Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of cefoperazone/sulbactam for the treatment of pediatric sepsis by Monte Carlo simulation.

Pediatric sepsis syndrome is one of the most common reasons for pediatric intensive care unit hospitalization (PICU). Cefoperazone/sulbactam is a time-dependent beta-lactamase inhibitor combination which has been widely used in the treatment of sepsis. But the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data of cefoperazone/sulbactam are unknown in children with sepsis. The present work aimed to determine whether the usual dosing regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam (1 hour infusion, 50 mg kg-1, every 12 hours) were suitable for these patients in PICU. A total of fourteen patients were enrolled and the PK parameters were estimated by non-compartmental analysis using WinNonlin software. The t1/2 and AUC0-12 of cefoperazone and sulbactam were 3.60 and 1.77 h, and 900.97 and 67.68 h µg mL-1, respectively. The Vd and CL of cefoperazone and sulbactam were 1.65 L and 5.16 L, and 17.41 mL min-1 and 122.62 mL min-1, respectively. The probability of target attainments (PTAs) of cefoperazone at different minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) based on the percentage time that concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (% T > MIC) value were performed by Monte Carlo simulation and PTA was >90% at MICs ≤16 µg mL-1. The PK/PD profile of dosing regimens tested will assist in selecting the appropriate cefoperazone/sulbactam regimens for these patients. At a target of 80% T > MIC, the usual dosing regimens can provide good coverage for pathogens with MICs of ≤32 µg mL-1. The ratio between cefoperazone and sulbactam at 1 : 1 may be more suitable in pediatric sepsis. Individual dose and therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice will help achieve the best therapeutic effect while minimizing toxicity.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 19 de junho de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on June 19, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referente ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 9 artigos e 6 protocolos.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 13 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 13, 2020

Essa é uma produção do Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia (Decit) da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde (SCTIE) do Ministério da Saúde (Decit/SCTIE/MS), que tem como missão promover a ciência e tecnologia e o uso de evidências científicas para a tomada de decisão do SUS, tendo como principal atribuição o incentivo ao desenvolvimento de pesquisas em saúde no Brasil, de modo a direcionar os investimentos realizados em pesquisa pelo Governo Federal às necessidades de saúde pública. Informar sobre as principais evidências científicas descritas na literatura internacional sobre tratamento farmacológico para a COVID-19. Além de resumir cada estudo identificado, o informe apresenta também uma avaliação da qualidade metodológica e a quantidade de artigos publicados, de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, entre outros). Foram encontrados 15 artigos e 10 protocolos.

Developmental population pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics and dosing optimization of cefoperazone in children.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the population pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone in children and establish an evidence-based dosing regimen using a developmental pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic approach in order to optimize cefoperazone treatment. METHODS: A model-based, open-label, opportunistic-sampling pharmacokinetic study was conducted in China. Blood samples from 99 cefoperazone-treated children were collected and quantified by HPLC/MS. NONMEM software was used for population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03113344). RESULTS: A two-compartment model with first-order elimination agreed well with the experimental data. Covariate analysis showed that current body weight had a significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone. Monte Carlo simulation showed that for bacteria for which cefoperazone has an MIC of 0.5 mg/L, 78.1% of hypothetical children treated with '40 mg/kg/day, q8h, IV drip 3 h' would reach the pharmacodynamic target. For bacteria for which cefoperazone has an MIC of 8 mg/L, 88.4% of hypothetical children treated with 80 mg/kg/day (continuous infusion) would reach the treatment goal. A 160 mg/kg/day (continuous infusion) regimen can cover bacteria for which cefoperazone has an MIC of 16 mg/L. Nevertheless, even if using the maximum reported dose of 160 mg/kg/day (continuous infusion), the ratio of hypothetical children reaching the treatment target was only 9.9% for bacteria for which cefoperazone has an MIC of 32 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: For cefoperazone, population pharmacokinetics were evaluated in children and an appropriate dosing regimen was developed based on developmental pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics. The dose indicated in the instructions (20-160 mg/kg/day) can basically cover the clinically common bacteria for which cefoperazone has an MIC of ≤16 mg/L. However, for bacteria for which the MIC is >16 mg/L, cefoperazone is not a preferred choice.

