cilastatin--imipenem-drug-combination and Neutropenia

In view of the recent trend toward monotherapy in the treatment of febrile neutropenia, we evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin versus piperacillin-tazobactam as an empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with malignant diseases.. Febrile neutropenic patients received either imipenem-cilastatin or piperacillin-tazobactam randomly. Improvement without any changes in the initial antibiotic treatment was defined as "success" and improvement with modification of the initial treatment and death was defined as "failure".. Over 12 months, 99 febrile neutropenic episodes were treated with monotherapy in 63 patients with a median age of 5 years. At admission, median absolute neutrophil count was 50/mm(3) and in 67% of episodes, neutrophil count was under 100/mm(3). Median duration of neutropenia was 5 days. In 22% of episodes, neutropenia persisted for more than 10 days. Piperacillin-tazobactam was used in 52 episodes and imipenem-cilastatin was used in 47 episodes. There was no difference between groups in terms of age, sex, primary diseases, neutrophil count or duration of neutropenia. In the whole group, the success rate was 67% and the failure rate was 33%, whereas in the piperacillin-tazobactam group, the rates were 71% and 29%; and in the imipenem-cilastatin group they were 62% and 38%, respectively (P > 0.05). There were no deaths. No major adverse effects were seen in either group.. Although failure was slightly higher in the imipenem-cilastatin group, this was statistically insignificant. Both of these antibiotics can be used safely for initial empirical monotherapy of febrile neutropenia.

Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Child, Preschool; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Neutropenia; Penicillanic Acid; Piperacillin; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Prospective Studies

A prospective, open label, randomized, multicentre study was conducted, comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime with that of imipenem-cilastatin for the management of febrile neutropenia in patients with haematological malignancies. Furthermore, the safety of early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with fever of undetermined origin (FUO) was assessed. A total of 180 patients with 207 febrile episodes were randomized at start of fever (105 episodes for cefepime and 102 episodes for imipenem). The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, underlying malignancy, prior transplantation, and presence of central venous catheters. All patients were neutropenic at inclusion with median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 0.1 x 10(9)/l(range 0-1 x 10(9)/l), and ANC < or = 0.1 x 10(9)/l in 77% of included patients. The mean duration of neutropenia, with ANC < 0.5 x 10(9)/l was 6.2 d. Febrile episodes were classified as microbiologically documented infection (47%), FUO (43%), or clinically documented infection (10%). At final evaluation 1-2 weeks after completion of antibiotic therapy, monotherapy success rates were 40% and 51% in the cefepime and imipenem-cilastatin groups respectively (p = 0.33). The 4-week overall mortality rate was 5%. Three (2%) of the cefepime treated patients and 4 (3%) of the imipenem-cilastatin treated patients died as a result of infection. Adverse events directly related to antibiotic treatment were uncommon and did not differ between groups. Early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in 31 patients with FUO 48 h after defervescence was not associated with an increased rate of fever relapse or mortality compared with a subgroup of 29 patients where therapy was continued.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cefepime; Cephalosporins; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Female; Fever; Follow-Up Studies; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Probability; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Single-Blind Method; Survival Analysis; Sweden; Treatment Outcome

We aimed at comparing the effectiveness and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam(PIP-TAZ) versus imipenem/cilastin (IMI) administered as empiric monotherapy in patients with febrile neutropenia.. Patients with hematological diseases who were randomly assigned either PIP-TAZor IMI were enrolled in the study. A sequential strategy of antibiotic therapy addition was applied as long as fever persisted or microorganisms were isolated at 72 h. Moreover, if bacteriologically unconfirmed fever persisted after 5-7 days, an antifungal therapy was started. The treatment was considered successful if fever and clinical signs resolved and/or pathogens were cleared without adding further antibiotics at 72 h. Differences between percentages were analyzed using the *2test.. 137 patients were evaluated. The successful response rate of PIP-TAZ after 72 h was similar to IMI (32.2 and 35.2%). The defervescence time was shorter (3.6 and 4.2 days) and the bacterial response more favourable with PIP-TAZ than with IMI, but statistically significant differences were not reached. The overall response in both groups was 91%.18.2% of episodes were bacteriologically confirmed. The most frequent isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus coagulase-negative(48.8%). There was one only case of septic shock, within the IMI group, and the overall mortality of the group was 8.7%. The occurrence of vomiting in the IMI group was significantly higher than in the PIP-TAZ group (39.9 and 5.6%; p < 0.0001).. PIP-TAZ is as effective as IMI and it constitutes a good choice as an initial empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Penicillanic Acid; Piperacillin; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination

The clinical effectiveness of a combination treatment using imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) with G-CSF was studied in neutropenic patients (< 500/mm3) with hematological malignancies and secondary infections. Thirty seven patients were entered in the trial, and 30 patients were eligible. This combination was effective in 20 patients, thus the overall efficacy rate was 66.7 percent. The combination was effective in all 6 cases with septicemia, in 10 case out of 15 cases with fever after chemotherapy (efficacy rate; 66.7%), in 3 out of 8 cases with respiratory infections including 7 cases with pneumonia (efficacy rate; 37.5%), and a case with laryngopharyngitis. According to the order of the administration, the efficacy rates were 60.0% in 5 cases in whom G-CSF treatment was started before IPM/CS, 66.7% in 21 cases given both G-CSF and IPM/CS simultaneously, and 75.0% in 4 cases in whom IPM/CS was started before G-CSF. The difference was statistically not significant on the efficacy rates in the three groups. The efficacy in 18 cases treated with monotherapy on antibiotic was 72.2% and that in 12 cases treated with IPM/CS in combination with other antibiotics was 58.3%, and the difference in the efficacy rates in these two groups was not statistically significant. According to the neutrophil counts before and after the treatment, high response rate (60.0%) was obtained in cases of severe neutropenia (less than 100/mm3). Bacteriological examinations showed that all of bacteria detected as pathogens (10 strains of Gram-positive bacteria and 6 strains of Gram-negative bacteria) were eradicated, though 3 strains were replaced by other pathogens.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Topics: Adult; Aged; Bacterial Infections; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Hematologic Diseases; Humans; Imipenem; Immunocompromised Host; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia

Prompt initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy is the cornerstone in the therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients. Ceftriaxone plus gentamicin (ceftriaxone/gentamicin) is the most widely used combination of empiric antibiotics in the Department of Medical Oncology, Singapore General Hospital. However, imipenem/cilastatin has been shown to be a practical alternative. To compare the efficacy and cost effectiveness of monotherapy with our usual combination antibiotic therapy, 50 evaluable neutropenic cancer patients admitted for fever were randomised to empiric imipenem/cilastatin or ceftriaxone/gentamicin. Ceftriaxone/gentamicin was started in 24 patients. The initial clinical response rate to ceftriaxone/gentamicin was 62.5% and 84.6% to imipenem/cilastatin (P = 0.075). The average cost of antibiotics per patient started on ceftriaxone/gentamicin including cost of change of antibiotics was S$63 per day of antibiotic use and for imipenem/cilastatin it was S$252 (P < 0.02). In conclusion, although more patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin had an initial clinical response than those receiving ceftriaxone/gentamicin, this difference was not statistically significant. It would appear that imipenem/cilastatin is equivalent to ceftriaxone/gentamicin for the treatment of neutropenic sepsis. However, ceftriaxone/gentamicin was more cost effective.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Ceftriaxone; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Costs and Cost Analysis; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Gentamicins; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Sepsis

One hundred and thirty-nine consecutive episodes of fever were evaluated in 55 patients with hematological disorders during persistent neutropenia. In 121 instances, patients were given trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole + amikacin (TMP/SMZ + AMI) as an initial antibiotic regimen with clinical success in 51% (i.e. antibiotic treatment was not changed within the first 7 days). Imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) therapy was instituted in: (a) 22 episodes with clinical failure and fever of unknown origin during TMP/SMZ + AMI therapy and (b) 18 episodes with a second fever episode during initially successful TMP/SMZ + AMI therapy. The response rate for all 40 I/C treated episodes was 80%. One neutropenic patient in the whole series died from infectious complications within four weeks from institution of therapy. TMP/SMZ+AMI seems to be a safe and inexpensive "standard" antibiotic regimen in neutropenic patients. I/C appears to have good efficacy when used as secondary therapy after failure with TMP/SMZ+AMI.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amikacin; Bacterial Infections; Bone Marrow Transplantation; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Hematologic Diseases; Humans; Imipenem; Leukemia; Lymphoma; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Pneumocystis Infections; Sepsis; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination

We conducted a randomized trial to compare the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatine (IPM/CS) monotherapy with that of a combination of latamoxef (LMOX) and tobramycin (TOB) in the initial management of fever and neutropenia in patients with lung cancer. Leukocytopenic febrile patients (less than 3,000 leukocytes per microliters; temperature greater than 38 degrees C) with lung cancer given induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive intravenous treatment with either 1 g IPM/CS twice daily or 2 g LMOX plus 90 mg TOB twice daily. A total 101 febrile episodes were studied. Fifty-one episodes were treated with IPM/CS and 50 with LMOX+TOB. Fifty-nine of the febrile episodes were bacteriologically confirmed, while an organism could not be isolated despite the presence of obvious clinical infection in the remaining 42. The response rate was 82% with IPM/CS and 80% with combination therapy. This difference was not statistically significant. The response rate regarding gram-negative infections was 10 out of 14 (71%) in the IPM/CS group and seven out of 12 (58%) in the LMOX+TOB group. This difference was also not significant (P = 0.484). The response rate in severely neutropenic patients (neutrophils less than 100/microliters) was low (P = 0.078). Three patients in the IPM/CS group were withdrawn from the study due to skin rash and vomiting. Therapy with IPM/CS monotherapy was as effective as a combination regimen.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Bacterial Infections; Chi-Square Distribution; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Logistic Models; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Moxalactam; Multivariate Analysis; Neutropenia; Random Allocation; Tobramycin; Treatment Outcome

One hundred febrile episodes in 89 neutropenic patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy were randomized to be treated with either ceftazidime or imipenem as initial monotherapy. The clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients were comparable. The response of the fever in patients who received imipenem was significantly better than that in those who received ceftazidime (77 versus 56%, respectively; P = 0.04), especially in those with microbiologically documented infection (81 versus 33%, respectively; P = 0.02). The in vitro susceptibilities and the clinical responses suggested that, with the possible exception of Pseudomonas spp., imipenem was more effective than ceftazidime in treating neutropenic infections caused by both gram-positive and -negative organisms. An additional 23 and 21% of the patients in the ceftazidime and imipenem groups, respectively, responded to the addition of cloxacillin and amikacin following failure of monotherapy. The majority of the treatment failures, relapses, and superinfections were related to resistant infective organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. or disseminated fungal infections.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Agranulocytosis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Ceftazidime; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy with ceftriaxone (active ingredient of Rocephin) (CRO) versus imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) in febrile cancer patients with or without neutropenia. 120 febrile episodes were randomized and 89 (75%) were evaluable for efficacy analysis. The overall response rates to both regimens were good (86 and 79% improved in response to CRO and I/C, respectively). Overall mortality was low and similar in the two groups. Both regimens were well tolerated. Our preliminary data corroborate the efficacy of CRO or I/C as empirical monotherapy for febrile episodes in cancer patients. It will be up to future investigations to show whether one of these regimens is superior to the other.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Ceftriaxone; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Prospective Studies; Random Allocation; Remission Induction

Seventy-eight patients with cancer experienced 88 episodes of fever while neutropenic and were randomly assigned to receive empiric antibiotic therapy with cefoperazone 2 g intravenously every 12 hours and mezlocillin 4 g intravenously every six hours or imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg intravenously over 30 to 60 minutes every six hours. Within 96 hours of starting antibiotic treatment, 24 patients (57 percent) treated with cefoperazone and mezlocillin and 34 patients (74 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin became afebrile. One half of the patients in each arm required changes in the antibiotic regimen because of side effects, persistent fever with a site suspicious for infection, resistant organisms, or breakthrough bacteremias. Forty patients (95 percent) receiving cefoperazone and mezlocillin and 43 patients (93 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin recovered from the neutropenic episode. Two patients in each regimen group died of their underlying disease. One patient in the imipenem/cilastatin arm died of Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis. Although the two regimens are comparable in efficacy, the incidence of side effects favored the cefoperazone and mezlocillin group. No seizures or bleeding were seen in either arm; however, 19 patients (41 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin required pretreatment antiemetic drugs for nausea.

