Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer

Yu Yu Chuang, Iou Jih Hung, Chao Ping Yang, Tang Her Jaing, Tzou Yien Lin, Yhu Chering Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Monotherapy with cefepime or ceftazidime is an effective alternative to combination therapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenic adult cancer patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer. Materials and methods. A prospective, open label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted at Chang Gung Children's Hospital from January 1, 2000, to April 15, 2001. Patients with fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of ≤500/mm3) were randomized to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose as two or three doses daily). Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection or unexplained fever. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success and failure. Results. Ninety-five pediatric cancer patients with 120 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive empiric treatment with cefepime or ceftazidime. After 72 h of treatment, 82.8% (48 of 58) of the eligible patients in the cefepime group continued with unmodified therapy, compared with 87.9% (51 of 58) in the ceftazidime group. The neutrophil count was <100/mm3 at randomization for 76% of the patients in the cefepime group and 83% of those in the ceftazidime group; the median durations of neutropenia (<500/mm3) were 8.5 and 6.5 days, respectively. Of the 96 evaluable episodes the overall success rate with unmodified empiric therapy until the end of the treatment course in the cefepime group was comparable with that in the ceftazidime group (69% vs. 71%, P = 0.95). The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 79.2% for the cefepime group and 77.1% for the ceftazidime group. The bacterial eradication rate was 33% for the cefepime group and 20% for the ceftazidime group (P = 0.85), and the rates of new infections were 10.4% vs. 4.2% (P = 0.67), respectively. Both study drugs were well-tolerated. Three (6.4%) patients in the cefepime group and 2 (4.3%) patients in the ceftazidime group died. Conclusion. Cefepime appeared to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)203-209
Number of pages7
JournalPediatric Infectious Disease Journal
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ceftazidime
Neutropenia
Fever
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Pediatrics
Neutrophils
cefepime
Infection
Febrile Neutropenia
Glycopeptides
Random Allocation
Safety

Keywords

  • Cefepime
  • Ceftazidime
  • Childhood cancer
  • Febrile neutropenia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Microbiology (medical)

Cite this

Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer. / Chuang, Yu Yu; Hung, Iou Jih; Yang, Chao Ping; Jaing, Tang Her; Lin, Tzou Yien; Huang, Yhu Chering.

In: Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2002, p. 203-209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chuang, Yu Yu ; Hung, Iou Jih ; Yang, Chao Ping ; Jaing, Tang Her ; Lin, Tzou Yien ; Huang, Yhu Chering. / Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer. In: Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2002 ; Vol. 21, No. 3. pp. 203-209.
@article{47627168e25b4539b4fc1ba8bfcd66a6,
title = "Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer",
abstract = "Background. Monotherapy with cefepime or ceftazidime is an effective alternative to combination therapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenic adult cancer patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer. Materials and methods. A prospective, open label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted at Chang Gung Children's Hospital from January 1, 2000, to April 15, 2001. Patients with fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of ≤500/mm3) were randomized to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose as two or three doses daily). Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection or unexplained fever. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success and failure. Results. Ninety-five pediatric cancer patients with 120 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive empiric treatment with cefepime or ceftazidime. After 72 h of treatment, 82.8{\%} (48 of 58) of the eligible patients in the cefepime group continued with unmodified therapy, compared with 87.9{\%} (51 of 58) in the ceftazidime group. The neutrophil count was <100/mm3 at randomization for 76{\%} of the patients in the cefepime group and 83{\%} of those in the ceftazidime group; the median durations of neutropenia (<500/mm3) were 8.5 and 6.5 days, respectively. Of the 96 evaluable episodes the overall success rate with unmodified empiric therapy until the end of the treatment course in the cefepime group was comparable with that in the ceftazidime group (69{\%} vs. 71{\%}, P = 0.95). The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 79.2{\%} for the cefepime group and 77.1{\%} for the ceftazidime group. The bacterial eradication rate was 33{\%} for the cefepime group and 20{\%} for the ceftazidime group (P = 0.85), and the rates of new infections were 10.4{\%} vs. 4.2{\%} (P = 0.67), respectively. Both study drugs were well-tolerated. Three (6.4{\%}) patients in the cefepime group and 2 (4.3{\%}) patients in the ceftazidime group died. Conclusion. Cefepime appeared to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.",
keywords = "Cefepime, Ceftazidime, Childhood cancer, Febrile neutropenia",
author = "Chuang, {Yu Yu} and Hung, {Iou Jih} and Yang, {Chao Ping} and Jaing, {Tang Her} and Lin, {Tzou Yien} and Huang, {Yhu Chering}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1097/00006454-200203000-00009",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "203--209",
journal = "Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal",
issn = "0891-3668",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with cancer

AU - Chuang, Yu Yu

AU - Hung, Iou Jih

AU - Yang, Chao Ping

AU - Jaing, Tang Her

AU - Lin, Tzou Yien

AU - Huang, Yhu Chering

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Background. Monotherapy with cefepime or ceftazidime is an effective alternative to combination therapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenic adult cancer patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer. Materials and methods. A prospective, open label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted at Chang Gung Children's Hospital from January 1, 2000, to April 15, 2001. Patients with fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of ≤500/mm3) were randomized to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose as two or three doses daily). Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection or unexplained fever. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success and failure. Results. Ninety-five pediatric cancer patients with 120 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive empiric treatment with cefepime or ceftazidime. After 72 h of treatment, 82.8% (48 of 58) of the eligible patients in the cefepime group continued with unmodified therapy, compared with 87.9% (51 of 58) in the ceftazidime group. The neutrophil count was <100/mm3 at randomization for 76% of the patients in the cefepime group and 83% of those in the ceftazidime group; the median durations of neutropenia (<500/mm3) were 8.5 and 6.5 days, respectively. Of the 96 evaluable episodes the overall success rate with unmodified empiric therapy until the end of the treatment course in the cefepime group was comparable with that in the ceftazidime group (69% vs. 71%, P = 0.95). The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 79.2% for the cefepime group and 77.1% for the ceftazidime group. The bacterial eradication rate was 33% for the cefepime group and 20% for the ceftazidime group (P = 0.85), and the rates of new infections were 10.4% vs. 4.2% (P = 0.67), respectively. Both study drugs were well-tolerated. Three (6.4%) patients in the cefepime group and 2 (4.3%) patients in the ceftazidime group died. Conclusion. Cefepime appeared to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.

AB - Background. Monotherapy with cefepime or ceftazidime is an effective alternative to combination therapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenic adult cancer patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime as empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer. Materials and methods. A prospective, open label, randomized, comparative study in pediatric cancer patients was conducted at Chang Gung Children's Hospital from January 1, 2000, to April 15, 2001. Patients with fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of ≤500/mm3) were randomized to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose as two or three doses daily). Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection or unexplained fever. Clinical response to therapy was classified as success and failure. Results. Ninety-five pediatric cancer patients with 120 febrile neutropenic episodes were randomized to receive empiric treatment with cefepime or ceftazidime. After 72 h of treatment, 82.8% (48 of 58) of the eligible patients in the cefepime group continued with unmodified therapy, compared with 87.9% (51 of 58) in the ceftazidime group. The neutrophil count was <100/mm3 at randomization for 76% of the patients in the cefepime group and 83% of those in the ceftazidime group; the median durations of neutropenia (<500/mm3) were 8.5 and 6.5 days, respectively. Of the 96 evaluable episodes the overall success rate with unmodified empiric therapy until the end of the treatment course in the cefepime group was comparable with that in the ceftazidime group (69% vs. 71%, P = 0.95). The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 79.2% for the cefepime group and 77.1% for the ceftazidime group. The bacterial eradication rate was 33% for the cefepime group and 20% for the ceftazidime group (P = 0.85), and the rates of new infections were 10.4% vs. 4.2% (P = 0.67), respectively. Both study drugs were well-tolerated. Three (6.4%) patients in the cefepime group and 2 (4.3%) patients in the ceftazidime group died. Conclusion. Cefepime appeared to be as effective and safe as ceftazidime for empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.

KW - Cefepime

KW - Ceftazidime

KW - Childhood cancer

KW - Febrile neutropenia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036184983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036184983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00006454-200203000-00009

DO - 10.1097/00006454-200203000-00009

M3 - Article

C2 - 12005083

AN - SCOPUS:0036184983

VL - 21

SP - 203

EP - 209

JO - Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal

JF - Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal

SN - 0891-3668

IS - 3

ER -