[The reliability of using impenem, meropenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam to treat nosocomial Gram-negative bacterial infections with Monte Carlo simulation].

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of using imipenem, meropenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired Gram-negative bacterial infections with Monte Carlo simulation(MCS). Methods: The MIC of the four agents collected from hospital-acquired infections were detected in accordance with broth dilution method of Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI). MCS were conducted with MICs and the pharmacokinetics parameters of the four agents based on conventional dose regimens.The cumulative fraction of response (CFR) of time over MIC target attainment in different dosing regimen were generated. Results: A total of 2 541 strains, including 2 093 strains of Enterobacteriaceae and 448 strains of glucose non-fermentative bacilli were collected.The MIC(90) of imipenem and meropenem against Enterobacteriaceae were less than 1 mg/L in general, whereas MIC(90) of two agents with ß-lactamase inhibitors was around 64 mg/L.As to glucose non-fermenting bacteria, MICs of all the four agents were very high, especially to Acinetobacter baumannii, which indicated MIC(50) more than 32 mg/L.MCS revealed that carbapenems had significantly higher CFR than those with ß-lactamase inhibitors.Imipenem and meropenem (1 g, q8 h) obtained CFRs of 74.69% and 81.42%, respectively.The CFR of cefoperazone-sulbactam (2 g, q8 h) and piperacillin-tazobactam (4 g, q6 h) (both excluding ß-lactamase inhibitors) were just 49.59% and 27.66% respectively, which increased after excluding A. baumannii in piperacillin-tazobactam. Conclusions: The conventional dose regimens of imipenem and meropenem are reliable for the empiric therapy of Gram-negative hospital-acquired bacterial infections.Piperacillin-tazobactam is suggested to use with higher doses or prolonged infusion time to satisfy the time of drug concentration exceeded the MIC(T>MIC)requirement.More clinical studies of cefoperazone-sulbactam should be conducted to optimize its regimen and guarantee its efficacy.

The efficiency of continuous regional intra-arterial infusion in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the efficiency of continuous regional intra-arterial infusion (CRAI) with antisecretory agents and antibiotics in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CRAI was used as a new clinical technique to treat acute pancreatitis patients during a 4-year period at the First Affiliated Hospital, Wenzhou Medical College, China. In this retrospective study, thirty-four patients with proven infected pancreatic necrosis were included. Twelve patients were treated with CRAI, and were matched according to age, sex, APACHE II scores, Ranson scores and remote organ dysfunction, with 22 patients with IPN treated surgically. The clinical outcome following surgery and CRAI were compared. RESULTS: No difference was found between the two groups when comparing age, gender, APACHE II scores, Ranson scores and remote organ dysfunction (p > 0.05). The patients treated with CRAI had a lower incidence of complications (33.3% vs 72.7%), duration of hospitalization (27.1 ± 4.7 days vs 43.0 ± 12.0 days) and cost of hospitalization (4.09 ± 1.64 thousand RMB vs 8.77 ± 3.74 thousand RMB) as compared to patients treated with surgery (p < 0.05). The survival rate was significantly higher in the CRAI group as compared to the surgical group (91.7% vs 63.6%; p < 0.01). However, the two groups had similar rates of concomitant operative treatment and incidence of remote organ dysfunction (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CRAI or CRAI in combination with abscess drainage seemingly improve the clinical outcome in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis. Further confirmative prospective randomized multicenter studies are warranted prior to broad introduction of the CRAI concept.

[Assessment of efficacies of imipenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam and cefepime in rats with experimental thigh abscess model with multidrug resistant and susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii strains]. / Sefoperazon-sulbaktam, imipenem ve sefepimin antibiyoterapi etkinliklerinin çogul dirençli ve duyarli acinetobacter baumannii ile olusturulan deneysel ikili apse modelinde karsilastirilmasi.

