Volume 61, Issue 2 (14 2003)
Tehran Univ Med J 2003, 61(2): 110-114 |
Back to browse issues page
Abstract: (13155 Views)
Neutropenic state with fever is exactly regarded as a medical emergency, with high mortality and morbidity rate, unless treated urgently and correctly. Every attempt should be made to find and establish the offending organism, but postponing treatment until obtaining culture results is not advised. Controversy exist on which antibiotic regimen to be used while waiting for culture results. Many antibiotic regiments both monotherapy or combination treatments have been used with varying result. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of cefriaxon monothenapy with ceftazidim. Plus Amikacin as initial empiric antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.
Materials and Methods: We performed a randomized, single blind clinical trial in 57 adult (age>12 years), neutropenic (PMN<1000) patients with fever (Temperature, oral >38.5c) in Hematology ward, Imam khomeini hospital. After careful physical exam and obtaining blood & urine samples for culture, the patients were randomized to each of the two arms: Cefriaxon 2 grams daily, intravenously (arm A) and Ceftazidim 2g thrice daily plus amikacin 500 mg twice daily (arm B). Patients with shock, organ failure or previous antibiotic intake (during 48 hour before fever) were excluded. If needed, dose adjustment of drugs were allowed. Effervescence in 3 days following initiation of treatment, lasting 48 hours or more, were regarded as effective (positive result).
Results: During a twelve months period of study, a total of 57 patients (17female, 40male) were included. They were randomly selected to each arm of empirical treatment. Of 28 pts in arm A, 19 (67 percent), the treatment was effective, compared to 15 of 29 (51.7 percent) in groups B. The duration of fever after initiation of treatment was 37.9 ± 17 hours in arm A and 40. 1 ± 20 h in arm B. Blood and / or urine culture was equally positive in two arms (25 percent in arm A and 27.6 percent in arm B).
Conclusion: Cefriaxon monotherapy is at least equally effective in low risk neutropenic patients with fever compared to combination of ceftazidim plus amikacin at a decreased cost and probably (expected) less adverse side effects in our patients.
Materials and Methods: We performed a randomized, single blind clinical trial in 57 adult (age>12 years), neutropenic (PMN<1000) patients with fever (Temperature, oral >38.5c) in Hematology ward, Imam khomeini hospital. After careful physical exam and obtaining blood & urine samples for culture, the patients were randomized to each of the two arms: Cefriaxon 2 grams daily, intravenously (arm A) and Ceftazidim 2g thrice daily plus amikacin 500 mg twice daily (arm B). Patients with shock, organ failure or previous antibiotic intake (during 48 hour before fever) were excluded. If needed, dose adjustment of drugs were allowed. Effervescence in 3 days following initiation of treatment, lasting 48 hours or more, were regarded as effective (positive result).
Results: During a twelve months period of study, a total of 57 patients (17female, 40male) were included. They were randomly selected to each arm of empirical treatment. Of 28 pts in arm A, 19 (67 percent), the treatment was effective, compared to 15 of 29 (51.7 percent) in groups B. The duration of fever after initiation of treatment was 37.9 ± 17 hours in arm A and 40. 1 ± 20 h in arm B. Blood and / or urine culture was equally positive in two arms (25 percent in arm A and 27.6 percent in arm B).
Conclusion: Cefriaxon monotherapy is at least equally effective in low risk neutropenic patients with fever compared to combination of ceftazidim plus amikacin at a decreased cost and probably (expected) less adverse side effects in our patients.
Keywords: Empiric treatment
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |