Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime as initial empirical antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: a prospective randomized pilot study. Piperacillin-tazobactam versus carbapenem therapy with and without amikacin as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: results of an open randomized trial at a university hospital. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin versus carbapenem monotherapy as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood hematological malignancies. A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with hematologic malignancies. Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients: a randomized comparison. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime for the empirical treatment of pediatric cancer patients with neutropenia and fever: a randomized and open-label study. Piperacillin-tazobactam is more effective than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a randomized comparison. Piperacillin/tazobactam in comparison with clindamycin plus gentamicin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Randomized trial of beta-lactam regimens in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Piperacillin/tazobactam vs ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial. Open randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients. [Comparative study of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in febrile neutropenia (1994-1996)]. Cefepime or carbapenem treatment for febrile neutropenia as a single agent is as effective as a combination of 4th-generation cephalosporin + aminoglycosides: comparative study. Successful control of Clostridium difficile infection in an elderly care unit through use of a restrictive antibiotic policy. Reduction of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections by limitation of broad-spectrum cephalosporin use in a trauma and burn intensive care unit. Imipenem-cilastatin versus piperacillin-tazobactam as monotherapy in febrile neutropenia. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing piperacillin-tazobactam with and without amikacin as empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia. Pharmacokinetics of piperacillin-tazobactam: intermittent dosing versus continuous infusion. A prospective, randomized study comparing cefepime and imipenem-cilastatin in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients treated for haematological malignancies. Piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin as initial empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with acute leukemia. Antibiotic prophylaxis: is there a difference? Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients. A clinical comparison of cefepime and metronidazole versus gentamicin and clindamycin in the antibiotic management of surgically treated advanced appendicitis. Hospital-wide restriction of clindamycin: effect on the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and cost. Outcomes of an intervention to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing: interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis. Ceftazidime compared with piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of fever in neutropenic patients with cancer. A multicenter randomized trial. The Intercontinental Antimicrobial Study Group. Empiric antimicrobial therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Randomized prospective comparison of amikacin plus piperacillin with or without parenteral trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. Ertapenem once a day versus piperacillin-tazobactam every 6 hours for treatment of acute pelvic infections: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Amikacin plus piperacillin versus ceftazidime as initial therapy in granulocytopenic patients with presumed bacteremia. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program. [Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of the piperacillin/tazobactame combination vs. ampicillin and gentamycin in in the management of post-cesarean endometritis]. Randomized comparison of cefepime versus ceftazidime monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with solid tumors. Randomized, open-label, comparative study of piperacillin-tazobactam administered by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. Use of probiotic Lactobacillus preparation to prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. Cefepime versus ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer: a prospective randomized trial of the treatment efficacy and cost. Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC (Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer).
The objective of the presented prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of empirical antimicrobial monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) to cefepime (CEFP) for treatment of infections in neutropenic patients. From a total of 102 febrile episodes 100 were evaluable. The most frequent microorganisms were gram-negative, documented in 22% vs. 24% of the febrile episodes (gram-positives 18% vs. 16%, fungi 2% vs. 4%). The response rate was similar with 22/51 (43%) of episodes treated with PIP/TAZ vs. 19/49 (39%) with CEFP. Of the different infection types classified at the end of the febrile episodes, patients with fever of unknown origin (FUO) and primary bacteremias showed the best initial responses with 25/44 (57%) and 11/22 (50%). Lower initial response rates were found in pneumonias with totally 3/13 (23%) and other clinically documented infections with 2/21 (10%), without any difference between both groups. Gram positive infections showed a higher response with PIP/TAZ than with CEFP (4/9 vs. 0/8), gram negative responded less frequently (3/11 vs. 7/13). The median time until persistent defervescence was equal in both groups (2.5 vs. 2 days), likewise the response rates after the different steps of therapy modifications (change to imipenem or ceftazidim, or addition of gentamycin, vancomycin or amphotericin B). Totally, 96% of febrile episodes responded in both therapy arms. Overall, we found no significant differences in efficacy between the two therapeutic regimens. In conclusion, PIP/TAZ as well as CEFP might be a sufficient initial therapy for febrile neutropenia, but further randomized trials with larger patient numbers are necessary. Empirical beta-lactam monotherapy has become the standard therapy in febrile neutropenia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam versus carbapenem therapy with or without amikacin in adult patients with febrile neutropenia.
                In this prospective, open, single-center study, 127 episodes were randomized to receive either piperacillin-tazobactam (4 x 4.5 g IV/day) or carbapenem [meropenem (3 x 1 g IV/day) or imipenem (4 x 500 mg IV/day)] with or without amikacin (1 g IV/day). Doses were adjusted according to renal function. Clinical response was determined during and at completion of therapy.
                One hundred and twenty episodes were assessable for efficacy (59 piperacillin-tazobactam, 61 carbapenem). Mean duration of treatment was 14.8 +/- 9.6 days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 14.7 +/- 8.8 days in the carbapenem group (P > 0.05). Mean days of fever resolution were 5.97 and 4.48 days for piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem groups, respectively (P > 0.05). Similar rates of success without modification were found in the piperacillin-tazobactam (87.9%) and in the carbapenem groups (75.4%; P > 0.05). Fungal infection occurrence rates were 30.5 and 18% in piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem groups, respectively (P = 0.05). Antibiotic modification rates were 30.5 and 13.1% (P = 0.02) and the addition of glycopeptides to empirical antibiotic regimens rates were 15.3 and 44.3% for piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem groups, respectively (P = 0.001). The rude mortality rates were 14% (6/43) and 29.3% (12/41) in piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem groups, respectively (P = 0.08).
