An open, randomized, multicentre study comparing the use of low-dose ceftazidime or cefotaxime, both in combination with netilmicin, in febrile neutropenic patients

G. Höffkena,*, R. Pasoldb, K. H. Pflügerc, J. Finked, A. A. Fausere, H. Szelenyia, J. Wagnerf and the German Multicentre Study Group,{dagger}

a Universitätsklinikum Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, D 12203, Berlin; b Klinikum Ernst-von-Bergmann, Potsdam; c Klinikum der Philipps-Universität Marburg; d Medizinisches Universitätsklinikum, Freiburg i. Br.; e Klinik für Knochenmarkstransplantation und Hämatologie/Onkologie, Idar-Oberstein; f Institut für Infektionsmedizin, Berlin, Germany


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
To reduce drug acquisition costs, the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of low-dose ceftazidime iv (1 g tid) was compared with cefotaxime iv (2 g tid). Both regimens were combined with netilmicin iv (2 mg/kg bodyweight tid), in an open, randomized, multicentre trial in febrile neutropenic patients. The addition of antibiotics for Gram-positive coverage was part of the protocol; alteration in the antibiotics for Gram-negative cover or premature discontinuation of the study antibiotics were judged as failure. One hundred and eighty six patients were randomized by nine German centres, the patients matched for age, underlying diseases and duration of neutropenia (median duration 14 days) in both treatment arms. Infections were documented microbiologically in 29% of the patients, clinically in 16% and suspected (fever of unknown origin) in 102/186 patients (55%). The 82 pathogens isolated were predominantly Gram-positive bacteria. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate without modification at the final evaluation was 58% in the ceftazidime group and 34% in the cefotaxime group (P < 0.01). The success rates with modification were 84% and 64%, respectively. The failure rate in a highly immunosuppressed subgroup of the patients (bone marrow transplant recipients) was higher for cefotaxime (53%) than for the ceftazidime arm (14%) (P < 0.001). Response rates were significantly higher in the ceftazidime group for patients with microbiologically documented and possible infections. No major bacterial superinfections occurred in the low-dose treatment arm. The tolerability was good for both regimens. Low-dose ceftazidime combined with netilmicin proved to be superior to recommended doses of cefotaxime/netilmicin in febrile neutropenic patients.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Bacterial infections are the major cause of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic leukaemic patients, especially in the context of bone marrow transplantation. Therefore, combination antibiotic regimens covering Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria are recommended as initial empirical treatment in febrile episodes.1 Ceftazidime, a third-generation parenteral cephalosporin, is included in standard antibiotic regimens due to its broad antibacterial spectrum including Pseudomonas aeruginosa.2 Usually this compound is given 2.0 g tid either alone or in combination with an aminoglycoside or vancomycin in neutropenic patients. Compared with other parenteral third-generation cephalosporins, ceftazidime offers some pharmacokinetic and microbiological properties which may argue for a dose reduction. First, compared with cefotaxime, ceftazidime has a longer half-life leading to prolonged time periods in which serum concentrations exceed minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for relevant bacterial strains.3 For ß-lactam antibiotics, the time above MIC is believed to be correlated with successful bacterial eradication.4 Furthermore, ceftazidime at dosages of 2.0 and 1.0 g leads to high serum bactericidal titres above 1:8 for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria up to 8 h post dosing, which may indicate a favourable outcome in patients with bacterial infections.5 Besides these pharmacodynamic considerations, dose reduction may have the additional advantage of reducing the costs of antibacterial treatment in these patients. This effect would be desirable in times of hospital budget cuts. To test this hypothesis, we compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of low-dose ceftazidime versus normal dosed cefotaxime, each combined with an aminoglycoside, in febrile neutropenic patients.