Topics: Adult; Agranulocytosis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cefoperazone; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Cyclopropanes; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Mezlocillin; Neoplasms; Neutropenia; Thienamycins

In this open, controlled, randomized multi-clinic trial, monotherapy with imipenem/cilastatin was compared to amikacin plus piperacillin as empiric antibacterial therapy in 210 neutropenic cancer patients. Of patients randomized, 53 (25%) had bacteriologically documented infections and of those 30 had septicemia. A further 80 patients (38%) were evaluable for clinical efficacy but did not have documented infections. Seventy-seven patients (37%) were non-evaluable due to effective antibiotic treatment before the trial, early institution of other antibiotics during the trial, verified non-bacterial infections, no neutropenia or other reasons. There were no significant differences in terms of efficacy between imipenem/cilastatin and amikacin plus piperacillin but a consistent trend towards higher rates of clinical cure or improvement and of elimination of causative pathogens was noted in the imipenem/cilastatin group. In patients who were severely neutropenic (less than 0.1 x 10(9) granulocytes/l), similar cure rates were obtained in the two treatment groups--again with a tendency towards better results in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Among evaluable patients with septicemia, one patient in the imipenem/cilastatin group had persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia during treatment. Five patients in the amikacin plus piperacillin group had persistent bacteremia during treatment; all but one (a Pseudomonas aeruginosa) caused by strains resistant to amikacin or piperacillin. Clinical and laboratory adverse effects were mild in the imipenem/cilastatin group although nausea was significantly more common than in the amikacin plus piperacillin group. Among patients on amikacin plus piperacillin, one died in renal failure, possibly related to treatment. Drug-related serious adverse events were reported in two additional amikacin plus piperacillin patients; one with drug fever and one with hearing loss. Microbiological adverse effects occurred in similar frequencies in the two groups. It is concluded that imipenem/cilastatin is a promising candidate for monotherapy of bacterial infections in neutropenic cancer patients.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Agranulocytosis; Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclopropanes; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Penicillin Resistance; Piperacillin; Prospective Studies; Random Allocation; Thienamycins

Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments.. A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.. The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options.. Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefepime; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Computer Simulation; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Support Techniques; Fever; Health Care Costs; Humans; Meropenem; Neutropenia; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Treatment Outcome

To compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving an alternative dosage of meropenem with those of patients receiving imipenem-cilastatin or the traditional dosage of meropenem after failure of or intolerance to cefepime for treatment of febrile neutropenia.. Retrospective, single-center cohort study.. 1250-bed urban academic medical center.. One hundred twenty-seven adults with neutropenic fever who received either imipenem-cilastatin or meropenem; imipenem-cilastatin was the preferred carbapenem until September 1, 2006, after which meropenem became the formulary carbapenem.. Of the 127 patients, 40 received imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006; 87 patients received meropenem between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007: 29 received a traditional dosage of meropenem 1 g every 8 hours, and 58 received an alternative dosage of meropenem 500 mg every 6 hours. Primary outcomes of time to defervescence (median 3 vs 2 vs 3 days), need for additional antibiotics (20% vs 17% vs 14%), and time to receipt of additional antibiotics (median 5 vs 2 vs 1 days) were not significantly different among the imipenem-cilastatin, traditionally dosed meropenem, and alternatively dosed meropenem groups, respectively. In addition, significant differences in secondary outcomes, which were treatment duration (median 10 vs 8 vs 8 days), seizure rate (0% vs 0% vs 0%), in-hospital mortality (5% vs 7% vs 7%), and 30-day mortality (13% vs 7% vs 14%), were not identified among the three groups, respectively.. The alternative meropenem dosage of 500 mg every 6 hours yielded similar patient outcomes, including time to defervescence, need for additional antibiotics, duration of therapy, and mortality, when compared with the traditional meropenem dosage and imipenem-cilastatin in adults with febrile neutropenia. In addition, no adverse effects on clinical outcomes were observed with the alternative dosage of meropenem.

Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefepime; Cephalosporins; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Cohort Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Combinations; Female; Fever; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Retreatment; Seizures; Thienamycins; Time Factors

The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess cross-hypersensitivity between imipenem/cilastatin and penicillin in patients with reported penicillin allergies. Medical records of febrile neutropenic, penicillin-allergic bone marrow transplant recipients who received imipenem/cilastatin treatment were retrospectively reviewed. The findings of this study indicate the incidence of cross-reactivity between imipenem/cilastatin and penicillin among patients with a history of penicillin allergy may be lower than previously reported.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Bone Marrow Transplantation; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Cross Reactions; Drug Combinations; Drug Hypersensitivity; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Incidence; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Penicillins; Retrospective Studies

