LA CONSULTA SEMANAL
N Engl J Med 2000 Jan 6;342(1):56; discussion 56-8 [Texto completo]
Oral antibiotics for febrile patients with neutropenia due to cancer chemotherapy.
Rubenstein EB, Rolston KV, Kim YJ Clin Infect Dis 1999 Sep;29(3):515-21
New trends in patient management: risk-based therapy for febrile patients with neutropenia.
Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA. [email protected] Standard management of febrile neutropenia includes the prompt administration of empirical, broad-spectrum, parenteral antibiotic therapy. This is generally done in a hospital-based setting. Although effective (overall survival of >90%), such therapy leads to prolonged hospitalization, excessive resource utilization, and increased costs. Recently, risk-assessment models have been developed that reliably differentiate febrile patients with neutropenia that are at low risk for morbidity and/or mortality. This has enabled clinicians to administer risk-based treatment to such patients. High-risk patients still receive standard, hospital-based, parenteral treatment. Many patients, however, defervesce promptly and can be discharged home with parenteral or oral antibiotics. Low-risk patients need not be hospitalized at all and can be safely treated with parenteral or oral antibiotics in the outpatient or home setting. Careful risk assessment and patient selection, appropriate antimicrobial regimen(s), and meticulous monitoring for response or the development of complications or toxicity are essential for the success of risk-based therapy. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Sep;29(3):508-14
Is monotherapy for febrile neutropenia still a viable alternative?
Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32610, USA. [email protected] Monotherapy for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia is effective and often less costly than combination therapy but remains controversial. The controversy results from observations that combination therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved outcomes, and this approach became a standard. Many subsequent publications, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for febrile neutropenia, now support monotherapy. However, changes in the pathogens involved in febrile neutropenia and in their resistance prompt a reevaluation. In the evaluation of new antibiotics, recent trials comparing either cefepime or meropenem with combination therapy or with ceftazidime confirm that monotherapy remains a viable therapeutic approach, with infectious mortality in the 5% range in all arms. The choice of monotherapy should, however, be made on the basis of resistance patterns seen in an institution. The agent selected should be very active against the organisms that are likely to cause rapidly fatal infections, and clinicians must be prepared to modify monotherapy as appropriate. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Sep;29(3):495-502
Contemporary antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacterial pathogens commonly associated with febrile patients with neutropenia.
Department of Pathology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City 52242, USA. [email protected] One of the most challenging problems in antimicrobial chemotherapy is the effective empirical treatment of infection in patients with neutropenia. The rates of occurrence for pathogens have significantly changed (from predominance of gram-negative to gram-positive organisms) under selective pressure of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy or prophylaxis, and novel resistance mechanisms have emerged. To address the need for appropriate monotherapy or combination regimens for patients with neutropenia, physicians must prescribe agents with a spectrum of antimicrobial activity to inhibit the major, prevalent pathogens encountered in bloodstream infection and pneumonia; in addition, these selected agents must be active against recently described resistant organisms. Data from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program indicate that several broad-spectrum agents remain highly active and can be used alone or in combinations. In most cases, the newer compounds with increased activity and spectrum against gram-positive cocci (i.e., carbapenems, cefepime, levofloxacin, and trovafloxacin) offer a greater inhibitory potential for empirical therapy among patients with neutropenia and severe infections.
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jul 29;341(5):362-3 [Texto completo]
Fever and Neutropenia — How to Use a New Treatment Strategy
Robert W. Finberg, M.D. James A. Talcott, M.D. N Engl J Med 1999 Jul 29;341(5):305-11
A double-blind comparison of empirical oral and intravenous antibiotic therapy for low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy.
Freifeld A, Marchigiani D, Walsh T, Chanock S, Lewis L, Hiemenz J, Hiemenz S, Hicks JE, Gill V, Steinberg SM, Pizzo PA
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 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 or = 40%; after documented febrile neutropenia in a prior chemotherapy cycle to avoid infectious complications and maintain dose-intensity in subsequent treatment cycles when chemotherapy dose-reduction is not appropriate; and after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous progenitor-cell transplantation. CSFs are also effective in the mobilization of peripheral-blood progenitor cells. Therapeutic initiation of CSFs in addition to antibiotics at the onset of febrile neutropenia should be reserved for patients at high risk for septic complications. CSF use in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes may be reasonable if they are experiencing neutropenic infections. Administration of CSFs after initial chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia does not appear to be detrimental, but clinical benefit has been variable and caution is advised. Available data support use of CSFs in pediatric cancer patients similar to that recommended for adult patients. Outside of clinical trials, CSFs should not be used concurrently with chemotherapy and radiation, or to support increasing chemotherapy dose-intensity. Further research is warranted as a means to improve the cost-effective administration of the CSFs and identify clinical predictors of infectious complications that may direct their use.