatment of infections in neutropenic patients. In 165 patients, 237 infectious episodes were evaluable. The overall response rate of patients treated with cefotaxime plus piperacillin was 67/115 (58%), of those treated with impienem 66/122 (54%). In patients not responding to the initial therapy regimen within 2 or 3 days, the antimicrobial therapy was modified. After therapy modification 85/100 patients were cured. Fever of unknown origin (FUO) showed the most favourable course compared to other infection types, with a response in 46/59 (78%) and in 35/50 (70%) cases, respectively. In comparison, pneumonias were successfully treated in only 3/21 (14%) and 7/37 (19%) cases. Even including patients with modified therapy, only 66% (21/32) of pneumonia episodes responded. The unfavourable results in pneumonias is mainly due to the high rate of 13 systemic mycoses in this group (22%). Overall, a similar response was observed in patients treated with cefotaxime plus piperacillin in comparison with imipenem. In primary bacteremias however, an advantage was observed in patients treated with imipenem (20/27; 74%) compared with cefotaxime plus piperacillin (11/23; 48%).
Keywords: Cefotaxime, Imipenem, Initial Therapy, Piperacillin, Neutropenic Patient
Zusammenfassung
Ziel der vorliegenden prospektiven, randomisierten Studie war der Vergleich der Effektivität einer Monotherapie mit Imipenem (3×0,5g/Tag) gegenüber einer Kombinationstherapie mit Cefotaxim (3×2g/Tag) plus Piperacillin (3×4g/Tag) in der Initialtherapie von Infektionen granulozytopenischer Patienten. 237 Infektionsepisoden bei 165 Patienten waren evaluierbar. Insgesamt wurde unter Cefotaxim plus Piperacillin eine Heilung in 67/115 (58%), unter Imipenem in 66/122 Episoden (54%) erzielt. Bei Nichtansprechen innerhalb von drei Tagen unter der Initialtherapie wurde die antibiotische Behandlung modifiziert. Hierdurch wurde bei weiteren 85/100 Patienten eine Heilung erreicht. Unter den verschiedenen Infektionstypen war die Ansprechrate bei Fieber unklarer Genese (FUO) am höchsten mit einem Therapieerfolg in 46/59 Episoden unter Cefotaxim plus Piperacillin (78%) sowie in 35/50 Fällen unter Imipenem (70%). Besonders ungünstig verliefen dagegen die Pneumonien mit einem Ansprechen in 3/21 (14%) bzw. in 7/37 (19%) der Fälle. Auch unter Therapiemodifikation ergab sich hier eine Ansprechrate von insgesamt lediglich 66% (21/32). Die ungünstigsten Ergebnisse bei diesem Infektionstyp sind hauptsächlich durch den hohen Anteil von 13 systemischen Pilzinfektionen bei den Pneumonien (22%) bedingt. Insgesamt zeigten sich keine signifikanten Unterschiede in der Ansprechrate unter Cefotaxim plus Piperacillin im Vergleich zu Imipenem. Bei den primären Bakteriämien zeigte sich jedoch eine höhere Ausheilungsrate unter Imipenem mit 20/27 Episoden (74%) im Vergleich zu Cefotaxim plus Piperacillin mit 11/23 (48%) Episoden.
References
- 1.Bodey G. P. Infection in cancer patients. Am. J. Med. 1986;81(Suppl. 1A):11–26. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90510-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pizzo P. A., Commers J., Cotton D., Gress J., Hathorn J., Hiemenz J., Longo D., Marshall D., Robichaud K. J. Approaching the controversies in antibacterial management of cancer patients. Am. J. Med. 1984;76:436–449. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90663-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Anaissie E. J., Fainstein V., Bodey G. P., Rolston K., Elting L., Kantarjian H., Cabanillas F., Mc Credie K. B. Randomized trial of beta-lactam regimens in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Am. J. Med. 1988;84:581–589. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90140-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hughes W. T., Armstrong D., Bodey G. P., Feld R., Mandell G. L., Meyers J. D., Pizzo P. A., Schimpff S. C., Shenep J. L., Wade J. C., Young L. S., Yow M. D. Guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. J. Infect. Dis. 1990;161:381–396. doi: 10.1093/infdis/161.3.381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Klastersky J., Zinner S. H., Calandra T., Gaya H., Glauser M. P., Meunier F., Rossi M., Schimpff S. C., Tattersall M., Viscoli C. Empiric antimicrobial therapy for febrile granulocytopenic cancer patients: lessons from four EORTC trials. Eur. J. Cancer. Clin. Oncol. 1988;24(Suppl. 1):35–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Maschmeyer G., Link H., Hiddemann W., Meyer P., Helmerking M., Eisenmann E., Schmitt J., Adam D. Empirische antimikrobielle Therapie bei neutropenischen Patienten. Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Studie der Arbeitsgruppe Infektionen in der Hämatologie der Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft. Med. Klin. 1994;3:114–123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shenep J. L., Hughes W. T., Roberson P. K., Blankenship K. R., Baker D. K., Meyer W. H., Gigliotti F., Sixbey J. W., Santana V. M., Feldmann S., Lott L. Vancomycin, ticarcillin and amikacin compared with ticarcillin-clavulanate and amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic children with cancer. NEJM. 1988;16:1053–1058. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198810203191604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bayston K. F., Want S., Cohen J. A prospective, randomized comparison of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric therapy in neutropenic patients with fever. Am. J. Med. 1989;87(Suppl. 5A):269–273. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(89)90078-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cornelissen J. J., De Graeff A., Verdonck L.F., Branger T., Rozenberg-Arska M., Verhoef J., Dekker A. W. Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1992;4:801–807. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.4.801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fainstein V., Bodey G. P., Elting L., Bolivar R., Keating M. J., McCredie K. B., Valdivieso M. A randomized study of ceftazidime compared to ceftazidime and tobramycin for the treatment of infections in cancer patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1983;12(Suppl. A):101–110. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_a.101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Liang R., Yung R., Chiu E., Chau P.