Superiority of ceftazidime off-label high-dose regimen in PK/PD target attainment during treatment of extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cancer patients.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate off-label high-dose ceftazidime population pharmacokinetics in cancer patients with suspected or proven extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections and then to compare the achievement of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target after standard and off-label high-dose regimens using population model-based simulations. A further aim was to clinically observe the occurrence of adverse effects during the off-label high-dose ceftazidime treatment. METHODS: In patients treated with off-label high-dose ceftazidime (3 g every 6 h), blood samples were collected and ceftazidime serum levels measured using LC-MS/MS. A pharmacokinetic population model was developed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modelling approach and Monte Carlo simulations were then used to compare standard and high-dose regimens for PK/PD target attainment. RESULTS: A total of 14 cancer patients with serious infection suspected of XDR P. aeruginosa aetiology were eligible for PK analysis. XDR P. aeruginosa was confirmed in 10 patients as the causative pathogen. Population ceftazidime volume of distribution was 13.23 L, while clearance started at the baseline of 1.48 L/h and increased by 0.0076 L/h with each 1 mL/min/1.73 m2 of eGFR. High-dose regimen showed significantly higher probability of target attainment (i.e., 86% vs. 56% at MIC of 32 mg/L). This was translated into a very low mortality rate of 20%. Only one case of reversible neurological impairment was observed. CONCLUSION: We proved the superiority of the ceftazidime off-label high-dose regimen in PK/PD target attainment with very low occurrence of adverse effects. The off-label high-dose regimen should be used to optimize treatment of XDR P. aeruginosa infections.

Analysis of the clinical application of ceftazidime-avibactam in China.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam were mainly reported in phase II and phase III clinical trials, rarely in the real-world study. The limited real-world study which evaluated the clinical response of this drug shown inconsistent results. This study aimed to investigate the rationality of the clinical use of ceftazidime-avibactam and to evaluate its clinical response in the treatment of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) infections in China. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the outcomes of adult patients with MDR-GNB infections treated with ceftazidime-avibactam during September 2018 to August 2020. Patients' characteristics, comorbidities, microbes, laboratory indicators and medication information were collected. The rationality of ceftazidime-avibactam clinical use, and its clinical response in the treatment of MDR-GNB infections were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included in this study, of which, 66.6% received target treatment, 26.7% received empirical treatment, and 6.7% received treatment with no indication. Only 50.0% (11/22) of patients were administrated the recommended dose according to the drug instruction or guidelines, at a median treatment duration of 10 days (range: 2-74 days). The most common source of infection was pneumonia (53.6%, 15/28). Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae was the predominant pathogen (65%, 13/20). A total of 16 patients (61.5%) achieved clinical response. Patients received target treatment had higher clinical response rate than that of patients received empirical treatment (77.8% vs 25.0%, P = 0.026). A total of 11 patients (61.1%) achieved microbiological response. One patient occurred gastrointestinal adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to strengthen the monitor of the clinical application of ceftazidime-avibactam, such as the appropriate indication, reasonable dosage and duration, to improve its clinical outcome. Our results showed that ceftazidime-avibactam might be a potencial choice for the MDR-GNB infections. However, further research are still needed to identify its efficacy and safety in the real world.

Evaluation of the post-antibiotic effect in vivo for the combination of a ß-lactam antibiotic and a ß-lactamase inhibitor: ceftazidime-avibactam in neutropenic mouse thigh and lung infections.

