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: Cefepime/amikacin versus ceftazidime/amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a comparative study. The French Cefepime Study Group.
    Author: Cordonnier C, Herbrecht R, Pico JL, Gardembas M, Delmer A, Delain M, Moreau P, Ladeb S, Nalet V, Rollin C, Gres JJ.
    Journal: Clin Infect Dis; 1997 Jan; 24(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 8994754.
    Abstract:
    We conducted a randomized multicenter study to compare the efficacy and safety of two antibiotic regimens (cefepime [2 g b.i.d.] plus amikacin or ceftazidime [2 g t.i.d.] plus amikacin) as first-line therapy for fever in patients with hematologic malignancies and neutropenia. A total of 353 patients were randomized according to a 2:1 (cefepime:ceftazidime) ratio. Two hundred-twelve patients in the cefepime group and 107 in the ceftazidime group (90% of all patients) were evaluable for efficacy. The polymorphonuclear neutrophil count was < 100/mm3 on enrollment for 70% of the patients. The mean duration of neutropenia was 26 days. The efficacy in both study arms was comparable, although a trend in favor of cefepime was seen in terms of therapeutic success (response rate, 27% vs. 21% for the ceftazidime group). The overall response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 60% for the cefepime group and 51% for the ceftazidime group; the bacterial eradication rates were 81% vs. 76%, respectively, and the rates of new bacterial infections were 14% vs. 18%, respectively. We conclude that the combination cefepime/amikacin is at least as effective as the reference regimen of ceftazidime/amikacin in this setting.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]