                The effect of empirical regimen of piperacillin-tazobactam regimen is equivalent to carbapenem in adult febrile neutropenic patients. A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam and amikacin combination with carbapenem monotherapy for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute myeloblastic leukemia. Patients aged 2-16 years with hematological malignancies who had febrile neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam, q6h) combined with amikacin (PTA) (7.5 mg/kg, q12h) or meropenem or imipenem (20 mg/kg, q8h) (C). Response to antimicrobial therapy, evaluated for etiological agents, was measured. Duration of fever, neutropenia, and hospitalization, mortality, and the need for additional antibiotics or antifungal drugs were compared for the treatment success between the two groups. Out of 87 febrile neutropenic episodes that were evaluable for comparison, 46 patients received PTA and 41 patients were treated with carbapenems (imipenem or meropenem). Overall, the microbiologically documented infection rate was 21.9%, with Staphylococcus epidermidis as the most common cause of bacteremia. The rate of treatment modification was 56.5% in the PTA group and 53.6% in the carbapenem group with no statistical difference (p > .05). There was no infection-related mortality during the study period. There was no difference between the two regimens for durations of fever, neutropenia, and hospitalization (p > .05 for all categories). PTA was as effective as carbapenem monotherapy as an initial empirical regimen in febrile neutropenic episodes of pediatric hematological malignancies. The empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients with cancer requires antibacterial regimens active against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. This study was performed to demonstrate the noninferiority of monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam, compared with cefepime.
                We conducted a randomized-controlled, open-label, multicenter clinical trial among high-risk patients from 34 university-affiliated tertiary care medical centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia who were undergoing treatment for leukemia or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were hospitalized for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients received piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 h) or cefepime (2 g every 8 h) intravenously. The primary outcome was success (defined by defervescence without treatment modification) at 72 h of treatment, end of treatment, and test of cure in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, microbiological efficacy, the additional use of glycopeptide antibiotics, emergence of resistant bacteria, and safety.
                For 528 subjects (265 received piperacillin-tazobactam and 263 received cefepime), success rates were 57.7% and 48.3%, respectively (P = .04) at the 72-h time point, 39.6% and 31.6% (P = .06) at end of treatment, and 26.8% and 20.5% (P = .11) at the test-of-cure visit. The analyses demonstrated noninferiority for piperacillin-tazobactam at all time points (P< or = .0001). Treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam was independently associated with treatment success in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.64; P = .035). Both regimens were well tolerated.
                This study demonstrates the noninferiority and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy, compared with cefepime, for the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of piperacillin/tazobactam with cefepime monotherapy in children with febrile neutropenia. A prospective randomized study in children and adolescent with cancer was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam every 6 h (maximum 4.5 g/dose) or cefepime 50 mg/kg every 8 h (maximum 2 g/dose). Treatment modification was defined as all the changes in the empirical antimicrobials after the first 96 h. Overall treatment success was defined as cure of febrile episode with or without modification. Cost of hospitalization, antimicrobial drugs, and supportive therapy were calculated. Fifty febrile neutropenic episodes (25 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group, 25 in the cefepime group) in 27 pediatric cancer patients were evaluated. The groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body weight, primary diagnosis, disease status, initial neutrophil count, and duration of neutropenia. Microbiologically and clinically documented infection rate was 46%. There was no infection-related mortality in the study period. The treatment success of initial empirical therapy without modification was not different in the 2 groups (56% in piperacillin/tazobactam group and 48% in cefepime group). Anti-anaerobic drugs were added more frequently in the cefepime group. Duration of fever, neutropenia, treatment, and cost of therapy were not different in the treatment groups. Piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy is as effective as cefepime monotherapy in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients. This is a prospective, randomized, and open-label clinical trial that examines the efficiency and safety of PIP/TAZO monotherapy in comparison to cefepime (CEF), for the empirical treatment of pediatric cancer patients with neutropenia and fever.
                One hundred thirty-one consecutive febrile episodes in 70 neutropenic pediatric cancer patients received randomized treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) 80 mg/kg piperacillin/10 mg/kg tazobactam every 6 hr or CEF 50 mg/kg every 8 hr. Clinical response was determined at completion of therapy. Duration of fever, neutropenia, hospitalization, the need for modification of the therapy, and mortality rates were compared between the two groups.
                One hundred twenty-seven episodes in 69 patients (35 females, 34 males) with a median age of 4.2 years were assessed for efficiency (65 PIP/TAZO, 62 CEF). The frequency of success without modification of treatment was nearly identical for both PIP/TAZO (60.0%) and CEF (61.3%) (P > 0.05). The overall response rate, with or without modification of assigned treatment, was 96.9% for PIP/TAZO and 98.4% for CEP (P > 0.05). Infection-related mortality at the end of the febrile episode was 2.4%. Duration of fever and hospitalization were not different between the treatment groups. No major side effects were observed in neither of the groups.
                PIP/TAZO treatment was as effective and safe as CEF monotherapy as an initial empirical regimen in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. Efficacy and costs of empirical antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients are important issues. Several strategies have been reported to be similarly effective: monotherapy with cefepime, ceftazidime or a carbapenem or duotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic or ceftriaxone in combination with an aminoglycoside. Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is promising, but its role in this setting still has to be defined.
                Of 212 consecutive febrile episodes in 130 neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies randomized to receive either piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 8 h; group A) or ceftriaxone (2 g once daily plus gentamicin 5 mg/kg once daily; group B), 183 episodes (98 group A, 85 group B) were evaluable for response.
                Defervescence within 72 h without modification of the antibiotic therapy was achieved in 56/98 episodes (57.1%) in group A and in 30/85 (35.3%) in group B (P=0.0047). If fever persisted, teicoplanin plus gentamicin (group A) or teicoplanin plus ciprofloxacin (group B) were added. All patients still febrile then received meropenem, teicoplanin and amphotericin B. With these modifications of antibiotic therapy, 89.8% of patients in group A had responded at 21 days but only 71.8% in group B (P=0.005). The mean total antibiotic drug cost in group A was only 39.4% of that in group B (euro 445 versus euro 1129; P=0.010).
                Piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy is significantly more effective and cost-efficient than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin as first-line therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. Concerned about the inactivation of piperacillin by beta-lactamase and the risk of aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity and clindamycin-induced enterocolitis, we conducted the following phase III clinical trial.