-Y., Chan T.-K., Lam W.-K., Todd D. Ceftazidime versus imipenem-cilastatin as initial monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1990;7:1336–1341. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.7.1336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Norrby S. R., Finch R. G., Glauser M. Monotherapy in serious hospital-acquired infections: a clinical trial of ceftazidime versus imipenem/cilastatin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1993;31:927–937. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.6.927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Norrby S. R., Vandercam B., Louie T., Runde V., Norberg B., Anniko M., Anfrien F., Baudrihaye M., Bow E., Burman A., Bury J., Ezzedine H., Gigi J., Granlund M., Holm J., Lundberg S., Michaux J.-L., Le Saux N., Wahlin A., Zakrisson E. Imipenem/cilastatin versus amikacin plus piperacillin in the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective, randomized multi-clinic study. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 1987;52(Suppl.):65–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pizzo P. A. Management of fever in patients with cancer and treatment-induced neutropenia. NEJM. 1993;18:1323–1332. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199305063281808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Pizzo P. A., Hathorn J. W., Hiemenz J., Browne M., Commers J., Cotton D., Gress J., Longo D., Marshall D., McKnight J., Rubin M., Skelton J., Thaler M., Wesley R. A randomized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. NEJM. 1986;9:552–558. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198608283150905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wade J. C., Johnson D., Bustamante C. I. Monotherapy for empiric treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Am. J. Med. 1986;80(Suppl. 5C):85–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Winston D. J., Ho W. G., Bruckner D. A., Champlin R. E. Betalactam antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients: a randomized trial comparing cefoperazone plus piperacillin, ceftazidime plus piperacillin, and imipenem alone. Ann. Int. Med. 1991;115:849–859. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-11-849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shah P. M. Resistenzsituation im klinischen Alltag. Arzneimittel-therapie. 1992;3:94–95. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shah P. M., Asanger R., Kahan F. M. Incidence of multi-resistance in gram-negative aerobes from intensive care units of 10 German hospitals. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 1991;78(Suppl.):22–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Walther F., Fischer M., Shah P. M. Therapie von Infektionen bei abwehrgeschwächten Patienten mit Imipenem/Cilastatin. MMW. 1989;130:366–368. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Böhme, A., Just, G., Bergmann, L., Shah, P., Hoelzer, D., Stille, W.: Cefotaxime/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin for initial antimicrobial therapy and early treatment with itraconazole in febrile neutropenic patients. Ann. Hematol. 67 (Suppl.) (1993) abstr. no. 46, A12.
- 22.Roos N., Fahrenkamp A., v. Eiff M., Diederich S., Bömmelburg T., Ritter J., Fegeler W., Peters P. E. Diagnostische Validität bildgebender Verfahren bei Detektion und Verlaufsbeobachtung des gefäßinvasiven Aspergillus-Befalls der Lunge. Mycoses. 1991;34(Suppl. 1):37–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dofferhoff A. S., Nijland J. H., de Vries-Hospers H. G., Mulder P. O., Weits J., Bom V. J. Effects of different types and combinations of antimicrobial agents on endotoxin release from gram-negative bacteria: anin-vitro andin-vivo study. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 1991;6:745–754. doi: 10.3109/00365549109024303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Meyer P., Adam D., Hiddemann W., Link H., Maschmeyer G., Helmerking M. Interventionstherapie von Infektionen und Fieber unklarer Genese bei neutropenischen Patienten mit malignen hämatologischen Grunderkrankungen. ZAC. 1992;1:1–27. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Silling-Engelhardt, G., Fegeler, W., Roos, N., Schwarz, C., Essink, M., Hiddemann, W., Büchner, Th.: Interventional treatment of unexplained fever (FUO) and documented infections in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies: fluconazole versus ampho B/5-FC. Ann. Hematol. 64 (Suppl.) (1992) abstr. no. 147, A110.
- 26.Kern W., Kurrle E., Schmeiser T. Streptococcal bacteremia in adult patient with leukemia undergoing aggressive chemotherapy. A review of 55 Cases. Infection. 1990;18:138–145. doi: 10.1007/BF01642101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Karp J. E., Dick J. D., Angelopulos C., Charache P., Green L., Burke P. J., Saral R. Empiric use of vancomycin during prolonged treatment-induced granulocytopenia. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with acute leukemia. Am. J. Med. 1986;81:237–242. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90257-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Matsumoto M., Matsubara S., Matsuno T., Ono M., Yokota T. Protective effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) against various microbial infections in neutropenic mice. Microbiol. Immun. 1990;34:765–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.1990.tb01054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ottmann O. G., Hoelzer D., Gracien E., Kelly K., Ganser A., Reutzel R., Lipp T., Busch F. W., Schwonzen M., Wandt H., Heil G., Koch P., Heyll A., Meyer P., Bentz M., Peter S., Diedrich H., Kolbe K., Graf M. Simultaneous r-metHuG-CSF and chemoradiotherapy during induction treatment in adult ALL: a randomized trial. Br. J. Haematol. 1994;87(Suppl. 1):17. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Polak-Wyss A. Protective effect of human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (hG-CSF) on cryptococcus and aspergillus infections in normal and immunosuppressed mice. Mycoses. 1991;34:205–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.1991.tb00645.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