Imipenem, cefaperazon-sulbactam and cefepime are the antibiotics of choice for the treatment of soft tissue infections due to Acinetobacter baumannii. In this study, it was aimed to determine the invivo and invitro efficacy of, these antibiotics against drug susceptible and multidrug resistant A.baumannii in an experimental abscess model. Abscess models were established in Wistar-Albino type female rats. Susceptibility tests were performed by E-test. Rats were divided randomly into four groups with eight rats in one group. Standard absorbent paper discs containing 6 log10 CFU microorganisms were used to form an abscess model. The first group was regarded as the control group and the other three groups were the study group each treated with one of the test antibiotics. Cardiac blood samples for serum antibiotic efficacy test, were obtained on the fourth day of treatment and 30 minutes after the last dose. The number of live bacteria at the area of infection was determined by colony count method. All of the three antibiotics reached sufficient concentration in sera of rats and there were no statistically important difference between the efficacies of these antibiotics (p= 0.778). In all of the antibiotic-treated groups, the weight of the abscess material were less, macroscopic views were smaller and the colony counts per gram of abscess tissue were less than the control group (p< 0.001). All antibiotics were effective against susceptible and resistant strains in vitro. No resistance was detected against imipenem, cefaperazon-sulbactam and cefepime in the course of therapy. Cefaperazone-sulbactam and cefepime were as effective as imipenem against susceptible and multi-drug resistant A.baumannii both in vivo and in vitro. Since irrational use of extended spectrum cephalosporins are frequently associated with the emergence of carbapenem resistant strains, the use of relatively narrow spectrum antibiotics should better be considered in the empirical treatment of A.baumannii infections.

[Assessment of the susceptibility of the gram-negative rods isolated from hospitalized patients to cefoperazone/sulbactam]. / Ocena wrazliwosci na cefoperazon/sulbaktam szczepów paleczek gram-ujemnych izolowanych od chorych hospitalizowanych.

The susceptibility to cefoperazone/sulbactam of 197 strains of Gram-negative rods demonstrating an ESBL-positive phenotype was determined. The assortment of the investigated strains was as follows (numbers of strains are given in the brackets): E. cloacae (63), S. marcescens (46), K. pneumoniae (21), P. mirabilis (17), E. coli (9), P. vulgaris (8), P. aeruginosa (20) and A. baumanni (13). 83 strains from 197 were susceptible (42.1%). The MIC values were determined and the disc-diffusion method was performed. The susceptibilities among particular species were as follows (the order of data in the brackets is: % of the susceptible strains/MIC50/MIC90): E. cloacae (54.0/16/64), S. marcescens (23.9/64/> or = 128), K. pneumoniae (38.1/32/64), P. mirabilis (41.2/32/64), E. coli (44.4/32/32), P. vulgaris (75.0/8/32), P. aeruginosa (35.0/32/64), A. baumannii (46.2/32/64). Using disc-diffusion method, for 184 strains the difference between diameter of the inhibition zone around the disc with cefoperazone and the disc with cefoperazone/sulbactam was calculated. This difference amounted 5 mm or more in the case of 76.6% of the investigated strains. The results indicate that the comparison of the inhibition zones around cefoperazone and cefoperazone/sulbactam discs may be an additional method useful for phenotypic detection of ESBL producing organisms. These results highly correlated with results obtained by using analogous test with cefpirome and cefpirome/clavulanic acid (85.6% of concordance).

Cost-effectiveness study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam to a three-drug combination for treating intraabdominal infections in an Indian health-care setting.

OBJECTIVE: This article presents the methodology and results of the pharmacoeconomic analysis of the Magnex Against Standard COmbination Therapy study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam (Magnex) versus ceftazidime+ amikacin+metronidazole, in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: This prospective, open label, phase IV study was conducted at 17 study sites in India and randomized subjects to receive either cefoperazone-sulbactam or the combination. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was included as a secondary objective and conducted in the clinical efficacy-evaluable (CEE) and the successfully treated patients. All comparisons between treatment groups were conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Wilcoxon Two-Sample tests. All costs were reported as Indian Rupee (INR) and actual unit costs collected in 2006 were used for the analyses [1 USD approximately 40 INR; 1 Euro approximately 56 INR]. RESULTS: In the CEE and the successfully treated subset of patients, the average cost of treatment was numerically lower in the cefoperazone-sulbactam arm (not statistically significant). The analyses found that the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for cefoperazone-sulbactam was INR 17,640.53 and that for the comparator group was INR 22,075.16. Additionally, the incremental CER results showed that the cost of treatment was INR 21,505.59 lower per additional successfully treated patient in the cefoperazone-sulbactam group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study was the first of its kind to be conducted in the "price sensitive" Indian health-care setting. Though study was not powered for the difference in average cost of treatments, there was a trend favoring cefoperazone sulbactam. The findings from this study should encourage further conduct of similar analyses and increase the knowledge regarding pharmacoeconomics in India.

