Results of a Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Combination of Piperacillin/Tazobactam and Tigecycline in High-Risk Hematologic Patients With Cancer With Febrile Neutropenia

Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 04/2014; 32(14). DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.6963
Source: PubMed


Empiric antibiotic monotherapy is considered the standard of treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer, but this approach may be inadequate because of the increasing prevalence of infections caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria.
In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, superiority trial, adult, febrile, high-risk neutropenic patients (FhrNPs) with hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g intravenously every 8 hours) with or without tigecycline (50 mg intravenously every 12 hours; loading dose 100 mg). The primary end point was resolution of febrile episode without modifications of the initial allocated treatment.
Three hundred ninety FhrNPs were enrolled (combination/monotherapy, 187/203) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITTA). The ITTA revealed a successful outcome in 67.9% v 44.3% of patients who had received combination therapy and monotherapy, respectively (127/187 v 90/203; absolute difference in risk (adr), 23.6%; 95% CI, 14% to 33%; P < .001). The combination regimen proved better than monotherapy in bacteremias (adr, 32.8%; 95% CI, 19% to 46%; P < .001) and in clinically documented infections (adr, 36%; 95% CI, 9% to 64%; P < .01). Mortality and number of adverse effects were limited and similar in the two groups.
The combination of piperacillin/tazobactam and tigecycline is safe, well tolerated, and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam alone in febrile, high-risk, neutropenic hematologic patients with cancer. In epidemiologic settings characterized by a high prevalence of infections because of MDR microorganisms, this combination could be considered as one of the first-line empiric antibiotic therapies.

23 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infection remains one of the most prominent complications after cytotoxic treatment for cancer. The connection between neutropenia and both infections and fever has long been designated as ‘febrile neutropenia’, but treatment with antimicrobial agents and haematopoietic growth factors has failed to significantly reduce its incidence. Moreover, emerging antimicrobial resistance is becoming a concern that necessitates the judicious use of available antimicrobial agents. In addition to neutropenia, patients who receive cytotoxic therapy experience mucosal barrier injury (MBI) or ‘mucositis’. MBI creates a port-de-entrée for resident micro-organisms to cause blood stream infections and contributes directly to the occurrence of fever by disrupting the highly regulated host-microbe interactions, which, even in the absence of an infection, can result in strong inflammatory reactions. Indeed, MBI has been shown to be a pivotal factor in the occurrence of inflammatory complications after cytotoxic therapy. Hence, the concept ‘febrile neutropenia’ alone may no longer suffice and a new concept ‘febrile mucositis’ should be recognized as the two are at least complementary. This review we summarizes the existing evidence for both paradigms and proposes new therapeutic approaches to tackle the perturbed host-microbe interactions arising from cytotoxic therapy-induced tissue damage in order to reduce fever in neutropenic patients with cancer.
    British Journal of Haematology 09/2014; 167(4). DOI:10.1111/bjh.13113 · 4.71 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2014; 32(34). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.56.9814 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2014; 32(34). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9243 · 18.43 Impact Factor
Show more