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients

This muticentre study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Benjamin Franklin University Hospital in Berlin as well as by the local Ethics Committees of all study centres involved. Patients were recruited by nine centres in Germany over a period of 18 months. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) patients of at least 18 years of age, (ii) underlying diseases: leukaemia, malignant lymphoma, agranulocytosis, (iii) neutropenia defined as a granulocyte count of < 1.0 x 109/L for an expected minimum of 5 days and (iv) fever defined as two oral temperature readings within 3 h of >=38.0°C not explained by medication or transfusions. Patients were not entered into the study (i) more than once during a single neutropenic period; (ii) if they were fertile without effective contraceptive methods; (iii) with known hypersensitivity reactions/allergy or infections due to initially resistant pathogens to any of the study drugs; (iv) with known HIV infection or renal insufficiency with serum creatinine values >320 µmol/L; and (v) with any antibiotic pretreatment within 48 h before entering the study other than oral selective antimicrobial decontamination. Patients who received fluoroquinolones or co-trimoxazole as part of their antibacterial prevention programme were not included.

Trial design

This was a prospective, open, randomized multicentre comparative trial with two parallel study arms. After informed consent, hospitalized patients were randomly assigned to receive either ceftazidime in combination with netilmicin or cefotaxime combined with netilmicin for initial management of their febrile episode. The allocation was performed by drawing consecutive sealed envelopes in blocks of four groups. The investigation was surveyed by a study monitor who reviewed data for completeness of entry. The case report forms were examined by the Data Review Committee and the principal investigator.

Antibiotic treatment

Group 1 patients received 1.0 g ceftazidime tid and netilmicin 2 mg/kg bodyweight tid, while group 2 patients were treated with cefotaxime 2.0 g tid and netilmicin 2 mg/kg bodyweight tid. Ceftazidime and cefotaxime were each mixed with 40 mL distilled water and infused intravenously over 30 min, followed by a netilmicin 5-min iv injection in both cases. The aminoglycoside dosage was adjusted to actual renal function according to the recommendations of the manufacturer. Antibiotics were continued until the patient was afebrile (oral temperature <37.5°C) and neutrophil counts exceeded 0.5 x 109/L or for at least 5 days after defervescence if counts persisted below 0.5 x 109/L. In the case of proven infections by resistant non-Gram-negative bacteria or if there was clinical suspicion of infections due to these pathogens the initial regimen could be modified by adding either vancomycin, teicoplanin, flucloxacillin, metronidazole, macrolides or rifampicin. Modification of the initial antibacterial regimen against Gram-negative bacteria was not allowed according to the study protocol.

Investigations

All patients were followed on a daily basis. At entry into the investigation full blood count, biochemical profile and chest X-ray were performed. Blood analyses for haematological and biochemical tests were done at least thrice weekly until completion. Microbiological analysis included venous blood cultures (minimum three bottles and 5 mL blood), blood cultures drawn through intravascular catheters (if present), and any other appropriate specimens. Clinical evaluation was made 24–72 h after initiation of the study medication and after discontinuation of the study drugs.

Classification of febrile episodes

Primary febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infections subdivided into those with and without concomitant bacteraemia; clinically documented infections (clinical evidence of infection, e.g. sinusitis, pneumonia) without microbiological identification of the offending pathogen; unexplained fever; and doubtful infection; according to the IHS consensus report.6

Assessment

Evaluation of response was classified as success without modification of the initial antibiotic regimen, success with modification against non-Gram-negative bacteria (Gram-positive bacteria and anaerobes), failure and not evaluable. Success was resolution of fever and clinical signs of infection and eradication of the causative microorganism. Failure was no response to initial therapy, e.g. the pathogen or fever persisted and the patient's clinical condition did not improve, requiring a change of the antibacterial therapy or death of the patient due to initial infection. There were no restrictions concerning the administration of non-bacterial anti-infective drugs such as aciclovir or amphotericin B. A response was defined as not evaluable if the febrile episode was doubtful, the patient had a viral or fungal infection, or if a relevant protocol violation occurred. Since a low-dosage regimen of unknown efficacy was being tested, early evaluation at 24–72 h was chosen for safety reasons.