[Survey of the utilization and adverse effects of antibacterial drugs in patients admitted for respiratory diseases].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utilization of antibacterial drugs and their adverse effects in patients admitted for respiratory disease based on medical record review. METHODS: The medical records of 141 inpatients admitted in 2002 for respiratory diseases were reviewed. The drug utilization index (DUI) and daily cost of antibacterial drugs were calculated, with also assessment of the adverse effects in relation to the drug use. RESULTS: The DUI ranged from 0.9 to 1.1 in 66.7% of the patients, and the daily cost of the antibacterial drugs was 317.8+/-194.3 RMB, with a total of 14 cases with adverse drug effects recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of antibacterial drugs was basically adequate in Nanfang Hospital though with occasional abuse of cefoperazone and sulbactam, inappropriate combination and high cost of the antibacterial drugs. More careful application of these drugs in old patients is stressed.

[Comparison of efficacy between ceftriaxone and cefoperazone plus sulbactam in peri-operative treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ceftriaxone and that of cefoperazone plus sulbactam (sulperazon) in controlling infection, in scavenging bacteria from bile, and in their costs when treating acute suppurative cholangitis with choledochostomy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the ceftriaxone group (R-group, n=95) and sulperazon group (S-group, n=95). Before choledochostomy, both groups received one intravenous dose of the corresponding antibiotics: and 2 g ceftriaxnoe for the R-group, 2 g sulperazon, containing 1 g cefoperazone and 1 g sulbactam, for the S-group. After the operation, the patients in the R-group received ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. q.d.; the patients in the S-group received sulperazon 2 g i.v. b.i.d.. In addition, all patients in both groups received metronidazole 0.5 g daily before and after the operation. The efficacy was evaluated by efficiency in controlling infection and the persisting days of symptoms due to infection, fever and leukocytosis; the persisting days was compared using the life table method to calculate the "cumulative probability of persistence of symptoms (CPPS)". The two groups were also compared in regards to their biliary bacterial clearance rates and the costs directly attributable to the antibiotics. RESULTS: The efficiency in controlling infection was 98.9% (94/95) in both groups. However, the CPPS of the R-group decreased more rapidly than that of the S-group, Log-Rankchi2=6.7901, P=0.0092. Biliary bacterial clearance rate on post-operative day 3 was 72.0% (36/50) for the R-group, 41.3% (19/46) for the S-group, P=0.0037. Cost directly attributable to the antibiotics were (1788.29 +/- 518.46) yuan (RMB) for the R-group, and (3768.74 +/- 820.55) yuan for the S-group, F=395.51, P=0.0000. CONCLUSION: Both ceftriaxone and sulperazon are effective in treating acute suppurative cholangitis when used before and after choledochostomy. Ceftriaxone is superior in expediting symptom relief and bacterial clearance from bile, and is more cost-effective.

[Sulperazone in the treatment of severe infections in patients with cancer]. / Sul'perazone v lechenii tiazhelykh infektsii u onkologicheskikh bol'nykh.

For the evaluation of rational sulperazone position in oncological hospital and elaboration of its implementation criteria investigation was performed. The trial included 193 patients (88 patients with injuries, 66 with hospital pneumonia, 39 with urinary track infection). From different clinical material of the patients were isolated 136 straines of Gram-negative bacteria. Suseptibile to sulperazone were 67 per cent of P. aeruginosa, 78-86 per cent of P. vulgaris, Klebsiella and E. coli isolates, 66 [symbol: see text] 60 per cent of Enterobacter and Serratia isolates subsequently. Comparative results of treatment with sulperazone as monotherapy and for combination with aminoglycosides (gentamycin or amicacin) in the case of P. aeruginosa infection demonstrated high sulperazone efficacy not lower than imipenem/cilsatatin and cefepime efficacy in the case of hospital infections treatment at critical care units. Low price of the sulperazone treatment when compared to imipenem/cilastatine is emphasized. Another advantage of sulperazone when compared to cefepime is anaerobic infection treatment--cefepime is administered in combination with metronidazole while sulperazone is used in monotherapy.

