Suppr超能文献

头孢吡肟与亚胺培南-西司他丁作为400例短期中性粒细胞减少发热患者经验性单药治疗的比较。CEMIC(癌症传染病研究组)

Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC (Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer).

作者信息

Biron P, Fuhrmann C, Cure H, Viens P, Lefebvre D, Thyss A, Viot M, Soler-Michel P, Rollin C, Grès J J

机构信息

Centre Régional Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

出版信息

J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998 Oct;42(4):511-8. doi: 10.1093/jac/42.4.511.

Abstract

This open, comparative, randomized, multicentre equivalence study compared cefepime 2 g bd and imipenem-cilastatin 1 g tds (50 mg/kg/day) as empirical monotherapy for febrile episodes in a homogeneous cohort of cancer patients with short duration neutropenia following chemotherapy for solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma. The study was conducted in 17 French anti-cancer centres in 1995 and 1996. Response to monotherapy was assessed 7 days after treatment and was based on resolution of fever and signs and symptoms, eradication of pathogens, absence of new infection, relapse, and death of infectious origin, without addition of other antibiotics. Patients were treated for a minimum of 4 days. Of the 400 episodes randomized, 344 (86%) were evaluable for efficacy. Patient characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Success of monotherapy was observed in 79% of episodes with cefepime and 72% with imipenem-cilastatin (equivalence, P <0.0001). The response rate for microbiologically documented infections was 66% with cefepime and 61% with imipenem-cilastatin (bacteraemic episodes: 63% for cefepime; 44% for imipenem-cilastatin). A second antibiotic (usually a glycopeptide) was added in 20% and 21% of the cases, respectively. Overall, the response to therapy, with or without an additional antibiotic, was 95% (cefepime) and 90% (imipenem-cilastatin). Survival was similar in both groups (95% and 98%, respectively). Cefepime treatment was better tolerated, with 9% of the patients experiencing related intercurrent events compared with 19% in the imipenem-cilastatin group (P = 0.003). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the imipenem-cilastatin group (15%) than in the cefepime group (5%; P = 0.001). Cefepime monotherapy was as effective as, and better tolerated than, imipenem-cilastatin in the empirical treatment of fever during short duration neutropenia.

摘要

这项开放性、比较性、随机、多中心等效性研究,比较了头孢吡肟2克每日两次和亚胺培南-西司他丁1克每日三次(50毫克/千克/天)作为经验性单药治疗实体瘤、淋巴瘤或骨髓瘤化疗后短期中性粒细胞减少的癌症患者发热发作的疗效。该研究于1995年和1996年在法国17个抗癌中心进行。治疗7天后评估单药治疗的反应,基于发热及体征和症状的缓解、病原体的清除、无新感染、复发以及感染性原因导致的死亡情况,且未加用其他抗生素。患者至少接受4天治疗。在随机分组的400例发作中,344例(86%)可评估疗效。治疗组间患者特征具有可比性。头孢吡肟治疗的单药治疗成功率为79%,亚胺培南-西司他丁为72%(等效性,P<0.0001)。微生物学确诊感染的反应率,头孢吡肟为66%,亚胺培南-西司他丁为61%(菌血症发作:头孢吡肟为63%;亚胺培南-西司他丁为44%)。分别有20%和21%的病例加用了第二种抗生素(通常为糖肽类)。总体而言,无论是否加用额外抗生素,治疗反应率头孢吡肟为95%,亚胺培南-西司他丁为90%。两组生存率相似(分别为95%和98%)。头孢吡肟治疗耐受性更好,9%的患者出现相关并发事件,而亚胺培南-西司他丁组为19%(P = 0.003)。亚胺培南-西司他丁组恶心/呕吐明显更频繁(15%),高于头孢吡肟组(5%;P = 0.001)。在短期中性粒细胞减少期间发热的经验性治疗中,头孢吡肟单药治疗与亚胺培南-西司他丁疗效相当且耐受性更好。

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