0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Articles |

Ceftazidime Compared with Piperacillin and Tobramycin for the Empiric Treatment of Fever in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Ben E. De Pauw, MD, PhD; Stanley C. Deresinski, MD; Ronald Feld, MD; Elizabeth F. Lane-Allman, CBiol; and J. Peter Donnelly, MBiol, PhD
[+] Article and Author Information

For participating investigators and institutions, committee members, and current author addresses, see Appendix 1, Appendix 2, and end of text. For The Intercontinental Antimicrobial Study Group. Requests for Reprints: Ben E. De Pauw, MD, PhD, Division of Hematology, University Hospital St. Radboud, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Grant Support: Glaxo Group Research, Ltd., Greenford, Middlesex, United Kingdom, and its local subsidiaries financed the collection of data or supplied the study drugs free of charge.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(10):834-844. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-120-10-199405150-00004
Text Size: A A A

Objective: To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenic patient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections.

Design: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Patients: 876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation.

Interventions: Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses) plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator.

Measurements: Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events.

Results: As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; CI, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; CI, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; CI, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Kaplan-Meier plot of the time to first modification.P

The plots are effectively superimposed ( > 0.2).

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3.
Cumulative rate of defervescence.P

Only around one third of patients had become afebrile by day 3 of treatment, whereas rates of defervescence were virtually identical ( > 0.2).

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4.
Comparison of satisfactory responses among the different regions.

Odds ratios are shown together with their 95% CIs, indicating that neither regimen was favored.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)