Toxicity

Overall tolerability of the study drugs was assessed by a semiquantitative score (excellent, good, moderate, poor). Liver toxicity was defined as a two-fold increase in serum aspartate aminotransferase and serum alanine aminotransferase from baseline and nephrotoxicity as a serum creatinine rise of >0.5 mg/dL.

Microbiology

The microbiological evaluation was done by the local microbiology laboratories using standard identification methods and antibiotic susceptibility tests.7 All relevant organisms at each centre were tested for susceptibility to ceftazidime, cefotaxime and netilmicin by breakpoint microbouillon dilution in IsoSensitest broth (Unipath/Oxoid; Wesel, Germany). Isolates were categorized as susceptible (ceftazidime <=4 mg/L, cefotaxime <=2 mg/L, netilmicin <=1 mg/L), intermediate (8–16 mg/L, 4–8 mg/ and 2–4 mg/L, respectively) or resistant to study drugs according to the breakpoints of DIN 58 940 (Deutsches Institut für Normierung e.V. (DIN) 1990).8 Viridans streptococci (e.g. Streptococcus mitis), corynebacteria and Streptococcus pneumoniae, were tested with agar diffusion test on Iso-Sensitest agar with 5% sheep blood according to DIN 58 940. Intermediate susceptibility was defined as an inhibition diameter of 16–20 mm for ceftazidime, 14–20 mm for cefotaxime and 17–21 mm for netilmicin.

Statistical analysis

One hundred and fifty patients (2 x 75 per treatment arm) were estimated as needed to detect a clinically relevant difference of 15% between the two arms concerning the primary end-point `failure' with an assumed {alpha} probability error of <0.05 and a power of 75%.

An intent-to-treat analysis was performed. All data were entered into a dBase IV data bank (ASHTON TATE) and calculated using BIAS. The intervention groups were compared with demographic and other baseline variables. Comparison for categorical data was done by the chi-square test with Yates's correction; the nonparametric Wilcoxon-test was used for continuous variables. The Mantel–Haenszel test was applied for small numbers (less than five). Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patient population

Of the 186 patients included, 95 received ceftazidime plus netilmicin and 91 cefotaxime plus netilmicin. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, type of underlying malignant disease, type of cytoreductive treatment, initial polymorphonuclear cell count, median duration of neutropenia and median duration of treatment (Table I). In particular, there was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of acute leukaemia and bone marrow transplantation.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. Demographic and clinical characteristics of neutropenic patients studied
 
The study medication had to be terminated prematurely in 71 patients for the following reasons: in four patients because of technical reasons (early discharge, doubtful infection, missing study drugs, incorrect administration of the study medication), nine due to unexpected adverse drug events (four patients in the cefotaxime group; five in the ceftazidime group), in two patients due to initial resistance, in 55 patients because of treatment failure either alone or in combination with adverse drug events and/or resistance (39 patients and 30 patients, respectively), and in one patient because of unrelated death (Figure). All patients were included in the final intent-to-treat evaluation of treatment efficacy.



View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure. Overview of patients enrolled in this study.

 
Evaluation

The clinical and microbiological evaluation is shown in Table II. Despite rigorous microbiological assessment before the initiation of empirical antibiotic therapy, the neutropenic fever could not be explained in most patients. Infection could be documented microbiologically in 54 of 186 (29%) patients; only 14 did not have concomitant bacteraemia. Twelve and 14 patients developed bacteraemia without other documented infectious foci in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Clinically defined infections, e.g. pneumonia or sinusitis, occurred in 30 (16%) patients. In about half of the patients, no infection could be documented either on clinical or microbiological grounds. These cases were defined as fever of unknown origin.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table II. Types and numbers of documented febrile episodesa
 
Table III lists results of the microbiological evaluation. A total of 82 pathogens were isolated in 42 patients. Mixed infections were most often seen in conjunction with urinary and respiratory tract infections. Sixty of 82 bacterial isolates were Gram-positive, the most prevalent Gram-positive bacterium was Staphylococcus epidermidis. S. epidermidis bacteraemias were only counted when two or more independent blood cultures showed positive culture results. Twenty-five per cent of the bacteria were Gram-negative, with Escherichia coli the most frequent species.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table III. Causative pathogens detected before starting study medication
 
Resistant isolates were equally distributed in both treatment arms (Table III). Eight of 30 Gram-positive isolates proved to be ceftazidime-resistant. The same applied to cefotaxime (resistance rate for Gram-positive bacteria, 9/30).

Only one of 10 (10%) Gram-negative isolates in the ceftazidime group was initially resistant to this agent. Likewise, one of 12 Gram-negative bacteria in patients within the cefotaxime group was resistant to this cephalosporin. One patient with a bacteraemia due to a ceftazidime-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae died from his infection after 2 days of ceftazidime therapy. One P. aeruginosa isolated in a patient in the cefotaxime group was resistant to this compound; treatment with cefotaxime was unsuccessful.

Overall response to treatment

Table IV shows the clinical status of patients at the early evaluation (24–72 h) and final evaluation 24–72 h after termination of the study treatment. In 72% of the patients in the ceftazidime group, success without modification could be seen at the early evaluation versus 55% in the cefotaxime group. There was no difference in the failure rate between the groups during this stage of treatment.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table IV. Overall response to treatment
 
The final evaluation revealed a significant difference in the failure rate between the two study arms. Twenty-seven of the 95 patients in the ceftazidime group (28%) failed, whereas 40/91 (44%) patients in the cefotaxime group were judged to have failed treatment (P < 0.01). This difference was similiar in a subgroup of patients with bone marrow transplantation: eight of 33 patients (24%) versus 16/30 (53%) required a change in their initial antibiotic regimen (P < 0.001).

Table V shows the response rates in patients with microbiologically documented infections and fever of unknown origin. For episodes categorized as microbiologically defined infections, treatment succeeded in 12 out of 20 (63%) patients on ceftazidime versus six out of 22 (28%) of those on cefotaxime. The failure rate was 18.5% with ceftazidime and 31% with cefotaxime (P < 0.05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table V. Response rates in patients with bacteriologically documented infections and with fever of unknown primary site
 
For episodes categorized as unexplained fever, therapy without modification was successful in 32/56 (57%) patients treated with ceftazidime and in 18/46 (39%) patients randomized to cefotaxime (not statistically significant). A significant difference in the failure rate could be seen between both arms: 9/56 (17%) in ceftazidime treated patients versus 20/46 (43%) cefotaxime treated patients (P < 0.01). Because of the low numbers no detailed analysis of the response rates in bacteraemic patients was done.

Resistant pathogens and outcome

Detection of resistance against one of the study drugs predicted poor outcome in both treatment arms. For ceftazidime, nine resistant strains were isolated in seven patients. The failure rate was 3/7 patients (43%); in three out of seven patients, the response was recorded only after treatment modification, and one patient died. For cefotaxime, eight resistant strains were found in seven patients. In the latter case the failure rate was even higher (six of eight patients, 75%), but due to the low numbers this difference was not significant.

Superinfections

Bacterial infections developed in 12 patients with 21 different isolates during the first 24–72 h after commencement of study drug treatment (Table VI). The type and rate of infection did not differ between the treatment groups. After discontinuation of the study antibiotics, infections with 17 different pathogens were recorded in 14 patients. Likewise, no statistical difference in the rate and type of infection was seen between the two study arms. Emergence of resistance could not be detected in initially sensitive strains but neither serotyping nor DNA fingerprinting of the isolates was performed.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table VI. Bacterial species isolated before, during and after study drug treatment
 