Topics: Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Neutropenia

Antibiotic monotherapy is increasingly an option for the initial empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. We noted in a previous study that response to empiric therapy was related more to disease classification (solid tumors vs. leukemia) than to the regimen chosen. In the present study we based empiric monotherapy on the underlying disease in treating 240 episodes of fever and neutropenia in 145 children. Patients with leukemia or Stage III/IV non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (higher risk group) were treated with imipenem-cilastatin, whereas those with solid tumors or Stage I/II non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (lower risk group) received ceftriaxone. The regimens were modified in 15% of lower risk and 45% of higher risk episodes. Overall successful outcomes were obtained in 93.2% of the higher risk (n = 119) and 97.5% of the lower risk (n = 121) episodes. The two groups differed significantly in duration of neutropenia, frequency of positive blood cultures and superinfection and the need for modification of the monotherapy (P < 0.05). Empiric monotherapy based on primary disease appears to be safe and effective for febrile neutropenic children with cancer at our Brazilian institution. Further studies will be needed before these findings can be generalized to patient populations in other settings.

Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftriaxone; Child; Child, Preschool; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Fever; Humans; Imipenem; Infant; Leukemia; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Neoplasms; Neutropenia

Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Neutropenia; Osteomyelitis

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefoperazone; Ceftazidime; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Fever of Unknown Origin; Humans; Imipenem; Infections; Neutropenia

The pharmacokinetics of imipenem/cilastatin were studied in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. The peak plasma concentrations (36.4 +/- 4.96 mg/l), plasma half-life (60 min), volume of distribution (0.28 +/- 0.02 l/kg) and plasma clearance (3.23 +/- 0.38 ml/min/kg) were comparable with those in normal healthy volunteers suggesting that the drug handling is not appreciably altered in this group of patients. The administration of 12.5 mg/kg (max 1 g), 6-hourly achieved levels that were up to 3.5 times MICs of most relevant bacteria. The drug therefore has a potential use as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Agranulocytosis; Blood Preservation; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Imipenem; Leukemia; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Metabolic Clearance Rate; Middle Aged; Neutropenia

Clinical studies of imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) were conducted in 40 pediatric patients. 29 out of the 40 patients were treated for infections and 11 for prophylaxis. The following results were obtained. 1. The response rate in 29 patients with infections was 79.3%. Among the 29 patients, 16 patients who presented with malignant diseases showed the response rate of 68.8%. The response rate was lower in patients with severe infections than in those with mild or moderate infections, and a lower response rate was associated with severe neutropenia. However, there were no differences in the response rates between patients who had previously been treated and those who had been untreated with other antibiotics. The response rate in 6 patients from whom causative organisms were isolated was 83.3% and that in the remaining 23 patients was 78.3%. 2. The response rate in 11 patients to whom IPM/CS was administered prophylactically was 63.6%. 3. As for side effects, a rash was observed in 1 patient and hematuria in another, and the abnormal laboratory test results observed were elevations of GOT and GPT in 1 patient. However, they were not clinically significant. From the above results, it appears that IPM/CS may be used as a drug of the first choice for the treatment of patients with severe infections in which the causative organisms are unknown, and for the prophylaxis of infection in patients with neutropenia.

Topics: Bacterial Infections; Child; Child, Preschool; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Female; Hematologic Diseases; Humans; Imipenem; Infant; Male; Neoplasms; Neutropenia

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Bacterial Infections; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Humans; Imipenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged; Neoplasms; Neutropenia; Treatment Outcome

We treated 20 febrile episodes in 14 patients with granulocytopenia under 1.0 x 10(9)/L. 6 episodes were pretreated, in 14 Imipenem/Cilastatin was the initial therapy. The age was between 36 and 78 years, mean 57 years. Predominant underlying disease was acute leukemia. 8 out of 20 episodes became afebrile. Counting only proven bacterial infections the response rate was 6 out of 12. There was a statistical difference between not pretreated and pretreated patients. The treatment had no success in the latter. There was also a significant difference between febrile episodes of patients with granulocytes increasing under treatment to those remaining unchanged. 5 of 6 of the first group but none of the 9 episodes of the second group resolved. 7 patients died while on treatment between the 9th and 32nd day after therapy had started. There was no connection between the Imipenem treatment and the deaths. Tolerance of therapy was good. The most common side effect was nausea, which was reversible with reduction of the infusion rate. Most important advantage of imipenem is the easy handling and the low inconvenience to the patient. We had only moderate efficacy in our series.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Agranulocytosis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Fever of Unknown Origin; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Neutropenia; Prospective Studies