The post-antibiotic effect (PAE) of ceftazidime-avibactam in vivo was evaluated using models of thigh- and lung-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in neutropenic mice. In thigh-infected mice, the PAE was negative (-2.18 to -0.11 h) for three of four strains: caused by a 'burst' of rapid bacterial growth after the drug concentrations had fallen below their pre-specified target values. With lung infection, PAE was positive, and longer for target drug concentrations in ELF (>2 h) than plasma (1.69-1.88 h). The time to the start of regrowth was quantified as a new parameter, PAER, which was positive (0.35-1.00 h) in both thigh- and lung-infected mice. In the context that measurements of the PAE of ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations in vivo have not previously been reported, it is noted that the negative values were consistent with previous measurements of the PAE of ceftazidime-avibactam in vitro and of ceftazidime alone in vivo.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole in the Treatment of Children ≥3 Months to <18 Years With Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: Results From a Phase 2, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole is effective in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in adults. This single-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (NCT02475733) evaluated the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole in children with cIAI. METHODS: Hospitalized children (≥3 months to <18 years) with cIAI were randomized 3:1 to receive intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole, or meropenem, for a minimum of 72 hours (9 doses), with optional switch to oral therapy thereafter for a total treatment duration of 7-15 days. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study, along with clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. A blinded observer determined adverse event (AE) causality, and clinical outcomes up to the late follow-up visit. RESULTS: Eighty-three children were randomized and received study drug (61 ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and 22 meropenem); most (90.4%) had a diagnosis of appendicitis. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens were Escherichia coli (79.7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.3%); 2 E. coli isolates were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. AEs occurred in 52.5% and 59.1% of patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 8.2% and 4.5% of patients, respectively; none was considered drug related. No deaths occurred. Favorable clinical/microbiologic responses were observed in ≥90% of patients in both treatment groups at end-of-intravenous treatment and test-of-cure visits. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to ceftazidime alone, and appeared effective in pediatric patients with cIAI due to Gram-negative pathogens, including ceftazidime-non-susceptible strains.

Effectiveness of ceftazidime/avibactam as salvage therapy for treatment of infections due to OXA-48 carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

Background: Experience in real clinical practice with ceftazidime/avibactam is limited, and there are even fewer data on infections due to OXA-48-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Methods: We designed an observational study of a prospectively collected cohort of adult patients receiving ceftazidime/avibactam in our centre. Only the first treatment course of each patient was analysed. Efficacy and safety were evaluated as 14 and 30 day mortality, recurrence rate at 90 days, resistance development and occurrence of adverse effects. Results: Fifty-seven patients were treated with ceftazidime/avibactam. The median age was 64 years (range 26-86), 77% were male and the median Charlson index was 3. The most frequent sources of infection were intra-abdominal (28%), followed by respiratory (26%) and urinary (25%). Thirty-one (54%) patients had a severe infection (defined as presence of sepsis or septic shock). Most patients received ceftazidime/avibactam as monotherapy (81%) and the median duration of treatment was 13 days. Mortality at 14 days was 14%. In multivariate analysis, the only mortality risk factor was INCREMENT-CPE score >7 (HR 11.7, 95% CI 4.2-20.6). There was no association between mortality and monotherapy with ceftazidime/avibactam. The recurrence rate at 90 days was 10%. Ceftazidime/avibactam resistance was not detected in any case and only two patients developed adverse events related to treatment. Conclusions: Ceftazidime/avibactam shows promising results, even in monotherapy, for the treatment of patients with severe infections due to OXA-48-producing Enterobacteriaceae and limited therapeutic options. The emergence of resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam was not observed.

Empirical treatment in patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis.

Acute obstructive pyelonephritis (AOP) is a urological life-threatening inflammatory condition that initially requires immediate urinary drainage and simultaneous prescribing of highly effective targeted antibacterial treatment. The empirical antibacterial therapy is always prescribed before urine culture and susceptibility testing are done. Percutaneous nephrostomy (PNS) and ureteral stenting (US) are the two options for urinary drainage in obstructed kidneys, while fluoroquinolones and 3(rd) generation cephalosporins are the main groups of antibacterial drugs that are recommended and are available for empirical AOP therapy. In our study we aimed to compare efficacy of fluoroquinolone ciprofloxacin vs 3(rd) generation cephalosporin ceftazidime in empirical antibacterial treatment of patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis. We also tried to analyze the impact of urinary drainage option on cure rates. 241 AOP patients were randomized into two groups: Group 1, n=124 pts in whom percutaneous nephrostomy was performed urinary drainage and Group 2, n=117 pts, in whom ureteral stenting was made. Then each abovementioned group was also randomized into equal two subgroups (ciprofloxacin vs ceftazidime) depending on the empiric antibacterial treatment which was chosen. Our results revealed that cure rates in patients treated by ceftazidime were higher than those who were treated by ciprofloxacin. At late follow-up, the clinical cure rate in PNS group treated by ceftazidime was 95.2% vs 83.6% in ciprofloxacin arm, while the microbiological cure rates were 92.9% vs 80.0% correspondingly (p<0.05). At late follow-up, the clinical cure rate in US group treated by ceftazidime was 86.4% vs 74.1% in ciprofloxacin arm while the microbiological cure rates were 82.4% vs 69.4% correspondingly (p<0.05). We also concluded that percutaneous nephrostomy ensures a better clinical cure than ureteral stenting at early and late follow-ups regardless of the drug regimes which were chosen. Thus, in our opinion, percutaneous nephrostomy combined with ceftazidime treatment can be considered as the most effective option in patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis.

