{"title":"Monotherapy for empirical management of febrile neutropenic patients.","authors":"M Rubin, P A Pizzo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>New fever in a neutropenic patient mandates prompt institution of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics. Traditional empirical regimens have relied on combinations that include an aminoglycoside. However, certain classes of newer antibiotics (e.g., third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, quinolones) include agents with a broad spectrum and high bactericidal activity that may provide therapeutic alternatives to combination regimens. We previously compared empirical monotherapy with ceftazidime to a combination regimen of cephalothin, gentamicin, and carbenicillin and found the regimens comparable with respect to percentage with success (survival without change of initial regimen; 62% vs 67%), success with modification (survival with additional antibiotics; 33% vs 29%) and failure (death; 5% vs 4%). Imipenem has a broader in vitro spectrum of activity than ceftazidime, particularly against gram-positive organisms and anaerobes, raising the possibility of equivalent or even improved efficacy as monotherapy. Accordingly, we are prospectively randomizing febrile, neutropenic patients to either empirical ceftazidime or imipenem therapy. Imipenem appears to be comparable to ceftazidime in this ongoing study but has not resulted in fewer modifications or secondary infections. Studies assessing the role of quinolones in the management of neutropenic patients are under way.</p>","PeriodicalId":77576,"journal":{"name":"NCI monographs : a publication of the National Cancer Institute","volume":" 9","pages":"111-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NCI monographs : a publication of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
New fever in a neutropenic patient mandates prompt institution of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics. Traditional empirical regimens have relied on combinations that include an aminoglycoside. However, certain classes of newer antibiotics (e.g., third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, quinolones) include agents with a broad spectrum and high bactericidal activity that may provide therapeutic alternatives to combination regimens. We previously compared empirical monotherapy with ceftazidime to a combination regimen of cephalothin, gentamicin, and carbenicillin and found the regimens comparable with respect to percentage with success (survival without change of initial regimen; 62% vs 67%), success with modification (survival with additional antibiotics; 33% vs 29%) and failure (death; 5% vs 4%). Imipenem has a broader in vitro spectrum of activity than ceftazidime, particularly against gram-positive organisms and anaerobes, raising the possibility of equivalent or even improved efficacy as monotherapy. Accordingly, we are prospectively randomizing febrile, neutropenic patients to either empirical ceftazidime or imipenem therapy. Imipenem appears to be comparable to ceftazidime in this ongoing study but has not resulted in fewer modifications or secondary infections. Studies assessing the role of quinolones in the management of neutropenic patients are under way.
中性粒细胞减少患者的新发热要求迅速建立经验性广谱抗生素。传统的经验性方案依赖于包括氨基糖苷的组合。然而,某些类别的新型抗生素(例如,第三代头孢菌素、碳青霉烯类、喹诺酮类)包括具有广谱和高杀菌活性的药物,可能为联合方案提供治疗选择。我们之前比较了头孢他啶的经验单药治疗与头孢噻吩、庆大霉素和卡比西林的联合治疗方案,发现两种方案在成功率方面具有可比性(未改变初始方案的生存;62% vs 67%),改良的成功(使用额外抗生素的生存;33% vs 29%)和失败(死亡;5% vs . 4%)。亚胺培南比头孢他啶具有更广泛的体外活性谱,特别是针对革兰氏阳性菌和厌氧菌,这提高了与单一疗法相当甚至提高疗效的可能性。因此,我们前瞻性地随机分配发热、中性粒细胞减少的患者到经验头孢他啶或亚胺培南治疗。在这项正在进行的研究中,亚胺培南似乎与头孢他啶相当,但并没有导致更少的修饰或继发性感染。评估喹诺酮类药物在治疗中性粒细胞减少症患者中的作用的研究正在进行中。