Tolerability and adverse events

All 186 patients were evaluated for adverse side-effects and intolerance of study drugs (Table VII). Local and systemic tolerability was excellent/good in 91% for ceftazidime and in 94% for cefotaxime. Forty-five out of 95 (47%) patients in the ceftazidime arm and 44/91 (47%) in the cefotaxime arm had unsuspected events (definitely, probably, possibly and doubtfully related). There was no significant difference in the distribution of the adverse drug events between the study groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table VII. Adverse eventsa
 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Our prospective, multicentre, comparative trial showed that intravenous low-dose ceftazidime (1 g tid) in combination with netilmicin (2 mg/kg tid) was superior to cefotaxime (2.0 g tid) plus netilmicin in terms of clinical success in microbiologically proven infections and in fever of unknown origin. Importantly, these findings were encountered in a high-risk patient population with severe and persistent neutropenia, 53% showing an initial neutrophil count below 0.1 x 109/L and a median 14 day duration of neutropenia below 1.0 x 109/L.

The study protocol providing initial antibiotic combination therapy consisting of an antipseudomonal ß-lactam plus an aminoglycoside was established according to the guidelines published by a working committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.1 Advantages of combination therapy are: broader antimicrobial coverage; potential synergic effects against some Gram-negative bacilli and Gram-positive bacteria; and minimal emergence of resistance during therapy.9 Lack of synergic effects against some Gram-positive bacteria, and adverse reactions, e.g. hypokalaemia, ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity associated with the use of aminoglycosides, are the major drawbacks of dual therapy.2,10

Early studies with aminoglycosides demonstrated a better clinical outcome with higher peak serum concentrations.11 In the last 20 years, in-vitro studies and animal experiments have shown that antibacterial efficacy can be maintained even with improving drug tolerability when the daily aminoglycoside dosage is administered od instead of in conventional multiple divided doses.12,13,14

When the protocol was prepared, od dosing of aminoglycosides was not an accepted and evidence-based therapeutic approach in this highly immunosuppressed patient population. As the main interest in this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of low-dose ceftazidime (1 g tid) multiple daily dosage was chosen for netilmicin.

The rationale of the present trial was two-fold: (i) economic reasons for reducing antibiotic-related costs and (ii) pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations, arguing for a dose reduction without jeopardizing the safety and potency of ceftazidime. Compared with cefotaxime, ceftazidime has a longer half-life leading to prolonged time periods in which serum concentrations exceed MICs for relevant bacterial pathogens.3 For ß-lactam antibiotics the duration of free antibacterial concentrations remain above the MIC has been shown to exert the most important influence on clinical outcome.15,16,17 Reducing the dose of an antibiotic will ultimately result in lowering the peak concentrations and shortening of the percentage of time the concentrations are well above the MIC for a given pathogen. From a theoretical standpoint, this might have a negative impact on the clinical performance of this antibiotic and may augment the emergence of resistance.16

According to the data of Paradis,18 1 g of ceftazidime will ensure that serum concentrations remain above the MIC for P. aeruginosa for approximately 80% of the dosing interval. Data derived from animal studies indicate that bacteriostasis can be achieved at concentrations of ß-lactam antibiotics above the MIC for 50–60% of the dosage interval.19,20

Concerning cost containment, several approaches have been applied to reduce the expense of treating neutropenic patients: (i) early discontinuation of empirical antibiotic treatment in situations where fever was not felt to reflect an infectious process;21 (ii) early discharge of patients at lower risk for life-threatening infection-related complications;22 and (iii) avoidance or shortening of hospital-based treatment by outpatient parenteral or oral antibiotic therapy.23,24 In terms of cost-effectiveness, drug acquisition costs alone are of limited value. The most important issues are the relative effectiveness, the rate of side-effects, and the follow-up costs (e.g. modification of treatment, therapy of adverse events, prolonged hospitalization).2