Edema facial y exantema morbiliforme asociado a un cuadro febril con afectación hepática en un paciente en tratamiento con ceftazidima / Facial Edema and Morbilliform Rash Associated with Fever and Liver Disease in a Patient on Treatment with ceftazidime

No disponible

No disponible

A prospective, controlled, randomized, non-blind, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of a once daily high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin versus thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin in empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND: Empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia is well established. The best regimen is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of a once daily high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin versus thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin in neutropenic febrile patients. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with febrile neutropenia were included in a prospective, controlled, randomized, non-blind, comparative study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups (63 to the ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group and 32 to the ceftazidime/amikacin group) and evaluated as successes or failures according to defined criteria. Daily assessments were made of all patients and all adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The overall incidence of documented infections was 45.9%: 24/47 (51.1%) in the ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group and 10/27 (37%) in the ceftazidime/amikacin group. There was a significant difference in clinical efficacy between the groups (p=0.011) at the end of therapy. The ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group had an overall incidence of resolution and improvement of 95.7% in comparison to 75% in the ceftazidime/amikacin group. Thirty-nine organisms were isolated, 26 (66.67%) gram-negative and 13 (33.33%) gram-positive. There was a low incidence of adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of a single, high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin daily was more effective than the standard combination of thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin with no significant adverse events in either group.

Efficacy and safety of cefepime in late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in infants: a pilot randomized and controlled study.

Multidrug-resistant organisms cause late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). In a pilot, randomized and controlled study, the efficacy and safety of cefepime, in late-onset VAP in infants, have now been evaluated in Malaysia. Thirty children aged <1 year with late-onset VAP (i.e. VAP occurring 5 or more days after intubation) were randomized to receive cefepime or, as a control, ceftazidime. The clinical responses and the microbiological clearance of tracheal aspirates were evaluated in each arm. Adverse events, if any, were monitored clinically and by blood tests. Ten of the 15 children given cefepime and five of the 15 given ceftazidime showed a satisfactory clinical response (P<0.1). Cefepime appeared significantly better at clearing polymicrobial infections from tracheal aspirates. There were no fatalities in the cefepime arm but three in ceftazidime (P<0.1). The mean (S.E.) durations of antibiotic use were 9.4 (1.5) days for cefepime and 7.6 (1.0) days for ceftazidime (P>0.05). No serious adverse effects were observed in either arm. In conclusion, in late-onset VAP in infants, cefepime monotherapy appears to be at least as effective and safe as ceftazidime monotherapy, with better microbiological clearance.

Comparative effects of ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime on cytokine production in patients with severe sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria.

In the present study the effect of ciprofloxacin versus ceftazidime on concentrations of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in the sera of patients with severe sepsis was evaluated. The study included 58 previously healthy patients suffering from severe sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria, treated with either ciprofloxacin or ceftazidime after thorough clinical and microbiological evaluation and followed up for clinical outcome. Levels of the proinflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-1b (IL-1b), IL-6, and IL-8 and of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, as well as of IL-1 receptor antagonist and soluble TNF receptors I and II, in serum were measured at baseline and 24 and 48 h after the first antimicrobial dose. Mean SAPS-II scores, development of septic shock, and mortality rates were similar in the two groups (43.2 +/- 9.2, 21.4%, and 14.3% in the ceftazidime group versus 49.8 +/- 11.3, 20%, and 13.3% in the ciprofloxacin group). Serum TNF-alpha and IL-6 levels at 24 and 48 h were significantly lower in the ciprofloxacin group, while the IL-10/TNF-alpha ratio was significantly higher, than those for the ceftazidime group. Among patients with high baseline TNF-alpha levels, there were significant increases in the IL-10/TNF-alpha ratio at both 24 and 48 h over that at admission for the ciprofloxacin group, while no differences were noted in the ceftazidime group. These results indicate that ciprofloxacin may have an immunomodulatory effect on septic patients by attenuating the proinflammatory response, while there is no evidence that differences in the cytokines measured have any impact on the final outcome.

