These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Randomized study of cefepime versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia.
    Author: Jimeno A, Arcediano A, Bazares S, Amador ML, González-Cortijo L, Ciruelos E, Robles L, Castellano D, Paz-Ares L, Lumbreras C, Hornedo J, Cortés-Funes H.
    Journal: Clin Transl Oncol; 2006 Dec; 8(12):889-95. PubMed ID: 17169762.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with cefepime for patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia. SUBJECTS: Patients with solid tumors treated with HDC and PBSCS, that developed fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 500 cells/microL) were eligible, and randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime plus amikacin or cefepime. RESULTS: Fifty-one episodes were randomized, and all were evaluable (27 received ceftazidime plus amikacin arm, and 24 cefepime). Major efficacy endpoints did not show significant differences, with success rates of 44.4% and 54.2% (p = 0.481) for the combination arm and the monotherapy arm, respectively. The proportion of patients that became afebrile in the first 24 hours was significantly higher in the cefepime group (41.7% vs 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.012). However, due to its premature closure and small sample size, this study lacks the adequate power to definitely address this question. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime monotherapy appeared to have an equivalent efficacy and safety as empiric treatment in febrile neutropenia episodes in a highrisk population compared with ceftazidime and amikacin. Nevertheless, this study is not adequately powered to answer this question. Given the small number of patients randomized and the single-center nature of this study, these results must be cautiously interpreted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]