The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024
A randomized non-inferiority study comparing imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam with standard-of-care Gram-negative coverage in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chaftari Anne-Marie, Dagher Hiba, Hachem Ray, Jiang Ying, Lamie Peter, Wilson Dib Rita, John Teny, Haddad Andrea, Philip Ann, Alii Shahnoor, Mulanovich Patricia, Yuan Ying, Chaftari Patrick, Raad Issam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance that threatens immunocompromised cancer patients. Infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality. Hence, empirical therapy with standard-of-care (SOC) antibiotics could be suboptimal in these vulnerable patients. New antibiotics covering potential resistant pathogens may be considered.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority study comparing safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IPM/REL), a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination, with SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem) in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients received at least 48 h of IV antibiotics and were assessed at end-of-IV (EOIV) therapy, test of cure (TOC; Days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; Days 35-42).
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were enrolled (49 IPM/REL and 50 SOC). Demographics and rates of documented microbiological infections were similar in both groups. In the SOC arm, 86% of antibiotics consisted of cefepime. Patients on IPM/REL had a higher favourable clinical response at EOIV than those on SOC (90% versus 74%; P = 0.042); however, responses were similar at TOC and LFU. Microbiological eradication was comparable at all three timepoints. Study drug-related adverse events and adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were similar in both groups, with no study drug-related mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compared with SOC antibiotics, predominantly cefepime, IPM/REL for empirical coverage of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is generally safe and could be associated with a better clinical outcome at EOIV. The current SOC consisting mainly of agents that do not cover for ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bacteria should be reconsidered.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority study comparing safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IPM/REL), a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination, with SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem) in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients received at least 48 h of IV antibiotics and were assessed at end-of-IV (EOIV) therapy, test of cure (TOC; Days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; Days 35-42).
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were enrolled (49 IPM/REL and 50 SOC). Demographics and rates of documented microbiological infections were similar in both groups. In the SOC arm, 86% of antibiotics consisted of cefepime. Patients on IPM/REL had a higher favourable clinical response at EOIV than those on SOC (90% versus 74%; P = 0.042); however, responses were similar at TOC and LFU. Microbiological eradication was comparable at all three timepoints. Study drug-related adverse events and adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were similar in both groups, with no study drug-related mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compared with SOC antibiotics, predominantly cefepime, IPM/REL for empirical coverage of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is generally safe and could be associated with a better clinical outcome at EOIV. The current SOC consisting mainly of agents that do not cover for ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bacteria should be reconsidered.