                Between November 1991 and March 1993, 77 surgical patients with intraabdominal infections were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive either piperacillin/tazobactam or clindamycin plus gentamicin to compare safety, tolerance and efficacy between both two treatment groups.
                There were 76 clinically and 50 bacteriologically evaluable patients with 80 isolated pathogens. The demographic data were comparable in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference of clinical response at any time-point of treatment, with 97.8% favorable clinical response rate in piperacillin tazobactam group and 96.6% in clindamycin plus gentamicin group at endpoint. The bacteriological eradication rates were similar, with 97.7% in piperacillin/tazobactam group and 94.4% in clindamycin plus gentamicin group at pathogen level, and 96.7% in piperacillin/tazobactam group and 95.0% in clindamycin plus gentamicin group at patient level. By susceptibility tests, only 3 (4%) isolated pathogens were resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam, which was much superior to the use of piperacillin, clindamycin or gentamicin alone in antimicrobial activity. The piperacillin tazobactam-related adverse experiences included 1 (2.1%) urticaria and 2 (4.3%) diarrhea. However, there were no significant differences in the adverse experiences between these two groups.
                This study has demonstrated that piperacillin/tazobactam is comparable with clindamycin plus gentamicin in efficacy, safety and tolerance in the treatment of surgical patients with intra-abdominal infections. The combination of piperacillin/tazobactam could potentially be the treatment of choice in adjunt to surgical management in intra-abdominal infection. A three-arm prospective randomized trial was designed to compare the efficacies of piperacillin plus vancomycin, ceftazidime plus vancomycin, or all three drugs as initial therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients. The objectives were to determine whether a broad-spectrum penicillin was as effective as a broad-spectrum cephalosporin and whether two beta-lactam antibiotics were more effective than one. Four hundred and seventy of the 519 febrile episodes entered in the study could be evaluated for response. Ceftazidime plus vancomycin was significantly more effective than piperacillin plus vancomycin, considering all febrile episodes (79 percent versus 61 percent, p = 0.001), documented infections (79 percent versus 57 percent, p = 0.004), gram-negative infections (88 percent versus 47 percent, p = 0.001), and bacteremias (81 percent versus 51 percent, p = 0.01). The addition of piperacillin to ceftazidime (piperacillin plus ceftazidime and vancomycin versus ceftazidime plus vancomycin) did not improve the response rate and was associated with a significantly higher incidence of skin rash. Vancomycin plus ceftazidime provides adequate antibiotic coverage for initial treatment of fever in neutropenic patients. This combination was equally effective, less expensive, and less toxic than the double beta-lactam combination used in this study. Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Owing to inclusion criteria, it was possible for the same patient to be randomized several times. A total of 219 individual patients were admitted to a prospective randomized clinical study: 24 patients were included twice. Patients (23.5%) remained afebrile. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (n = 74 patients, group I) or piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 87 patients, group II). Response to first-line antibiotic treatment was seen in 55% (group I) and 53% (group II). After the addition of vancomycin, a further 19% (group I) and 24% (group II) of the patients became afebrile. Causes of fever were: microbiologically documented infection in 36 and 34 patients of group I and II; Clostridium difficile in eight and 12 patients of group I and II, and fever of unknown origin in 30 and 41 patients of group I and II. One patient died in each group. Single-agent therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam is as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever and is well tolerated. Direct and indirect costs of both treatment regimes are equivalent. An open-label randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime versus piperacillin plus gentamicin (P+G) given intravenously for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with underlying malignancy was conducted at two oncology centers. Over a 30-month period 111 patients were enrolled and 99 patients were found to be suitable for evaluation. At the 72-h time of evaluation, cefepime monotherapy and P+G combination therapy produced comparable clinical response rates (78% for both). P+G and cefepime produced comparable response rates in microbiologically documented (78 versus 71%), clinically documented (100 versus 100%), and possible (75 versus 79%) infections. The P+G and cefepime treatments achieved comparable microbiological eradication of gram-negative (100 versus 71%) (P = 0.09) and gram-positive (44 versus 70%) (P = 0.37) organisms. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of superinfection between the groups; however, more superinfections of fungal origin were noted in the P+G group. Cefepime was demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with malignancies, and its lack of nephrotoxicity compared to P+G was noteworthy. Cefepime appears to be a candidate for monotherapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Between July 1993 and September 1996, 107 consecutive febrile episodes in 83 neutropenic cancer patients with a median age of 41 years were randomized to treatment either with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 8 h i.v. or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h plus amikacin 15 mg/kg i.v. per day. In the case of fever > 38 degrees C 48 h after initiation of the antibiotic therapy, vancomycin 500 mg every 6 h i.v. was added. The study population was at serious risk of a poor outcome, since 67% of the patients had leukemia or lymphoma, 19% of the febrile events occurred after autologous bone marrow or blood stem cell transplantation, the median total duration of neutropenia was 16 days, and the median neutrophil count at study inclusion was 0.09 x 10(9)/1. The two patient groups were comparable in terms of risk factors. Bacteremia was found in 37%, other microscopically documented infections in 16%, and clinically documented infections in 26% of the febrile episodes. Most (96) febrile episodes were evaluable for response. No significant difference was found between piperacillin/ tazobactam and ceftazidime plus amikacin in terms of success rate (81% versus 83%), empirical addition of vancomycin (42% versus 38%), median time to fever defervescence (3.3 versus 2.9 days) or median duration of antibiotic therapy (7.2 versus 7.4 days). No patient died from the infection. Both antibiotic regimens were well tolerated, the study treatment being stopped only in 1 patient because of toxicity (cutaneous allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam). On the basis of the 107 febrile events encountered, we conclude that piperacillin/tazobactam is a safe and effective monotherapy. To define the definitive value of piperacillin/ tazobactam as a monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients a large randomized trial is warranted. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam(PIP-TAZ) versus imipenem/cilastin (IMI) administered as empiric monotherapy in patients with febrile neutropenia.
