Laporte-Amargos Julia, Carmona-Torre Francisco, Huguet Maria, Puerta-Alcalde Pedro, Rigo-Bonnin Raul, Ulldemolins Marta, Arnan Montserrat, Del Pozo Jose Luis, Torrent Anna, Garcia-Vidal Carolina, Pallarès Natàlia, Tebé Cristian, Muñoz Carme, Tubau Fe, Padullés Ariadna, Sureda Ana-Maria, Carratalà Jordi, Gudiol Carlota
Department of Infectious Diseases, Bellvitge University Hospital, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Department of Infectious Diseases, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Navarra Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2025 Feb;31(2):211-219. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.10.006. Epub 2024 Oct 19.
The efficacy of extended infusions (EI) of β-lactam antibiotics for optimising outcomes in febrile neutropenia is unclear. We assessed whether the administration of β-lactams was more effective in EI than in intermittent infusion (II) for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.
We performed a randomized, open-label, superiority clinical trial of patients with febrile neutropenia at four Spanish university hospitals. Patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation or with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy who required empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive EI of β-lactam or II after a first dose in bolus. The choice of antipseudomonal β-lactam was left to the discretion of the attending physician. The primary endpoint was treatment success at day 5, defined as defervescence without modifying the antibiotic treatment. Secondary endpoints included adverse events, attainment of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of 50%, 75%, and 100%ƒT , and 30-day mortality.
From November 19, 2019 to June 22, 2022, 295 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 150 were randomly assigned to receive EI (n = 77) or II (n = 73) of the antipseudomonal β-lactam of choice. In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment success at day 5 was achieved in 39/77 patients (50.6%) receiving EI versus 46/73 patients (63.0%) receiving II (risk difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -29.4 to 4.7; p 0.17). The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets of 75% and 100% ƒT for empirical treatment were achieved more frequently in the EI group. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of adverse events or 30-day mortality.
Our findings do not support the routine use of empirical EI of β-lactams in febrile neutropenia. Further studies should consider the clinical heterogeneity of febrile neutropenia and focus on patients with sepsis or septic shock and microbiologically documented infections, particularly those with infections caused by microorganisms less susceptible to β-lactams.
β-内酰胺类抗生素延长输注(EI)对优化发热性中性粒细胞减少症的治疗效果尚不清楚。我们评估了β-内酰胺类药物在治疗发热性中性粒细胞减少症时,延长输注是否比间歇输注(II)更有效。
我们在四家西班牙大学医院对发热性中性粒细胞减少症患者进行了一项随机、开放标签的优效性临床试验。接受造血干细胞移植或患有急性白血病且正在接受化疗的患者,若因发热性中性粒细胞减少症需要经验性抗生素治疗,则在首剂静脉推注后随机分配(1:1)接受β-内酰胺类药物的延长输注或间歇输注。抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物的选择由主治医师自行决定。主要终点是第5天的治疗成功,定义为体温消退且不改变抗生素治疗方案。次要终点包括不良事件、达到50%、75%和100%ƒT的药代动力学/药效学目标以及30天死亡率。
从2019年11月19日至2022年6月22日,对295例患者进行了资格筛查,其中150例被随机分配接受所选抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物的延长输注(n = 77)或间歇输注(n = 73)。在意向性分析中,接受延长输注的77例患者中有39例(50.6%)在第5天治疗成功,而接受间歇输注的73例患者中有46例(63.0%)治疗成功(风险差异,-12.4%;95%CI,-29.4至4.7;p = 0.17)。延长输注组更频繁地达到经验性治疗的75%和100%ƒT的药代动力学/药效学目标。两组在不良事件或30天死亡率方面未发现统计学显著差异。
我们的研究结果不支持在发热性中性粒细胞减少症中常规使用β-内酰胺类药物的经验性延长输注。进一步的研究应考虑发热性中性粒细胞减少症的临床异质性,并关注患有脓毒症或脓毒性休克以及有微生物学记录感染的患者,特别是那些由对β-内酰胺类药物敏感性较低的微生物引起感染的患者。