Sharifi R, Geckler R, Childs S
University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago 60612, USA.
Am J Med. 1996 Jun 24;100(6A):76S-82S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00112-x.
Clinical and in vitro data indicate that cefepime, a fourth-generation cephalosporin, may be a valuable addition in the treatment of serious infections. In this study, hospitalized patients with complicated and uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), for which parenteral therapy was appropriate, were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio open, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime. A total of 180 patients, including 6 with concurrent bacteremia, were evaluated for their response to cefepime (n = 118) or ceftazidime (n = 62), both of which were administered by intravenous infusion or intramuscular injection in doses of 500 mg every 12 hours. In cases of complicated UTI, cefepime produced a satisfactory clinical response in 83 of 93 (89%) patients and eradicated 83 of 98 (85%) pathogens. A satisfactory clinical response to ceftazidime was experienced by 43 of 50 (86%) patients; and in 39 of 50 (78%) cases pathogens were eradicated. In uncomplicated cases, the clinical response and bacterial eradication rates for cefepime were 23 of 25 (92%) and 22 of 26 (85%), respectively, and for ceftazidime 12 of 12 (100%) and 11 of 12 (92%). Of the 6 patients with concomitant bacteremia, 5 received cefepime and 1, ceftazidime. The infecting organisms, Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis, were eradicated in all cases, although one cefepime-treated patient had an unsatisfactory clinical response. The most common adverse events in both groups were headache, diarrhea, and vomiting; most events were unrelated to therapy. Adverse events forced only a 2% withdrawal of patients in either group. There was local tolerance to both agents, and abnormalities in laboratory values were judged to be clinically insignificant. The results of this study indicate that cefepime can be used safely and successfully to treat both complicated and uncomplicated nosocomial infection of the urinary tract, including cases associated with concurrent bacteremia. Moreover, its safety profile appears comparable to those of other cephalosporins, and local tolerance is similar to that of ceftazidime. No patient in either group required discontinuation of therapy because of local intolerance at the infusion or injection site.