In our study, the overall response rates and the response in patients with documented or `possible infections' corresponded to those published in numerous antibiotic treatment studies performed in comparable high-risk populations.2 Although relevant differences in the patient populations, the definitions of infection and the responses/cures, respectively, must be considered when comparing results of different studies, most trials have demonstrated an improvement rate well above 60% for ceftazidime 2 g tid plus an aminoglycoside even in high-risk groups, including bone marrow transplant recipients.25,26,27 Interestingly, the same response rates were seen with ceftazidime monotherapy, leading to the consensus of a working panel of the Infectious Disease Society of America that this compound may be used as monotherapy in most cases.2 Some studies successfully applied lower doses of 1.0 g ceftazidime every 8 h in patients with an expected shorter period of neutropenia.28 Marie et al.29,30 have published a series of studies using ceftazidime 1 g tid as monotherapy. One of these studies included a high-risk population with a prolonged neutropenic period of 21 ± 13 days.30 The response rate without modification (e.g. adding vancomycin) was unacceptably low at only 13%. Because of the high rate of superinfections by Gram-positive bacteria, the authors concluded that satisfactory coverage of Gram-negative bacterial infections is achieved with low-dose ceftazidime. For safety reasons, they recommended an initial antibiotic regimen of low-dose ceftazidime combined with an aminoglycoside and the addition of vancomycin in non-responding febrile patients (for better Gram-positive coverage), as in the present study.

The clinical results in the cefotaxime + netilmicin group were inferior in terms of failure rates for patients with microbiologically proven and possible infections. The European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) published a prospective study in 1986 examining the difference between the extended-spectrum antibiotics azlocillin, ticarcillin and cefotaxime, each combined with amikacin.31 Response rates were significantly lower in the cefotaxime group than in the azlocillin group due to the different susceptibility of the isolates to the drugs being used. A more recent study revealed that monotherapy with imipenem-cilastatin (3 x 0.5 g/d) was superior to a combination regimen, including cefotaxime plus piperacillin, in primary bacteraemias.32 Considering the above mentioned pharmacodynamic implications, an additional explanation for these inferior clinical results may be the underdosing of cefotaxime due to its short half-life of approximately 60 min. Nevertheless, the results of this study are in agreement with the more favourable kinetic properties and the broader antimicrobial spectrum of ceftazidime, as well as the superior clinical data in neutropenic patients published so far.33,34


    Acknowledgments
 
The study was supported by a grant from GlaxoWellcome, Germany. This study is part of the doctoral thesis of R. Waetke and U. Rangwich.


    Notes
 
* Corresponding author. Tel: +49-30-8445-2680; Fax: +49-30-8445-2349; E-mail: Hoeffken{at}ukbf.fu-berlin.de Back

{dagger} Additional members of the Multicentre Study Group: principal investigator (number of patients). Fauser, A., Idar-Oberstein (n = 28); Finke, J., Freiburg (n = 30); Grüneisen, A., Berlin(n = 6); Höfeler, H., Witten (n = 6); Pasold, R., Potsdam (n = 59); Petrasch, S., Bochum (n = 3); Pflüger, K.H., Marburg (n = 30); Respondek, M., Stuttgart (n = 2); Thiel, E./Höffken, G., Berlin (n = 22). Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
1 . Hughes, W. T., Armstrong, D., Bodey, G. P., Feld, R., Mandell, G. L., Meyers, J. D. et al. (1990). Guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. Journal of Infectious Diseases 161, 381–96.[ISI][Medline]

2 . Hughes, W. T., Armstrong, D., Bodey, G. P., Brown, A. E., Edwards, J. E., Feld, R. et al. (1997). 1997 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. Clinical Infectious Diseases 25, 551–73.[ISI][Medline]

3 . Lüthy, R., Blaser, J. Bonetti, A., Simmen, H., Wise, R. & Siegenthaler, W. (1981). Comparative multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime, moxalactam, and ceftazidime. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 20, 567–75.[ISI][Medline]

4 . Hyatt, J. M., McKinnon, P. S., Zimmer, G. S. & Schentag, J. J. (1995). The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Focus on antibacterial agents. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 28, 143–60.[ISI][Medline]