                Patients with hematological diseases who were randomly assigned either PIP-TAZor IMI were enrolled in the study. A sequential strategy of antibiotic therapy addition was applied as long as fever persisted or microorganisms were isolated at 72 h. Moreover, if bacteriologically unconfirmed fever persisted after 5-7 days, an antifungal therapy was started. The treatment was considered successful if fever and clinical signs resolved and/or pathogens were cleared without adding further antibiotics at 72 h. Differences between percentages were analyzed using the *2test.
                137 patients were evaluated. The successful response rate of PIP-TAZ after 72 h was similar to IMI (32.2 and 35.2%). The defervescence time was shorter (3.6 and 4.2 days) and the bacterial response more favourable with PIP-TAZ than with IMI, but statistically significant differences were not reached. The overall response in both groups was 91%.18.2% of episodes were bacteriologically confirmed. The most frequent isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus coagulase-negative(48.8%). There was one only case of septic shock, within the IMI group, and the overall mortality of the group was 8.7%. The occurrence of vomiting in the IMI group was significantly higher than in the PIP-TAZ group (39.9 and 5.6%; p < 0.0001).
                PIP-TAZ is as effective as IMI and it constitutes a good choice as an initial empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia. 1998, a consensus meeting was held in Miyazaki, Japan, to develop an approach to management of febrile neutropenia (FN). The K-HOT study group decided to examine whether this proposal was applicable to clinical practice in a multicenter study. Patients who developed fever with neutrophil counts <1,000/microL were randomized to receive either a single antibiotic, cefepime or one of the carbapenems, or a combination of cefepime and an aminoglycoside. Patients who became afebrile within the first 3 days were continued on the same treatment. Patients who remained febrile were switched to a combination regimen if they were randomized to receive a single agent, and patients on combination medication were changed from cefepime to another cephalosporin. A total of 165 patients were entered into the trial. One hundred fifty-three patients were evaluable for response. The average age was 52 years, and 70% of the patients had acute leukemia. Severe neutropenia, defined as <100/microL at the time of FN, was seen in 62% of the patients on entry and during the course of treatment 71% of patients experienced neutrophil counts of <100/microL. Microbiologically documented infection was seen in 6.5% for monotherapy, and 10.5% for a combination treatment, and fever of unknown origin occurred in 75.3% and 59.2% of the patients in each regimen, respectively. Excellent to good response was seen in two-thirds of the patients in all treatment groups. Adverse events were minimal, and three early deaths were observed at days 9, 16, and 16 among patients treated with a single antibiotic and three in the combination regimen group at days 14, 15, and 20. These results indicate that cefepime or a carbapenem alone is as effective as a combination of cefepime and an aminoglycoside for treating FN.
                Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Toxin-producing Clostridium difficile is the commonest bacterial cause of nosocomial diarrhoea and is a well recognized cause of hospital outbreaks in elderly care units. High C. difficile disease rates have been associated with the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, especially cephalosporins. An outbreak of C. difficile infection in the elderly care unit at Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust continued despite increased ward cleaning and strict implementation of infection control measures. A restrictive antibiotic policy that would maintain colonization resistance in the gastrointestinal tract was introduced throughout this unit. Patients admitted with suspected infection were prescribed intravenous (i.v.) benzylpenicillin 1.2-1.8 g every 6 h to cover streptococcal infections and i.v. trimethoprim 200 mg twice daily to cover urinary tract pathogens and Haemophilus influenzae. If the patient had septic shock a single iv dose of gentamicin was given (120-180 mg) to cover more resistant gram-negative bacilli. The following were monitored before and after the policy change. The number of cases of C. difficile toxin-positive diarrhoea; cefuroxime and total antibiotic use on the elderly care wards; patient mortality rates; and length of hospital stay: two hundred and fifty-two and 234 patients respectively with a discharge diagnosis of infection were admitted before and after the antibiotic policy change. Mortality rates and length of hospital stay were unchanged. Cefuroxime prescribing and total antibiotic prescribing costs fell by 5150 pounds sterling and 8622 pounds sterling respectively in the 7 month period after the change. Thirty-seven cases of C. difficile diarrhoea occurred in the period before and 16 in the period after the policy change. The incidence of C. difficile diarrhoea and of cefuroxime use has remained low since then. The use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics for hospital treatment of community-acquired infections in the elderly should be encouraged. Outbreaks of C. difficile diarrhoea should be managed with the combined approach of infection control and strict antibiotic policies. Both vancomycin and third-generation cephalosporin use are believed to contribute to a rise in vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) infections. In 1998, the largest number of VRE infections in our hospital occurred in the trauma/burn intensive care unit (TBICU), accounting for nearly 20% of hospital infections. In an attempt to control the VRE infection rate, antibiotic protocols for prophylaxis, empiric, and definitive therapy were initiated during the final quarter of 1998 to minimize cephalosporin use by the introduction of piperacillin/tazobactam. Therefore, we undertook a study of the VRE infection rate for the TBICU in relation to vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, piperacillin, third-generation cephalosporin, and total cephalosporin use before and after efforts to limit cephalosporins. These data were compared to those in the medical and surgical intensive care units. During 1998, seven VRE infections occurred in the TBICU. Following initiation of antibiotic protocols, one case of VRE infection occurred in the subsequent month and no cases in the 17 months since. The decrease in the VRE infection rate corresponded with a significant increase in the use of piperacillin/tazobactam and a reduction in third-generation and total cephalosporin use. In contrast, cephalosporin use in the medical and surgical intensive care units remains significantly higher than in the TBICU, and neither unit has had a reduction in their VRE infection rates. In view of the recent trend toward monotherapy in the treatment of febrile neutropenia, we evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin versus piperacillin-tazobactam as an empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with malignant diseases.
                Febrile neutropenic patients received either imipenem-cilastatin or piperacillin-tazobactam randomly. Improvement without any changes in the initial antibiotic treatment was defined as "success" and improvement with modification of the initial treatment and death was defined as "failure".
