Suppr超能文献

在发热性中性粒细胞减少患者中,将亚胺培南与头孢他啶联用或不联用阿米卡星作为经验性治疗的比较。

A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

作者信息

Rolston K V, Berkey P, Bodey G P, Anaissie E J, Khardori N M, Joshi J H, Keating M J, Holmes F A, Cabanillas F F, Elting L

机构信息

Department of Medical Specialties, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 1992 Feb;152(2):283-91.

PMID:1739355
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Neutropenic patients with cancer are traditionally treated with empiric antibiotic combinations when they become febrile. The availability of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ceftazidime and imipenem has made it possible to initiate therapy with a single agent (monotherapy). The objectives of this trial were to compare ceftazidime and imipenem as single agents for the therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients and to ascertain whether the addition of an aminoglycoside (amikacin) to either of these agents would provide an advantage.

METHODS

A prospective clinical trial was conducted in which eligible neutropenic patients with cancer were randomized to one of four treatment arms: ceftazidime alone; imipenem alone; ceftazidime plus amikacin; and imipenem plus amikacin. Efficacy analysis was done for 750 assessable episodes. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was also performed to examine the unique contribution of various prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The overall response rates were 76% with imipenem plus amikacin, 72% with imipenem, 71% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 59% with ceftazidime alone. Single-organism gram-positive infections occurred in 101 of 750 episodes. Without a change in antibiotics, the response rates were 50% with imipenem, 40% with imipenem plus amikacin, 39% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 38% with ceftazidime. Most responded to vancomycin or other antibiotics, and the mortality associated with gram-positive infections was only 5%. Regardless of the antibiotic regimen, the majority of uncomplicated gram-negative infections responded to therapy and the majority of complicated gram-negative infections failed to respond. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis showed that recovery of the neutrophil count was the most favorable prognostic factor in a patient's response to infection, whereas the presence of gram-positive infection, acute leukemia, pulmonary or enteric infection, and therapy with ceftazidime were unfavorable factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-agent therapy with imipenem is as effective as more conventional combination antibiotic therapy for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer.

摘要

背景

癌症中性粒细胞减少的患者发热时,传统上采用经验性抗生素联合治疗。头孢他啶和亚胺培南等广谱抗生素的出现使得采用单一药物(单药治疗)开始治疗成为可能。本试验的目的是比较头孢他啶和亚胺培南作为单药治疗中性粒细胞减少患者发热发作的疗效,并确定在这两种药物中添加一种氨基糖苷类药物(阿米卡星)是否会带来优势。

方法

进行了一项前瞻性临床试验,符合条件的癌症中性粒细胞减少患者被随机分配到四个治疗组之一:单独使用头孢他啶;单独使用亚胺培南;头孢他啶加阿米卡星;亚胺培南加阿米卡星。对750例可评估的发作进行了疗效分析。还进行了多因素逻辑回归分析,以检验各种预后因素的独特作用。

结果

亚胺培南加阿米卡星的总体缓解率为76%,亚胺培南为72%,头孢他啶加阿米卡星为71%,单独使用头孢他啶为59%。750例发作中有101例为单一微生物革兰氏阳性感染。在未更换抗生素的情况下,亚胺培南的缓解率为50%,亚胺培南加阿米卡星为40%,头孢他啶加阿米卡星为39%,头孢他啶为38%。大多数患者对万古霉素或其他抗生素有反应,与革兰氏阳性感染相关的死亡率仅为5%。无论采用何种抗生素方案,大多数非复杂性革兰氏阴性感染对治疗有反应,而大多数复杂性革兰氏阴性感染无反应。多因素逻辑回归分析表明,中性粒细胞计数的恢复是患者对感染反应中最有利的预后因素,而革兰氏阳性感染、急性白血病、肺部或肠道感染以及使用头孢他啶治疗则是不利因素。

结论

对于癌症中性粒细胞减少患者发热发作的经验性治疗,亚胺培南单药治疗与更传统的联合抗生素治疗同样有效。

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