5 . Sculier, J. P. & Klastersky, J. (1984). Significance of serumbactericidal activity in Gram-negative bacillary bacteraemia in patients with and without granulocytopenia. American Journal of Medicine 76, 429–35.[ISI][Medline]

6 . Immunocompromised Host Society. (1990). The design, analysis and reporting of clinical trials on the empirical antibiotic management of the neutropenic patient. Report of a consensus panel. Journal of Infectious Diseases 161, 397–401.[ISI][Medline]

7 . Balows, A. (1991). Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 5th edn. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.

8 . Deutsches Institut für Normierung e.V. (DIN). (1990) Methoden zur Empfindlichkeitsprüfung von bakteriellen Krankheitserregern (außer Mycobakterien) gegen Chemotherap. DIN 58940. Teil 8, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin.

9 . Brown, A. E., Kiehn, T. E. & Armstrong, D. (1995). Bacterial resistance in the patient with neoplastic disease. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 3, Suppl. 4, 136–44.[ISI]

10 . Barza, M., Ioannidis, J. P., Cappelleri, J. C. & Lau, J. (1996). Single or multiple daily doses of aminoglycosides: a meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 312, 338 –45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11 . Moore, R. D., Lietman, P. S. & Smith, C. R. (1987). Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. Journal of Infectious Diseases 155, 93–9.[Medline]

12 . Blaser, J., Stone, B. B., Groner, M. C. & Zinner, S. H. (1987). Comparative study with enoxacin and netilmicin in a pharmacodynamic model to determine importance of ratio of antibiotic peak concentration to MIC for bactericidal activity and emergence of resistance. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31, 1054–60.[ISI][Medline]

13 . Kapusnik, J. E., Hackbarth, C. J., Chambers, H. F., Carpenter, T. & Sande, M. A. (1988). Single, large, daily dosing versus intermittent dosing of tobramycin for treating experimental Pseudomonas pneumonia. Journal of Infectious Diseases 158, 7 –12.[ISI][Medline]

14 . Preston, S. L. & Briceland, L. L. (1995). Single daily dosing of aminoglycosides. Pharmacotherapy 15, 297–316.[ISI][Medline]

15 . Craig, W. A. & Ebert, S. C. (1990). Killing and regrowth of bacteria in vitro: a review. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. Supplementum 74, 63 –70.[Medline]

16 . Schentag, J. J., Smith, I. L., Swanson, D. J., DeAngelis, C., Fracasso, J. E., Vari, A. et al. (1984). Role for dual individualization with cefmenoxime. American Journal of Medicine 77, Suppl. 6A, 43–50.[ISI][Medline]

17 . Nishida, M., Murakawa, T., Kamimura, T. & Okada, N. (1978). Bactericidal activity of cephalosporins in an in vitro model simulating serum levels. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 14, 6–12.[ISI][Medline]

18 . Paradis, D., Vallée, F., Allard, S., Bisson, C., Daviau, N., Drapeau, C. et al. (1992). Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activities of cefpirome, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 36, 2085–92.[Abstract]

19 . Vogelman, B., Gudmundsson, S., Leggett, J., Turnidge, J., Ebert, S. & Craig, W. A. (1988). Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. Journal of Infectious Diseases 158, 831–47.[ISI][Medline]

20 . Drusano, G. L. & Goldstein, F. W. (1996). Relevance of the Alexander Project: pharmacodynamic considerations. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 38, Suppl. A, 141–54.[ISI][Medline]

21 . Joshi, J. H., Schimpff, S. C., Tenney, J. H., Newman, K. A. & de Jongh, C. A. (1984). Can antibacterial therapy be discontinued in persistently granulocytopenic cancer patients? American Journal of Medicine 76, 450–7.[ISI][Medline]