                Over 12 months, 99 febrile neutropenic episodes were treated with monotherapy in 63 patients with a median age of 5 years. At admission, median absolute neutrophil count was 50/mm(3) and in 67% of episodes, neutrophil count was under 100/mm(3). Median duration of neutropenia was 5 days. In 22% of episodes, neutropenia persisted for more than 10 days. Piperacillin-tazobactam was used in 52 episodes and imipenem-cilastatin was used in 47 episodes. There was no difference between groups in terms of age, sex, primary diseases, neutrophil count or duration of neutropenia. In the whole group, the success rate was 67% and the failure rate was 33%, whereas in the piperacillin-tazobactam group, the rates were 71% and 29%; and in the imipenem-cilastatin group they were 62% and 38%, respectively (P > 0.05). There were no deaths. No major adverse effects were seen in either group.
                Although failure was slightly higher in the imipenem-cilastatin group, this was statistically insignificant. Both of these antibiotics can be used safely for initial empirical monotherapy of febrile neutropenia. In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g 3 times daily intravenously) plus placebo versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin (7.5 mg/kg twice daily intravenously) for the treatment of 760 febrile, adult patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced profound (<500 neutrophils/mm3) and prolonged (>10 days) neutropenia. A total of 733 patients were assessable for efficacy of the drug regimens, and an overall successful outcome was reported in 49% (179 of 364) of the patients who received monotherapy, compared with 53% (196 of 369) of patients who received combination therapy (P=.2). Response rates were similar with both regimens, as were incidences of bacteremia and clinically documented and possible infections. In our epidemiological setting, the initial empiric combination therapy was not associated with improved outcomes when compared with initial monotherapy. In the present study 24 hospitalized patients requiring empirical antibiotic treatment were randomly assigned to receive the beta-lactam antibiotic/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination piperacillin-tazobactam either as an intermittent or as a continuous infusion. According to pharmacokinetic modelling, the daily dose was reduced by 33% in patients receiving continuous infusion compared with intermittent infusion. Dose reduction because of impaired renal function was required in the intermittent dosing group for 5 of 12 patients compared with 1 of 12 patients in the continuous infusion group. However, the mean daily dose in the continuous group was 15% less than the intermittent infusion group. Mean serum concentrations of piperacillin were to 39.0 microg/ml after the end of bolus distribution, exceeding by far the minimal inhibitory concentration of the most clinically relevant pathogens. The corresponding mean value for tazobactam was 6.3 microg/ml. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling suggests that both treatment schemes should produce virtually identical anti-infective responses to sensitive, intermediate and resistant strains. In the present study the continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam provided adequate antibacterial activity over the 24-h dosing period and offers the potential for a substantial reduction in the total daily dose. A prospective, open label, randomized, multicentre study was conducted, comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime with that of imipenem-cilastatin for the management of febrile neutropenia in patients with haematological malignancies. Furthermore, the safety of early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with fever of undetermined origin (FUO) was assessed. A total of 180 patients with 207 febrile episodes were randomized at start of fever (105 episodes for cefepime and 102 episodes for imipenem). The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, underlying malignancy, prior transplantation, and presence of central venous catheters. All patients were neutropenic at inclusion with median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 0.1 x 10(9)/l(range 0-1 x 10(9)/l), and ANC < or = 0.1 x 10(9)/l in 77% of included patients. The mean duration of neutropenia, with ANC < 0.5 x 10(9)/l was 6.2 d. Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection (47%), FUO (43%), or clinically documented infection (10%). At final evaluation 1-2 weeks after completion of antibiotic therapy, monotherapy success rates were 40% and 51% in the cefepime and imipenem-cilastatin groups respectively (p = 0.33). The 4-week overall mortality rate was 5%. Three (2%) of the cefepime treated patients and 4 (3%) of the imipenem-cilastatin treated patients died as a result of infection. Adverse events directly related to antibiotic treatment were uncommon and did not differ between groups. Early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in 31 patients with FUO 48 h after defervescence was not associated with an increased rate of fever relapse or mortality compared with a subgroup of 29 patients where therapy was continued. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) versus PIP/TAZO plus amikacin in febrile neutropenic children with acute leukemia (AL). Children with AL who had febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to treatment with PIP/TAZO versus PIP/TAZO plus amikacin. Modification was defined as addition of other antimicrobials and/or antifungal agents to the empirical therapy. Protocol failure was defined as withdrawal of the empirical regimen and introduction of other antimicrobials due to failure in controlling infection. Seventy-two febrile episodes of 42 patients with a median age of 4.5 years (3.5 months to 19 years) were evaluated. There were 37 and 35 episodes in PIP/TAZO and combination arms, respectively. Success without modification, with modification, protocol failure, duration of treatment were 45.9%, 35.1%, 18.9%, and 10 days in PIP/TAZO arm and 42.9%, 37.1%, 20%, and 12 days in combination arm, respectively (P > .05). There was no significant difference between the empirical therapy arms regarding median duration of neutropenia and defervescence of fever. Empirical therapy was substituted by other drugs in 6 and 5 episodes in PIP/TAZO and combination arms, respectively. There was no infection-related death. There was reversible increase in serum creatinine in 1 episode on the combination arm. Monotherapy with PIP/TAZO was effective and safe for initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in children with AL. However, local bacterial resistance patterns should be considered in daily practice. Combination of amikacin with PIP/TAZO did not improve treatment success, but it may increase nephrotoxicity. Seven antibiotics, administered in 10 different regimens for prophylaxis, were randomly assigned to 1580 patients who were delivered by cesarean section. Cefazolin 1 gm, administered for three doses, served as the control group. Cefazolin 1 gm, cefazolin 2 gm, cefoxitin 1 gm, cefoxitin 2 gm, cefonicid 1 gm, cefotetan 1 gm, ceftizoxime 1 gm, ampicillin 2 gm, and piperacillin 4 gm were all administered in a single dose. Four antibiotics proved to be superior in preventing postpartum endometritis: ampicillin 2 gm (p = 0.03), cefazolin 2 gm (p = 0.005), piperacillin 4 gm (p = 0.0007), and cefotetan 1 gm (p = 0.0001). Single-dose cephalosporin antibiotic prophylaxis was found to result in approximately a twofold