Freifeld A G, Walsh T, Marshall D, Gress J, Steinberg S M, Hathorn J, Rubin M, Jarosinski P, Gill V, Young R C
Pediatric Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jan;13(1):165-76. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.1.165.
To compare the efficacy of ceftazidime and imipenem monotherapy for fever and neutropenia, and to determine whether fewer antimicrobial modifications (additions or changes) are required by the broader-spectrum agent, imipenem.
Adult and pediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors, leukemias, or lymphomas were randomized to receive open-label ceftazidime or imipenem on presentation with fever and neutropenia. Success with or without modifications of the initial antibiotic was defined as survival through neutropenia; failure was death due to infection. Comparisons were based on numbers of modifications made to each monotherapy during the course of neutropenia, in patients stratified as having unexplained fever or a documented infection.
Among 204 ceftazidime and 195 imipenem recipients, the overall success rate with or without modification was more than 98%, regardless of initial antibiotic regimen. Modifications occurred in half of all episodes, primarily in patients with documented infections on either monotherapy. Antianaerobic agents were more frequently added to ceftazidime (P < .001), but addition of other antibiotics, including vancomycin and aminoglycosides, was similar between the two monotherapy groups. Imipenem therapy was associated with significantly greater toxicity, manifested by Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and by nausea and vomiting, which required discontinuation of imipenem in 10% of recipients.
Ceftazidime and imipenem are both effective in the management of fever and chemotherapy-related neutropenia, provided that modifications are made in response to clinical and microbiologic data that emerge during the course of neutropenia. Imipenem, despite its broader antimicrobial spectrum, does not significantly decrease the overall need for antibiotic modifications and is more often complicated by gastrointestinal toxicity.
比较头孢他啶和亚胺培南单药治疗发热伴中性粒细胞减少症的疗效,并确定广谱抗菌药物亚胺培南是否需要更少的抗菌药物调整(添加或更换)。
接受实体瘤、白血病或淋巴瘤化疗的成人及儿童患者,在出现发热伴中性粒细胞减少症时,随机接受开放标签的头孢他啶或亚胺培南治疗。初始抗生素治疗成功与否定义为度过中性粒细胞减少期存活;失败则为死于感染。比较基于中性粒细胞减少期内每种单药治疗的调整次数,患者分为不明原因发热或有明确感染记录。
在204例接受头孢他啶治疗和195例接受亚胺培南治疗的患者中,无论初始抗生素方案如何,调整与否的总体成功率均超过98%。所有病例中有一半发生了调整,主要发生在单药治疗有明确感染记录的患者中。头孢他啶更常添加抗厌氧菌药物(P <.001),但添加其他抗生素,包括万古霉素和氨基糖苷类,在两个单药治疗组中相似。亚胺培南治疗的毒性明显更大,表现为难辨梭菌相关性腹泻以及恶心和呕吐,10%的接受者因这些症状需要停用亚胺培南。
头孢他啶和亚胺培南在治疗发热及化疗相关中性粒细胞减少症方面均有效,前提是根据中性粒细胞减少期出现的临床和微生物学数据进行调整。亚胺培南尽管抗菌谱更广,但并未显著减少抗生素调整的总体需求,且更常伴有胃肠道毒性。