[Current therapeutical management, new antibiotics and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in bacterial ENT-infections]. / Anmerkungen zu aktuellen Therapiestrategien, neuen Antibiotika und Pseudomonas aeruginosa bei bakteriellen HNO-Infektionen.

In bacterial infections of the sinuses and the middle ear Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Staphylococcus aureus are most frequently isolated, whereas in tonsillopharyngitis Streptococcus pyogenes is the most important pathogen. S. aureus is found in up to 40 % in acute and chronic sinusitis and causes severe complications in otitis media, therefore antibiotics used as empirical initial treatment should also be effective against this pathogen. To decrease duration of illness and to avoid serious complications antibiotic treatment of bacterial ENT-infections is necessary. The new ketolides and the third and fourth generation quinolones are very effective and the second generation cephalosporins like cefuroxime axetil have proven excellent clinical and bacteriological efficacy in numerous clinical trials combined with an excellent resistance pattern over the years. Efficacy of short course therapy (5 days) in sinusitis and tonsillopharyngitis has been proven in clinical trials and is cost saving. In more severe infections treated in hospital sequential i. v./oral therapy offers pharmaco-economical benefits. Both regimen demonstrate cost savings while maintaining high clinical efficacy. In more severe infections like otitis externa diffusa, otitis externa maligna, otitis media chronica and perichondritis Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a dangerous pathogen that has to be covered by initial antibiotic treatment. Ciprofloxacin and Ceftazidime are widely used and effective. Ciprofloxacin resistance has increased, while Ceftazidime susceptibility is unchanged (> 90 %). A dose reduction study with ceftazidime in severe ENT-infections showed equivocal efficacy between 3 x 1 g and 3 x 2 g daily that offers a cost benefit of 50 %.

Monotherapy with intravenous followed by oral high-dose ciprofloxacin versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as initial empiric therapy for granulocytopenic patients with fever.

The aim of the present study was to obtain clinical experience with the use of high-dose ciprofloxacin as monotherapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenia episodes (granulocyte count, <500/mm(3)) compared to a standard regimen and to clarify whether ciprofloxacin administration may be switched to the oral route. In a prospective randomized study ciprofloxacin was given at 400 mg three times a day (t.i.d.) for at least 72 h followed by oral administration at 750 mg twice a day (b.i.d). That regimen was compared with ceftazidime given intravenously at 2 g t.i.d. plus amikacin given intravenously at 500 mg b.i.d. The frequency of successful clinical response without modification at the end of therapy was almost identical for ciprofloxacin (50% [62 of 124 patients]) compared with that for ceftazidime plus amikacin (50.8% [62 of 122 patients]) in an intent-to-treat analysis; the frequencies were 48.3% (57 of 118 patients) versus 49.6% (56 of 113 patients), respectively, in a per-protocol analysis (P values for one-sided equivalence, 0.0485 and 0.0516, respectively; delta = 10%), with no significant differences among patients with bacteremia and other microbiologically or clinically documented infections and fever of unknown origin. For 82 (66.1%) patients, it was possible to switch from parenteral ciprofloxacin to the oral ciprofloxacin, and the response was successful for 61 (74.4%) patients. The efficacies of the regimens against streptococcal bacteremias were 16.6% (one of six patients) for the ciprofloxacin group and 33.3% (one of three patients) for the combination group (it was not statistically significant), with one breakthrough streptococcal bacteremia observed among the ciprofloxacin-treated patients. Adverse events were mostly self-limited and were observed in 27 (20.6%) ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 26 (19.7%) patients who were receiving the combination. This study demonstrates that high-dose ciprofloxacin given intravenously for at least 3 days and then by the oral route is therapeutically equivalent to the routine regimen of intraveneous ceftazidime plus amikacin even in febrile patients with severe neutropenia (polymorphonuclear leukocyte count, <100 mm(3)). However, it is very important that before an empirical therapy is chosen each hospital determine bacteriologic predominance and perform resistance surveillance.

Ceftazidime in combination with glycopeptide antibiotic is an effective first-line therapy for patients undergoing high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support.