increase in Enterococcus faecalis colonization of the vagina (p less than 0.01). This may be significant in patients in whom postpartum endometritis develops and who have failure of initial treatment with a broad-spectrum cephalosporin, e.g., cefoxitin or cefotetan, or a combination such as clindamycin or metronidazole plus an aminoglycoside. Rupture of amniotic membranes for a half hour or more was associated with an increased risk for postpartum endometritis. The use of internal fetal monitoring was associated with an increased risk of soft tissue pelvic infection. A prospective randomized study was conducted to determine the efficacy of imipenem-cilastatin (hereafter referred to as imipenem) (500 mg four times daily) versus combination therapy for febrile neutropenic patients receiving either no prophylaxis or ciprofloxacin for prevention of infections. Combination therapy consisted of gentamicin (80 mg every 8 h) plus either cefuroxime (1,500 mg every 8 h) or cephalothin (1,000 mg every 4 h) for suspected catheter-related infections. Ninety-four neutropenic fever episodes in 87 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall clinical rate of response to imipenem was significantly higher than that to combination therapy (91 versus 74%; P = 0.05). The difference in efficacy was most pronounced in patients with microbiologically documented infections (89 versus 53%; P = 0.025), which were predominantly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Differences in susceptibility may have caused the better rate of response to imipenem. Two of 29 gram-positive bacteria were imipenem resistant, whereas 10 were resistant to cephalothin and cefuroxime and 12 were resistant to gentamicin. No causative gram-negative bacterium and 24 gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 61 fever episodes with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral). In contrast, nine causative gram-negative and five gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 33 episodes without prophylaxis. The difference in distribution proved to be statistically significant for gram-negative (P = 0.0001) as well as gram-positive (P = 0.025) bacteria, indicating that ciprofloxacin effectively prevented the occurrence of gram-negative bacteria and may have contributed to the relatively large number of gram-positive bacteria isolated. Empirical initial therapy with imipenem may be a valuable alternative to combination therapy for neutropenic fever episodes. Many antibiotics and antibiotic combinations are used for the treatment of peritonitis because of advanced (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis. An aminoglycoside combined with an antianaerobe antibiotic is one standard treatment, but there is concern about the potential nephrotoxicity of the aminoglycoside and the necessity for monitoring aminoglycoside blood levels. Cefepime, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin with a prolonged serum half-life, has excellent activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Its spectrum of activity is similar to the aminoglycosides, but it has less potential for inducing renal injury. A double-blind, randomized study compared cefepime, 2 grams every 12 hours IVPB plus metronidazole 0.5 grams every eight hours IVPB (C/M) with gentamicin 1.5 milligrams per kilograms of IVPB plus clindamycin 0.9 grams q eight hours IVPB (G/C), administered up to 14 days, in 96 surgically treated patients with gangrenous or perforated appendicitis. Fifty patients had advanced appendicitis (nine gangrenous and 41 perforated) in the C/M group and 46 patients (six gangrenous and 40 perforated) in the G/C group. The mean number of days of postoperative fever (C/M, 4.4 +/- 2.7 versus G/C, 5.0 +/- 2.2), postoperative hospitalization (C/M, 2.0 +/- 1.9 versus G/C, 2.0 +/- 2.1) and antibiotic therapy (C/M, 6.3 +/- 1.9 versus G/C, 6.9 +/- 1.9) was similar in the two treatment groups. There were 11 treatment failures (C/M, three; G/C, eight; p = 0.13), six of which were probably a result of enterococci. No deaths occurred. Our study results show that the efficacy of cefepime plus metronidazole is equivalent to that of clindamycin plus gentamicin. Widespread antibiotic use has been associated with increases in both bacterial resistance and nosocomial infection.
                To characterize the impact of hospital-wide clindamycin restriction on the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and on antimicrobial prescribing practices.
                Prospective, observational cohort study.
                University-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
                Hospitalized patients with symptomatic diarrhea.
                Clinical data on individual patients and data on antibiotic use were obtained from hospital pharmacy records. Hospital-wide use of antimicrobial agents was monitored. Isolates of C. difficile underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing and molecular typing.
                An outbreak of C. difficile-associated diarrhea was caused by a clonal isolate of clindamycin-resistant C. difficile and was associated with increased use of clindamycin. Hospital-wide requirement of approval by an infectious disease consultant of clindamycin use led to an overall reduction in clindamycin use, a sustained reduction in the mean number of cases of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (11.5 cases/month compared with 3.33 cases/month; P < 0.001), and an increase in clindamycin susceptibility among C. difficile isolates (9% compared with 61%; P < 0.001). A parallel increase was noted in the use of and costs associated with other antibiotics with antianaerobic activity, including cefotetan, ticarcillin-clavulanate, and imipenem-cilastin. The hospital realized overall cost savings as a result of the decreased incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhea.
                Hospital formulary restriction of clindamycin is an effective way to decrease the number of infections due to C. difficile. It can also lead to a return in clindamycin susceptibility among isolates and can effect cost savings to the hospital. To evaluate an intervention to reduce inappropriate use of key antibiotics with interrupted time series analysis.
                The intervention is a policy for appropriate use of Alert Antibiotics (carbapenems, glycopeptides, amphotericin, ciprofloxacin, linezolid, piperacillin-tazobactam and third-generation cephalosporins) implemented through concurrent, patient-specific feedback by clinical pharmacists. Statistical significance and effect size were calculated by segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series of drug use and cost for 2 years before and after the intervention started.
                Use of Alert Antibiotics increased before the intervention started but decreased steadily for 2 years thereafter. The changes in slope of the time series were 0.27 defined daily doses/100 bed-days per month (95% CI 0.19-0.34) and pound 1908 per month (95% CI pound 1238- pound 2578). The cost of development, dissemination and implementation of the intervention ( pound 20133) was well below the most conservative estimate of the reduction in cost ( pound 133296), which is the lower 95% CI of effect size assuming that cost would not have continued to increase without the intervention. However, if use had continued to increase, the difference between predicted and actual cost of Alert Antibiotics was pound 572448 (95% CI pound 435696- pound 709176) over the 24 months after the intervention started.