22 . Bash, R. O., Katz, J. A., Cash, J. V. & Buchanan, G. R. (1994). Safety and cost effectiveness of early hospital discharge of lower risk children with cancer admitted for fever and neutropenia. Cancer 74, 189–96.[ISI][Medline]

23 . Lau, R. C., Doyle, J. J., Freedman, M. H., King, S. M. & Richardson, S. E. (1994). Early discharge of pediatric febrile neutropenic cancer patients by substitution of oral for intravenous antibiotics. Pediatric Hematology and Oncology 11, 417–21.[ISI][Medline]

24 . Talcott, J. A., Whalen, A., Clark, J., Rieker, P. P. & Finberg, R. (1994). Home antibiotic therapy for low-risk cancer patients with fever and neutropenia: a pilot study of 30 patients based on a validated prediction rule. Journal of Clinical Oncology 12,107 –14.[Abstract]

25 . Cometta, A., Calandra, T., Gaya, H., Zinner, S. H., de Bock, R., Del Favero, A. et al. (1996). Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 40, 1108–15.[Abstract]

26 . Laszlo, D., Bacci, S., Bosi, A., Fanci, R., Guidi, S. Saccardi, R. et al. (1997). Randomized trial comparing netilmicin plus imipenem-cilastatin versus netilmicin plus ceftazidime as empiric therapy for febrile neutropenic bone marrow transplant recipients. Journal of Chemotherapy 9, 95–101.[ISI][Medline]

27 . Rolston, K. V. I., Berkey, P., Bodey, G. P., Anaissie, E. J., Khardori, N. M., Joshi, J. H. et al. (1992). A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 152, 283–91.[Abstract]

28 . Gibson, J., Johnson, L., Snowdon, L., Joshua, D., Young, G., MacLeod, C. et al. (1994). A randomized dosage study of ceftazidime with single daily tobramycin for the empirical management of febrile neutropenia in patients with hematological diseases. International Journal of Hematology 60 , 119–27.[ISI][Medline]

29 . Marie, J. P., Pico, J. L., Chiche, D., Fitoussi, F., Delmer, A., Baume, D. et al. (1988). Protocole d'antibiothérapie utilisant la ceftazidime á la dose de 3 g/jour seule ou en association avec la vancomycine ou l'amikacine. Lors des episodes febriles chez le neutropenique. Presse Médicale 17, 1968–70.[ISI][Medline]

30 . Marie, J. P., Pico, J., Lapierre, V., Maulard, C., Pappo, M., Chiche, D. et al. (1991). Traitement empirique des épisodes fébriles survenant chez les patients cancéreux présentant une neutropénie prolongée: essai comparatif ceftazidime seule, ceftazidime + amikacine et ceftazidime 1 vancomycine. Médicale Maladies Infectieuses 21, 386–8.

31 . Klastersky, J., Glauser, M. P., Schimpff, S. C., Zinner, S. H. & Gaya, H. (1986). Prospective randomized comparison of three antibiotic regimens for empirical therapy of suspected bacteremic infection in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 29, 263–70.[ISI][Medline]

32 . Böhme, A., Just-Nübling, G., Bergmann, L., Shah, P. M., Stille, W. & Hoelzer, D. (1995). A randomized study of imipenem compared to cefotaxime plus piperacillin as initial therapy of infections in granulocytopenic patients. Infection 23, 349–55.[ISI][Medline]

33 . De Pauw, B. E., Deresinski, S. C., Feld, R., Lane-Allman, E. F. & Donnelly, J. P. (1994). Ceftazidime compared with piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of fever in neutropenic patients with cancer. A multicentre randomized trial. The Intercontinental Antimicrobial Study Group. Annals of Internal Medicine 120, 834 –44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

34 . De Pauw, B. E. (1990). Treatment of infection in neutropenia. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 3, 197–202.[ISI]

Received 9 December 1998; returned 3 March 1999; revised 7 April 1999; accepted 19 April 1999





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Höffken, G.
Articles by Wagner, J.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Höffken, G.
Articles by Wagner, J.