[Comparative clinical and epidemiological evaluation of beta-lactam antibiotics in the treatment of intraabdominal infections]. / Sravnitel'naia kliniko-ékonomicheskaia otsenka betalaktamnykh antibiotikov pri lechenii intraabdominal'nykh infektsii.

We performed a retrospective, comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and economic outcomes of empiric cefoperazone/sulbactam monotherapy compared with the meropenem, imipenem/cilastatine and combination of cefepime plus metroindazol in patients with intra-abdominal infection. A total of 468 patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis, pancreatitis were included in the study (the severity of infection according to scale APACHE II was less than 15). Patients were randomized to be treated with either 500 mg meropemen i.v. every 8 hours or 500 mg imipenem/cilastatine i.v. every 8 hours or 2 g cefepime i.v. every 12 hours plus 500 mg metronidazol twice daily or cefoperazone/sulbactam 2 g daily administered every 12 hours. Overall positive clinical responses (cure or improvement) were achieved at the end of treatment for 87.5 patients in meropenem group, 86.6% in the imipenem/cilastatin group, 85.3% in the cefepime group and 86.8% in cefoperazone/sulbactam group. Total cost of the treatment per 100 patients with intra-abdominal infections for cefoperazone/sulbactam was 1957031 roubles, for combinations of cefepime with metronidazol--2497815 roubles. For carbapenem group cost achieved for meropenem--3085291 rub., for imipenem/cilastatin--2653388 roubles. Rate "cost-effectiveness" in total: 784.47$ for cefepime, and 834.39$ for imipenem/cilastatine, 970.21$ for meropenem and 615.4$ for cefoperazone/sulbactam. The most expensive treatment was considered to be with meropenem and imipenem/cilastatine, main share is determined by initial cost of preparations. Less expensive was treatment by cefoperazone/sulbactam with cefepime and by metronidazol.

[Comparative analysis of the effectiveness and costs of azithromycin and cefoperazone treatment of patients during COPD exacerbation]. / Analiza porównawcza skutecznosci i kosztów leczenia azytromycyna i cefoperazonem w okresie zaostrzenia przewleklej obturacyjnej choroby pluc.

UNLABELLED: The effectiveness and costs of azithromycin and cefoperazone treatment of COPD exacerbation have been analysed in this study. Forty patients at the mean age of 65.9 (+/- 11.5) years were enrolled. The subjects were randomly selected and treated either with cefoperazone 2 x 1.0 g i.v. daily (group I = 20 persons) or with azithromycin 1 x 0.5 g (group II = 20 persons), in sequential method. Body temperature, cough intensity, quality and quantity of expectorated sputum, number of breaths per minute and adverse events were recorded daily. The values of pulmonary function tests and leucocytosis were assessed three times during the study. Statistically significant differences between both groups have been found with respect to the mean time of staying in hospital (9.1 days--group I vs 6.1 days--group II), mean total duration of antibiotic therapy (10.1 days--group I vs. 6.6 days--group II) and duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy only [7.5 days (group I) vs 2.9 days (group II)] (p < 0.05). Taking into account the duration of hospitalization, it was shown that the mean total costs of treatment of COPD exacerbation with azithromycin was significantly lower than that of treatment with cefoperazone (2375.9 PLN and 1663.7 PLN, respectively) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of treatment with azithromycin in patients with COPD exacerbation was evident. The total costs of treatment of COPD exacerbation with azithromycin is lower than with cefoperazone. Both azithromycin and cefoperazone are safe in the treatment of exacerbation of COPD.