It was the objective of this study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of an empirical antibiotic therapy consisting in ceftazidime and a glycopeptide antibiotic. All patients enrolled in the study had hematological malignancies and underwent high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. In this retrospective study, 183 of 207 patients who had received a PBSC-supported high-dose therapy were evaluable. Any patients who had fever higher than 38.5 degrees C received ceftazidime in combination with vancomycin (105 patients) or teicoplanin (69 patients). In 80 of 174 patients with fever (45%) the fever resolved within 72 h as a result of the treatment with ceftazidime and the glycopeptide antibiotic. In nonresponding patients, the changes included the replacement of ceftazidime by imipenem/cilastin (94 patients) and the addition of erythromycin (12 patients) or metronidazole (3 patients). Amphotericin B was administered in 29 patients. Following hematological reconstitution, the fever and clinical signs, including radiographic findings, resolved in 20 primarily nonresponding patients. In blood cultures, a significantly higher incidence of gram-positive than of gram-negative bacteria was observed (26 vs 7). The toxicity of the first-line antibiotic therapy was limited to allergic skin reactions in 12 patients. Ceftazidime in combination with a glycopeptide antibiotic provides an effective and safe first-line therapy for patients with neutropenic fever following PBSC-supported high-dose therapy.

A double-blind comparison of empirical oral and intravenous antibiotic therapy for low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer who have a low risk of complications, oral administration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics may be an acceptable alternative to intravenous treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients (age, 5 to 74 years) who had fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer. Neutropenia was expected to be present for no more than 10 days in these patients, and they had to have no other underlying conditions. Patients were assigned to receive either oral ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate or intravenous ceftazidime. They were hospitalized until fever and neutropenia resolved. RESULTS: A total of 116 episodes were included in each group (84 patients in the oral-therapy group and 79 patients in the intravenous-therapy group). The mean neutrophil counts at admission were 81 per cubic millimeter and 84 per cubic millimeter, respectively; the mean duration of neutropenia was 3.4 and 3.8 days, respectively. Treatment was successful without the need for modifications in 71 percent of episodes in the oral-therapy group and 67 percent of episodes in the intravenous-therapy group (difference between groups, 3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -8 percent to 15 percent; P=0.48). Treatment was considered to have failed because of the need for modifications in the regimen in 13 percent and 32 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001) and because of the patient's inability to tolerate the regimen in 16 percent and 1 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001). There were no deaths. The incidence of intolerance of the oral antibiotics was 16 percent, as compared with 8 percent for placebo (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized low-risk patients who have fever and neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy, empirical therapy with oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate is safe and effective.

[Multicenter open randomized trial of meropenem in comparison to ceftazidime and amikacin used in combination in severe hospital infections]. / Mnogotsentrovoe otkrytoe randomizirovannoe issledovanie meropenema v sravnenii s kombinatsiei tseftazidima i i amikatsina pri tiazhelykh gospital'nykh infektsiiakh.

Clinical efficacy and tolerance of meropenem were estimated by comparison with those of ceftazidime and amikacin used in combination in the therapy of hospital infections of the lower respiratory tract, skin and soft tissues, intraabdominal and gynecologic infections, urinary tract infection and sepsis. 48 patients were given meropenem in a dose of 1 g every 8 hours for 3-14 days (the average of 9 days). 47 patients were subjected to the routine combined therapy: ceftazidime in a dose of 1 g every 8 hours and amikacin in a dose of 0.5 g every 12 hours for 2-14 days (the average of 9 days). The patient groups were comparable by the age, nature and severity of the infection and the condition (the mean APACHE II of 9.1 and 8.9). By the end of the treatment a positive clinical effect (recovery and improvement) was observed in 47 patients (97.9 per cent) treated with meropenem and in 41 patients (89.1 per cent) subjected to the combined therapy. The infection relapse within 4 weeks after the treatment completion was recorded in 3 patients in every group. Before the treatment 133 microbial strains were isolated from the patients. 121 of them were susceptible to meropenem (91.1 per cent), 111 to amikacin (83.4 per cent) and 90 to ceftazidime (67.7 per cent). The difference between meropenem and ceftazidime was significant (p = 0.0005). Eradication of the primary pathogens at the background of the meropenem therapy was stated in 41 out of 44 patients (93.2 per cent) and that of the combined therapy in 38 out of 43 patients (88.4 per cent). The microbiological relapse after the treatment completion was recorded in 3 and 2 patients, respectively. Side effects were observed in 8.3 per cent of the patients treated with meropenem and in 10.6 per cent of the patients subjected to the combined therapy. The trial results were indicative of the meropenem high efficacy and good tolerance and of the possible use of the drug in the monotherapy as an alternative of the routine combined therapy of severe hospital infections.

