Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400 febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC (Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer).

This open, comparative, randomized, multicentre equivalence study compared cefepime 2 g bd and imipenem-cilastatin 1 g tds (50 mg/kg/day) as empirical monotherapy for febrile episodes in a homogeneous cohort of cancer patients with short duration neutropenia following chemotherapy for solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma. The study was conducted in 17 French anti-cancer centres in 1995 and 1996. Response to monotherapy was assessed 7 days after treatment and was based on resolution of fever and signs and symptoms, eradication of pathogens, absence of new infection, relapse, and death of infectious origin, without addition of other antibiotics. Patients were treated for a minimum of 4 days. Of the 400 episodes randomized, 344 (86%) were evaluable for efficacy. Patient characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Success of monotherapy was observed in 79% of episodes with cefepime and 72% with imipenem-cilastatin (equivalence, P <0.0001). The response rate for microbiologically documented infections was 66% with cefepime and 61% with imipenem-cilastatin (bacteraemic episodes: 63% for cefepime; 44% for imipenem-cilastatin). A second antibiotic (usually a glycopeptide) was added in 20% and 21% of the cases, respectively. Overall, the response to therapy, with or without an additional antibiotic, was 95% (cefepime) and 90% (imipenem-cilastatin). Survival was similar in both groups (95% and 98%, respectively). Cefepime treatment was better tolerated, with 9% of the patients experiencing related intercurrent events compared with 19% in the imipenem-cilastatin group (P = 0.003). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the imipenem-cilastatin group (15%) than in the cefepime group (5%; P = 0.001). Cefepime monotherapy was as effective as, and better tolerated than, imipenem-cilastatin in the empirical treatment of fever during short duration neutropenia.

Cefepine vs. ceftazidime treatment of pyelonephritis: a European, randomized, controlled study of 300 pediatric cases. European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID) Pyelonephritis Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime has been used in clinical therapeutic trials for meningitis, serious infection and febrile neutropenia, comprising more than 800 pediatric patients. This agent has also been used in patients 12 years of age and older with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections including pyelonephritis, but not in younger patients. In this study the safety and efficacy of cefepime were compared with those of ceftazidime for treatment of pyelonephritis in pediatric patients younger than 12 years of age. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-nine pediatric patients (ages 1 month to 12 years) with pyelonephritis (300 episodes) were enrolled in a randomized, open label, multicenter trial. Individual results were evaluated by a blinded committee of experts. Cefepime was compared with ceftazidime, both administered parenterally at 50 mg/kg every 8 h. Patients were to receive the assigned study drug until at least 48 h after becoming afebrile. The i.v. treatment was then to be continued or replaced by oral trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole for a maximum of 12 to 14 days. RESULTS: The predominant causative pathogens were Escherichia coli, 88%; Proteus spp., 6%; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 2%; and Klebsiella spp., 2%. Bacteriologic eradication was achieved in 96 and 94% of cefepime and ceftazidime patients, respectively, at the end of i.v. study drug treatment and was maintained in 94 and 91%, respectively, at the end of total study therapy. After study therapy bacteriologic eradication was maintained after 4 to 6 weeks in 86% of cefepime cases and in 83% of ceftazidime cases. A satisfactory clinical response occurred in 98 and 96% of cefepime and ceftazidime patients, respectively, at the end of i.v. treatment and in 93% at the end of total study therapy in both treatment arms. Drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in 14 cefepime patients (91%) and in 10 ceftazidime patients (7%). CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime and ceftazidime are equally safe and efficacious treatment for pyelonephritis in pediatric patients.

Cefepime/amikacin versus ceftazidime/amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a comparative study. The French Cefepime Study Group.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of cefprozil and amoxycillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute otitis media in children.

Cefprozil is a new oral cephalosporin with activity against the most common pathogens isolated in acute otitis media. This randomized study enrolled 361 patients (mean age 29 months). Physical examination and culture via tympanocentesis were required less than 48 h before therapy. One hundred and ninety-one patients were evaluable for clinical efficacy; 99 received cefprozil (20 mg/kg/day bd) and 92 received amoxycillin/clavulanate (13.3 mg/kg/day tid). Duration of treatment was 7-9 days for 81 patients, 10 days for 105 patients and 11-16 days for five patients. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to demographics, severity of infection and number of previous episodes. Clinical evaluations of efficacy were based on physical examination including otoscopy within a 14 day period after therapy. Satisfactory clinical responses were achieved in 84% of cefprozil-treated patients and 87% of amoxycillin/clavulanate-treated patients. Pathogens most commonly isolated included Haemophilus influenzae (33%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (22%). All 361 patients were evaluable for safety. Adverse clinical events were reported in 13% (24) of cefprozil-treated patients and 20% (36) of amoxycillin/clavulanate-treated patients. Cefprozil, administered twice a day, is comparable to a regimen of amoxycillin/clavulanate three times a day in the treatment of acute otitis media in children.

A comparative study of cefepime and ceftazidime in the treatment of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.

Antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia must target Gram-positive pathogens, especially frequently isolated organisms such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. The severity of community-acquired pneumonia is often related to underlying factors. Occasionally it may be complicated by staphylococcal or Gram-negative bacillary infection. We have compared the safety and efficacy of cefepime 1 g bd with ceftazidime 1 g tds as empirical treatment in adults with community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). One hundred and thirty-one patients with moderate to severe LRTIs were randomized to two treatment groups: 87 received cefepime and 44 received ceftazidime. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to sex, age and treatment duration. Of the 116 pathogens isolated, 57 were Gram-positive (46 strains of S. pneumoniae) and 59 were Gram-negative (33 strains of Haemophilus influenzae). Of the 111 patients evaluated, clinical cure rates were 87% (65/75) in the cefepime group and 86% (31/36) in the ceftazidime group. Pathogen eradication rates were 95% (74/78 and 36/37, respectively) in both groups. Both drugs were well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events in each group was comparable. Cefepime 2 g per day (1 g bd) was as safe and effective as ceftazidime 3 g per day (1 g tds) in the treatment of community-acquired LRTIs.

A non-comparative study of the efficacy and tolerance of cefepime in combination with amikacin in the treatment of severe infections in patients in intensive care.

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at increased risk of developing nosocomial infections. This is of special concern in the immunocompromised patient, particularly with regard to multiresistant pathogens. We evaluated the effectiveness of cefepime 2 g bd in combination with amikacin 7.5 mg/kg bd for the treatment of severe bacterial infection in 118 ICU patients, including 113 patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) (mean age, 51 years). Ninety-six per cent (108/113) of the LRTI patients required respiratory assistance and 12% (14/113) had associated septicaemia/bacteraemia. Eighty-four per cent (95/113) had clinical signs of sepsis and 35% (39/113) had features of septic shock. The mean Simplified Acute Physiologic Score (SAPS) was 12 at inclusion. Seventy-nine patients with LRTI were clinically and bacteriologically evaluable. The causative pathogens were representative of those usually isolated in ICUs: Staphylococcus aureus (19%); Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14%); and Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Serratia spp. (17%). The clinical cure rate was 86% (68/79) while the pathogen eradication rate was 91% (107/117). Of the patients with associated septicaemia/bacteraemia, 89% (8/9) of the pathogens were eliminated. Cefepime-amikacin combination therapy was well tolerated; two patients discontinued treatment due to rashes. Combination therapy with cefepime 2 g bd and amikacin 7.5 mg/kg bd appears safe and effective for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in patients hospitalized in ICUs. Further comparative controlled studies are justified.

In-vitro antibacterial activity of cefepime: a multicentre study.

The antimicrobial activity of cefepime, a new broad-spectrum parenteral cephalosporin, was evaluated in vitro against 1757 recent clinical Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates. Cefepime was active at low concentrations (MIC50 values < or = 0.06 mg/L and MIC90 values < or = 0.12 mg/L) against non-cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp.). For Klebsiella pneumoniae, MICs were between 0.016 and 16 mg/L; the highest MIC values were observed for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing strains. Against Enterobacteriaceae, such as cephalosporinase producing Enterobacter cloacae, MICs were < or = 0.5 mg/L, but MICs against cephalosporinase hyperproducing strains were generally higher. Ticarcillin-sensitive strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inhibited by cefepime concentrations of 0.5-16 mg/L, while cefepime MICs were 8-64 mg/L for strains resistant to ticarcillin. The cefepime MIC50 value for Haemophilus spp. including many resistant to amoxycillin, was 0.03 mg/L. Against methicillin-sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus, cefepime MICs were 0.5-16 mg/L; MICs against methicillin-resistant staphylococci were 16- > 128 mg/L). Against methicillin-sensitive coagulase-negative staphylococci, cefepime MIC values were 0.03-16 mg/L; corresponding values for methicillin-resistant strains were 2-128 mg/L. Streptococci (Groups A, C and G) were sensitive to cefepime with MICs ranging from < or = 0.008-2 mg/L (MIC50, 0.03 mg/L; MIC90, 0.25 mg/L). The activity of cefepime against Group B streptococci and pneumococci were comparable, with MIC50 values of 0.12 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively, and MIC90 values of 0.03 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. Most enterococci and all Listeria monocytogenes strains had MICs > or = 32 mg/L.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Penetration of pefloxacin into bronchial secretions.

Twelve patients, intubated for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, received six intravenous doses of 400 mg of pefloxacin at 12-h intervals. Samples of blood and bronchial secretions were taken simultaneously, before the injection and at 0.5, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h after the end of the sixth infusion. There was a large variation in pefloxacin levels in both serum and bronchial secretions. The mean concentrations of pefloxacin in bronchial secretions ranged from 6.51 to 11.1 micrograms/ml and were higher than the corresponding concentrations in serum at all times. Of 61 bronchial specimens, 48 (79%) contained more than 8 micrograms of the antibiotic per ml.