Suppr超能文献

癌症患者发热发作的家庭治疗:一项比较口服与胃肠外经验性抗生素治疗的前瞻性随机试验。

Domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial comparing oral versus parenteral empirical antibiotic treatment.

作者信息

Minotti V, Gentile G, Bucaneve G, Iori A P, Micozzi A, Cavicchi F, Barbabietola G, Landonio G, Menichetti F, Martino P, Del Favero A

机构信息

Division of Medical Oncology, Policlinico, Perugia, Italy.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 1999 May;7(3):134-9. doi: 10.1007/s005200050243.

Abstract

Hospitalization and empirical broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics are the standard treatment for febrile cancer patients. Recent evidence supports the suggestion that febrile episodes in a low-risk population can be managed successfully in an outpatient setting, but the optimal drug regimen is unknown. In a prospective randomized clinical trial we compared ciprofloxacin 750 mg p.o. twice a day with ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. as a single daily dose for the empiric domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic and nonneutropenic cancer patients. A total of 173 patients, accounting for 183 febrile episodes, were enrolled in the study. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 76 of 93 (82%) febrile episodes in patients who were randomized to the oral regimen and for 68 of 90 (75%) febrile episodes in patients randomized to the i.v. regimen: this difference was not statistically significant. The success rate was similar in all subgroups of patients: neutropenic and nonneutropenic, with documented infection and with fever of unknown origin. There were 3 deaths in the group of patients treated with the parenteral regimen, and two of these were related to treatment failure. Both treatments were well tolerated, and the cost of the oral regimen was lower. This prospective study suggests that domiciliary antibiotic empiric monotherapy is feasible in febrile nonneutropenic or low-risk neutropenic outpatients in whom a bacterial infection is suspected, and that either an oral or a parenteral regimen can be used. A number of factors may influence the choice between an orally and an i.v.-administered antibiotic, but owing to the easier administration and lower cost, the oral regimen seems to be preferable.

摘要

住院治疗并使用经验性广谱静脉抗生素是发热癌症患者的标准治疗方法。最近的证据支持这样的建议,即低风险人群中的发热发作可以在门诊环境中成功处理,但最佳药物治疗方案尚不清楚。在一项前瞻性随机临床试验中,我们比较了口服环丙沙星750毫克,每日两次与静脉注射头孢曲松2克,每日一次,用于低风险中性粒细胞减少和非中性粒细胞减少癌症患者发热发作的经验性居家治疗。共有173名患者(涉及183次发热发作)纳入了该研究。总体而言,随机接受口服治疗方案的患者的93次发热发作中有76次(82%)记录为成功结果,随机接受静脉治疗方案的患者的90次发热发作中有68次(75%)记录为成功结果:这种差异无统计学意义。在所有患者亚组中成功率相似:中性粒细胞减少和非中性粒细胞减少、有记录感染和不明原因发热的患者。接受胃肠外治疗方案的患者组中有3例死亡,其中2例与治疗失败有关。两种治疗耐受性均良好,口服治疗方案的成本较低。这项前瞻性研究表明,对于疑似细菌感染的发热非中性粒细胞减少或低风险中性粒细胞减少门诊患者,居家抗生素经验性单药治疗是可行的,并且可以使用口服或胃肠外治疗方案。许多因素可能会影响口服和静脉注射抗生素之间的选择,但由于给药更简便且成本更低,口服治疗方案似乎更可取。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验