Oral ciprofloxacin vs. intravenous ceftazidime plus tobramycin in pediatric cystic fibrosis patients: comparison of antipseudomonas efficacy and assessment of safety with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cystic Fibrosis Study Group.

BACKGROUND: More data on the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in pediatric cystic fibrosis patients are needed. METHODS: One hundred eight pediatric cystic fibrosis patients (ages 5 to 17 years) with acute bronchopulmonary exacerbations entered a randomized multicenter trial designed to compare the safety and efficacy of antipseudomonas therapy with oral ciprofloxacin (15 mg/kg twice daily; maximum dosage 750 mg twice daily) or intravenous ceftazidime plus tobramycin (CAZ/TM) for 14 days. RESULTS: Clinical improvement was observed in 93% of patients treated with oral ciprofloxacin and in 96% of those receiving parenteral therapy. Transient suppression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was achieved in 63% of patients at the end of the course of iv CAZ/TM therapy and in 24% receiving ciprofloxacin. Ultrasound examination and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scans showed no evidence of cartilage toxicity in any of the ciprofloxacin-treated patients. Musculoskeletal adverse events were reported with similar frequency in the two groups of patients (7% in the group receiving ciprofloxacin therapy and 11% in the IV CAZ/TM group). The only sustained musculoskeletal symptom was a case of synovitis in a patient receiving parenteral CAZ/TM. CONCLUSION: Ciprofloxacin thus appears to be safe and effective for use in young patients with bronchopulmonary exacerbation of cystic fibrosis.

Cefepime versus ceftazidime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

The objective of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of cefepime and ceftazidime in the treatment of community acquired lower respiratory tract infections of moderate intensity. Eighty-six patients were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive respectively cefepime 1 g b.i.d. or ceftazidime 1 g t.i.d. The drugs were well tolerated and the occurrence of adverse events in each group was comparable. The rates of satisfactory clinical response were 96% (49/51) for cefepime and 89% (24/27) for ceftazidime. A total of 73 pathogens were isolated and pathogen eradication rates were 98% and 96% respectively for the cefepime and ceftazidime treatment groups. In conclusion, the data confirmed that cefepime could be a good alternative to ceftazidime.

Ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This pilot study was done to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin in patients developing febrile neutropenia while undergoing high-dose myeloablative therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients undergoing high-dose chemoradiotherapy and HSCT for leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and solid tumors received open-label ceftazidime 2 g intravenously every 8 hours and ciprofloxacin 400 mg intravenously every 12 hours if they developed fever while they were neutropenic. Success with or without modification of this regimen was defined as survival through the neutropenic period; failure was defined as death secondary to infection. Among 45 patients treated with this regimen, the success rate was 98%. Sixty-two percent (28 of 45) of the patients achieved defervescence within 48 to 72 hours and remained afebrile without regimen modification. In 16 patients (36%) the regimen was modified because of persistent fever. The combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing myeloablative therapy and HSCT appears to be highly effective and is associated with minimal toxicity.

Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected orthopedic prostheses with ceftazidime-ciprofloxacin antibiotic combination.

Indwelling device infections are associated with considerable morbidity and extremely high cost. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most frequent gram-negative etiologic agent associated with infections of indwelling catheters and foreign body implants. It is generally agreed that eradication of infection in the presence of a foreign body requires removal of the foreign body. Using a combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin, we cured nine of nine patients with P. aeruginosa-infected osteosynthetic material and four of five patients with hip and knee prostheses without removing the foreign material. Follow-up was for a mean of 21 months (range, 6 to 60 months). Some patients experienced minor side effects (arthralgia in one patient and rash in another patient). We conclude that this combination is effective and safe and should be useful in the treatment of P. aeruginosa-infected orthopedic implants.