Suppr超能文献

环丙沙星联合哌拉西林与妥布霉素联合哌拉西林作为发热性中性粒细胞减少患者经验性治疗的比较。一项随机双盲试验。

Ciprofloxacin plus piperacillin compared with tobramycin plus piperacillin as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. A randomized, double-blind trial.

作者信息

Peacock James E, Herrington Deirdre A, Wade James C, Lazarus Hillard M, Reed Michael D, Sinclair Jane W, Haverstock Daniel C, Kowalsky Steven F, Hurd David D, Cushing Deborah A, Harman Colleen P, Donowitz Gerald R

机构信息

Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1042, USA.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jul 16;137(2):77-87. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00005.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Therapy with an aminoglycoside and a beta-lactam remains common empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Concerns of aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity have led to studies of alternate regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether ciprofloxacin-piperacillin is equivalent to tobramycin-piperacillin as empirical therapy for neutropenic fever.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind multicenter trial.

SETTING

Seven U.S. university-affiliated hospitals and one private research center.

PATIENTS

Febrile (temperature >/= 38 degrees C), neutropenic (neutrophil level < 1 x 10(9) cells/L) hospitalized patients who had leukemia, lymphoma, or solid tumors, or were undergoing bone marrow transplantation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received piperacillin, 50 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 4 hours, and ciprofloxacin, 400 mg intravenously every 8 hours, or tobramycin, 2 mg/kg intravenously every 8 hours.

MEASUREMENTS

Success was defined as resolution of infection and previously positive cultures without the need to give additional antimicrobial agents.

RESULTS

543 febrile episodes were evaluated, of which 471 were clinically evaluable (234 in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group and 237 in the tobramycin-piperacillin group). Success rates in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group (63 of 234 febrile episodes) and tobramycin-piperacillin group (52 of 237 episodes) were similar (27% vs. 22%, respectively; difference, 5.0 percentage points [95% CI, -2.3 to 12.8 percentage points]), as was survival (96.2% of patients receiving ciprofloxacin-piperacillin versus 94.1% of patients receiving tobramycin-piperacillin; difference, 2.1 percentage points [CI, -2.2 to 6.4 percentage points]). Additions to the initial antimicrobial regimen were the most common reason for treatment failure in both groups (accounting for 67% of failures in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group and 72% in the tobramycin-piperacillin group; difference, 5.0 percentage points [CI, -13.8 to 3.7 percentage points]). Fevers resolved faster in patients receiving ciprofloxacin-piperacillin than in patients receiving tobramycin-piperacillin (mean, 5 vs. 6 days) (P = 0.005). No significant differences in adverse events or toxicity were noted (P = 0.083).

CONCLUSION

Ciprofloxacin-piperacillin is as safe and effective as tobramycin-piperacillin for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever.

摘要

背景

氨基糖苷类药物联合β-内酰胺类药物治疗仍是发热性中性粒细胞减少患者常见的经验性治疗方法。对氨基糖苷类药物所致耳毒性和肾毒性的担忧促使人们对替代方案进行研究。

目的

确定环丙沙星-哌拉西林作为中性粒细胞减少发热的经验性治疗方案是否等同于妥布霉素-哌拉西林。

设计

随机、双盲多中心试验。

地点

7家美国大学附属医院和1家私立研究中心。

患者

发热(体温≥38℃)、中性粒细胞减少(中性粒细胞水平<1×10⁹个细胞/L)的住院患者,包括患有白血病、淋巴瘤或实体瘤者,或正在接受骨髓移植者。

干预措施

患者接受哌拉西林,每4小时静脉注射50mg/kg体重,以及环丙沙星,每8小时静脉注射400mg,或妥布霉素,每8小时静脉注射2mg/kg。

测量指标

治疗成功定义为感染消退且先前阳性的培养结果转阴,无需使用其他抗菌药物。

结果

共评估了543次发热发作,其中471次可进行临床评估(环丙沙星-哌拉西林组234次,妥布霉素-哌拉西林组237次)。环丙沙星-哌拉西林组(234次发热发作中的63次)和妥布霉素-哌拉西林组(237次发作中的52次)的成功率相似(分别为27%和22%;差异为5.0个百分点[95%CI,-​2.3至12.8个百分点]),生存率也相似(接受环丙沙星-哌拉西林治疗的患者为96.2%,接受妥布霉素-哌拉西林治疗的患者为94.1%;差异为2.1个百分点[CI,-​2.2至6.4个百分点])。在初始抗菌治疗方案中增加药物是两组治疗失败的最常见原因(环丙沙星-哌拉西林组失败病例的67%,妥布霉素-哌拉西林组的72%;差异为5.0个百分点[CI,-​13.8至3.7个百分点])。接受环丙沙星-哌拉西林治疗的患者发热消退速度比接受妥布霉素-哌拉西林治疗的患者更快(平均分别为5天和6天)(P=0.005)。未观察到不良事件或毒性方面的显著差异(P=0.083)。

结论

环丙沙星-哌拉西林作为中性粒细胞减少发热的经验性治疗方案与妥布霉素-哌拉西林一样安全有效。

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