Cefoperazone versus ceftriaxone monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

Ceftriaxone and cefoperazone monotherapy was compared in a multicentered, randomized, nonblinded, prospective study of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. These antibiotics were equally effective, with an overall successful treatment rate of 48 (80%) of 60 for the cefoperazone-treated patients and 35 (70%) of 50 for the ceftriaxone-treated patients. Patients with nursing-home-acquired pneumonia had similar bacterial pathogens and an almost identical cure rate to those patients with hospital-acquired infection. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of side effects of superinfections. The development of secondary pneumonia with resistant bacteria was low, 3% with cefoperazone and 4% with ceftriaxone. When antibiotic, administrative, and laboratory costs were calculated, cefoperazone was slightly less expensive than ceftriaxone. Both cefoperazone and ceftriaxone are effective therapy for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Beta-lactam antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. A randomized trial comparing cefoperazone plus piperacillin, ceftazidime plus piperacillin, and imipenem alone.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of double beta-lactam therapy with monotherapy. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: Febrile, granulocytopenic patients (429). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive iv cefoperazone (3 g every 12 hours) plus piperacillin (75 mg/kg body weight every 6 hours), ceftazidime (2 g every 8 hours) plus piperacillin (75 mg/kg every 6 hours), or imipenem alone (1.0 g or 0.5 g every 6 hours). Patients also received prophylactic vitamin K. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical improvement, eradication of the infecting organism, and toxicity in 403 evaluable patients with one or more infections. MAIN RESULTS: Cefoperazone and ceftazidime, when given in combination with piperacillin, were equally effective (response rates of 75% (104 of 138 patients) and 74% (101 of 137 patients), respectively). Monotherapy with imipenem had a response rate of 82% (111 of 136 patients) and was as effective as double beta-lactam therapy. Overall antibiotic-related toxicity was minimal, although seizures were associated with high doses of imipenem. Seizures occurred in 3 of 29 patients (10.3%) who were receiving 4 g/d of imipenem, in 3 of 136 patients (2.2%) who were receiving cefoperazone plus piperacillin, in 0 of the 132 patients who were receiving ceftazidime plus piperacillin, and in 1 of 106 patients (0.9%) who were receiving 2 g/d of imipenem (P less than 0.005). The 2-g daily dose of imipenem was as effective as the 4-g daily dose. Diarrhea was more frequent in patients receiving cefoperazone, whereas nausea occurred more often with imipenem. No antibiotic-related hemorrhage or nephrotoxicity was observed. Superinfections caused by beta-lactam-resistant, gram-negative bacilli were uncommon but occurred more frequently with double beta-lactam therapy than with imipenem monotherapy (11 of 268 patients compared with 1 of 135 patients; P = 0.06). Xanthomonas maltophilia superinfections occurred only in patients receiving imipenem (3 of 135 patients compared with 0 of 268 patients; P = 0.03). Imipenem monotherapy was the least expensive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cefoperazone and ceftazidime were equally effective when used in combination antibiotic therapy with piperacillin. Twice-daily cefoperazone is less expensive than ceftazidime given three times daily. Monotherapy with imipenem, at a daily dose of 2 g, is as efficacious as double beta-lactam therapy and costs less than combination therapy.

Single agent therapy for infections in cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial comparing three extended-spectrum cephalosporins.

Three hundred and twenty patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing cefoperazone, ceftizoxime and ceftriaxone for initial therapy of infectious episodes in cancer patients. Patients with neutropenia were excluded. In 286 evaluable episodes, the response rates associated with the three agents were 77% for cefoperazone, 70% for ceftizoxime and 72% for ceftriaxone, with no statistically significant differences between the three treatment groups. The overall response rate for all episodes of pneumonia (64%) was significantly lower than the response rate for all other infections (81%; p = 0.002), and the mortality associated with pneumonia (9%) was higher than that associated with all other episodes (2%; p = 0.01). Patients with infections due to gram-negative organisms responded well to all three agents, whereas patients with gram-positive infections responded more favorably to cefoperazone. Two different schedules of ceftriaxone were used. The clinical response did not differ significantly between patients receiving ceftriaxone once daily and those receiving it twice daily. The incidence of superinfection and relapse was extremely low and all three agents were well tolerated. It is concluded that extended spectrum cephalosporins are effective as single agents for the treatment of infections in cancer patients with adequate neutrophil counts.