                Segmented regression analysis of pharmacy stock data is a simple, practical and robust method for measuring the impact of interventions to change prescribing. The Alert Antibiotic Monitoring intervention was associated with significant decreases in total use and cost in the 2 years after the programme was implemented. In our hospital, the value of the data far exceeded the cost of processing and analysis. To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenic patient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections.
                A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
                876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation.
                Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator.
                Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events.
                As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07%; 95% Cl, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; Cl, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; Cl, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; Cl, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001).
                Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia. In a prospective randomized trial parenteral trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole was added to amikacin plus piperacillin in order to compare triple-drug antibiotic combination with a standard regimen as empiric therapy of fever in patients with granulocytopenia. One hundred and sixty-one episodes were evaluated; 74 episodes with amikacin plus piperacillin and 87 episodes with amikacin plus piperacillin plus trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. The overall response to therapy (63% vs. 84%) as well as the response of microbiologically documented infections (60% vs. 82%) was significantly better in patients treated with the triple-drug combination (p less than 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences in response to antibiotics at different infection sites or with regard to any single pathogen was found between the two groups. Trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole seemed to be responsible for additional toxicity (nausea and vomiting) when added to amikacin plus piperacillin, but these side-effects were clearly related to the rate of infusion of trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. The findings of this study support the use of a three-drug versus a two-drug combination as empiric antibiotic regimen in febrile granulocytopenic patients. To compare ertapenem therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam therapy for the management of acute pelvic infections.
                In a multicenter, double-blind study, 412 women with acute pelvic infection were assigned to one of two strata, namely obstetric/postpartum infection or gynecologic/postoperative infection, and were then randomized to ertapenem, 1 g once a day, or piperacillin-tazobactam, 3.375 g every 6 hours, both administered intravenously.
                In total, 163 patients in the ertapenem group and 153 patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group were clinically evaluable. The median duration of therapy was 4.0 days in both treatment groups. The most common single pathogen was Escherichia coli. At the primary efficacy endpoint 2-4 weeks post therapy, 93.9% of patients who received ertapenem and 91.5% of those who received piperacillin-tazobactam were cured (95% confidence interval for the difference, adjusting for strata, -4% to 8.8%), indicating that cure rates for both treatment groups were equivalent. Cure rates for both treatment groups were also similar when compared by stratum and severity of infection. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both groups.
                In this study, ertapenem was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of acute pelvic infection, was generally well tolerated, and had an overall safety profile similar to that of piperacillin-tazobactam. 69 febrile granulocytopenic episodes without an initial focus of infection were assessed for empiric treatment either with high-dose amikacin plus piperacillin or ceftazidime. 90% of patients in each group survived the granulocytopenic episode; 15 (44 +/- 17%) episodes treated with the combination and 23 (66 +/- 16%) given ceftazidime responded without any modification of initial therapy and half defervesced within 72 h. Persistent fever was the most frequent reason for altering treatment which was done empirically in 90% of cases, but two-thirds of patients required further treatment modification. An infectious focus mainly involving the lung developed during granulocytopenia in 21 patients (30%), of which 17 occurred during antimicrobial therapy. Only 1 infection was shown to be due to bacteria, while 7 were due to fungi. Amikacin levels were similar to those expected following a normal dose (mean peak of 34.7 and mean trough of 12.6 mg/l). Therapy with the combination resulted in a higher serum creatinine (p less than 0.001) and a lower potassium level (p less than 0.001) in comparison with monotherapy. Potassium supplementation was required in 45 +/- 17% of patients given the combination compared with only 4 +/- 7% of those treated with ceftazidime. While both regimens appeared to be equally effective as initial therapy, the need for modification was high in both patient groups. Monotherapy being both simpler to administer and less toxic seems therefore to be the logical choice although the period of empiric therapy must be fully exploited in order to improve diagnosis and therefore antimicrobial management. Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have been standard therapy for suspected infections in granulocytopenic cancer patients, especially those with profound long-lasting granulocytopenia. With the advent of new broad-spectrum bactericidal antibiotics such as extended-spectrum cephalosporins or carbapenems, the need to combine beta-lactams with aminoglycosides became more controversial. The objective of this prospective randomized multicenter study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of meropenem monotherapy with those of the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Of 1,034 randomized patients, 958 were assessable in the intent-to-treat analysis for response to antibacterial therapy, including 483 in the meropenem group and 475 in the ceftazidime-plus-amikacin group. The median durations of neutropenia were 16 and 17 days, respectively. A successful outcome was reported in 270 of 483 (56%) patients treated with monotherapy compared with 245 of 475 (52%) patients treated with the combination group (P = 0.20). The success rates in the monotherapy group and the combination group were similar by type of infection (single gram-negative bacteremia, single gram-positive bacteremia, clinically documented infection, and possible infection). The occurrence of further infections assessed in patients for whom the allocated regimen was not modified did not differ between the two groups (12% in both groups). Mortality due to the presenting infection or further infection was relatively low (8 patients treated with the monotherapy compared with 13 patients treated with the combination). A total of 1,027 patients were evaluable for adverse events; the proportion of those who developed adverse effects was similar between the two groups (29% in both groups), and only 19 (4%) patients in the monotherapy group and 31 (6%) in the combination group experienced an adverse event related or probably related to the study drug. Allergic reactions were the only reason for stopping the protocol antibiotic(s) (3 and 5 patients, respectively). This study confirms that monotherapy with meropenem is as effective as the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empiric treatment of fever in persistently granulocytopenic cancer patients, and both regimens were well tolerated. Traditionally obstetric infections have been treated with combination antimicrobial agents that provide coverage against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria commonly found in these infections. New antibiotics may be a monotherapy alternative for this type of infections. The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of the agent piperacillin/tazobactam against ampicillin plus gentamicin in the treatment of postcesarean endometritis. By randomized way 14 patients were enrolled in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 42 in the ampicillin-gentamicin group. A favorable clinical response occurred in 78.6% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients and 88.1% of ampicillin and gentamicin patients (p = NS). There was no statistically significant difference in the times to recovery and days of hospitalization between the two groups. The combination piperacillin/tazobactam did not show advantage towards the standard treatment, so combination antimicrobial agent continue been the optimal approach to the management of obstetric infection. With the availability of new broad-spectrum antibiotics, initial therapy with a single agent has become an alternative to classic combinations, especially beta-lactam antibiotics plus aminoglycosides, in the management of febrile neutropenic cancer patients.
                Since January 1994, monotherapy has been used for empiric initial treatment at our center. The aim of this prospective randomized study is to compare the efficacy of cefepime (CFP), a new fourth-generation cephalosporin, and ceftazidime (CFZ) as empirical monotherapy of febrile neutropenic patients with solid tumors. From January 1998 to November 1998, 63 episodes of fever and neutropenia occurring in 33 children with solid tumors including lymphomas, were randomized to receive treatment with either CFP or CFZ. The patients were analyzed for leukocyte count and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at entry, days in fever, neutropenia and hospitalization, and side effects of drugs. Success with or without modifications of the initial antibiotic was defined as survival through neutropenia; failure was death due to infection.
                In our study group, with a median age of 7 [(1/12)-14] years, CFP was administered in 32, and CFZ in 31 episodes. An infection was documented microbiologically in eight episodes (25%) in the CFP arm and in nine episodes (29%) in the CFZ arm. The success rate with initial empiric monotherapy was 62.5% in the CFP arm and 61.3% in the CFZ arm respectively (P > 0.05). The total success rate (success with or without modification) was 100% in both arms. No major adverse effects were observed in either groups.
                CFP is as effective and safe as CFZ for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with solid tumors.
                Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc. The purpose of this randomized, multicenter, open-label study was to compare the continuous infusion of piperacillin-tazobactam with the standard intermittent infusion in 262 hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Within 1 day of surgical intervention, eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to piperacillin-tazobactam 12 g/1.5 g administered continuously over 24 h or 3 g/0.375 g administered over 30 min intermittently every 6 h for 4 to 14 days. The demographics of the patients in the groups were similar, with a median APACHE II score of 7 and a median length of hospitalization of 7 days. Among 167 clinically evaluable patients, 86.4% and 88.4% of the patients treated with the continuous infusion and the intermittent infusion, respectively, were clinically cured or improved at the test-of-cure visit (P = 0.817). Bacteriological success was observed in 83.9% and 87.9% of patients (P = 0.597) in the two groups, respectively, and no differences in bacteriological response by pathogen were noted. Defervesence and white blood cell count normalization occurred in the majority of patients within 3 days and were similar between patients receiving the continuous infusion and those receiving the intermittent infusion. Drug-related adverse events were generally mild and were reported in similar numbers of patients in each arm of the trial. The results of this study support continuous infusion as a safe and reasonable alternate mode of administration of piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection. To determine the efficacy of a probiotic drink containing Lactobacillus for the prevention of any diarrhoea associated with antibiotic use and that caused by Clostridium difficile.
                Randomised double blind placebo controlled study.
                135 hospital patients (mean age 74) taking antibiotics. Exclusions included diarrhoea on admission, bowel pathology that could result in diarrhoea, antibiotic use in the previous four weeks, severe illness, immunosuppression, bowel surgery, artificial heart valves, and history of rheumatic heart disease or infective endocarditis.
                Consumption of a 100 g (97 ml) drink containing Lactobacillus casei, L bulgaricus, and Streptococcus thermophilus twice a day during a course of antibiotics and for one week after the course finished. The placebo group received a longlife sterile milkshake.
                Primary outcome: occurrence of antibiotic associated diarrhoea. Secondary outcome: presence of C difficile toxin and diarrhoea.
                7/57 (12%) of the probiotic group developed diarrhoea associated with antibiotic use compared with 19/56 (34%) in the placebo group (P=0.007). Logistic regression to control for other factors gave an odds ratio 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.85) for use of the probiotic, with low albumin and sodium also increasing the risk of diarrhoea. The absolute risk reduction was 21.6% (6.6% to 36.6%), and the number needed to treat was 5 (3 to 15). No one in the probiotic group and 9/53 (17%) in the placebo group had diarrhoea caused by C difficile (P=0.001). The absolute risk reduction was 17% (7% to 27%), and the number needed to treat was 6 (4 to 14).
                Consumption of a probiotic drink containing L casei, L bulgaricus, and S thermophilus can reduce the incidence of antibiotic associated diarrhoea and C difficile associated diarrhoea. This has the potential to decrease morbidity, healthcare costs, and mortality if used routinely in patients aged over 50.
                National Research Register N0016106821. The efficacy, safety, and cost of cefepime and ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy in children with febrile neutropenia is compared. A prospective randomized study in children with cancer was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either cefepime 150 mg/kg/day or ceftazidime 150 mg/kg/day combined with amikacin 15 mg/kg/day. Treatment modification was defined as all the changes in the empirical antimicrobials after the first 72 h. Overall treatment success was defined as cure of febrile episode with or without modification. Costs of hospitalization, antimicrobial drugs, and supportive therapy were calculated. Fifty febrile netropenic episodes were evaluated. Infectious agents were microbiologically identified in 28% of episodes. The incidence of gram-negative and gram-positive isolates was equal. Overall treatment success was 100% and success of initial empirical therapy without modification was 52 and 40% in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin groups, respectively. The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimen was 64 and 52 % in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin arms, respectively. Glycopeptide and antifungal drugs were added more frequently in the ceftazidime + amikacin group. Duration of fever, hospitalization, and antimicrobial drug administration were longer in the ceftazidime + amikacin arm. The costs of the antimicrobial drugs, hospitalization, and total cost were lower in the cefepime arm. Cefepime monotherapy is as effective as ceftazidime + amikacin combination in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients and must be preferred due to shorter defervescence of fever, shorter hospitalization, and lower therapy cost. 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.
Current evidence supports the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in locations where antibiotic resistance profiles do not mandate empirical use of carbapenems. Carbapenems result in a higher rate of antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. There is a high level of evidence that all-cause mortality is higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams and it should not be used as monotherapy for patients with febrile neutropenia.