A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Badaró,Roberto
Data de Publicação: 2002
Outros Autores: Molinar,Fernando, Seas,Carlos, Stamboulian,Daniel, Mendonça,João, Massud,João, Nascimento,Luiz Olympio
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702002000500001
Resumo: The safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone ± aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93%) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90%) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83%) for those treated with comparator (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.6% to 16.3%). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86% for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97% for cefepime vs 94% for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of cefepime patients and 19% of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis.
id BSID-1_6edc01e8f1368c1f2b6e9af4c9f9a660
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1413-86702002000500001
network_acronym_str BSID-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
repository_id_str
spelling A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infectionsCefepimeampicillincaphalotinceftriaxoneaminoglycosideurinary tract infectionsintra-abdominal infectionssepsisThe safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone ± aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93%) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90%) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83%) for those treated with comparator (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.6% to 16.3%). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86% for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97% for cefepime vs 94% for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of cefepime patients and 19% of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis.Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases2002-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702002000500001Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases v.6 n.5 2002reponame:Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseasesinstname:Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)instacron:BSID10.1590/S1413-86702002000500001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBadaró,RobertoMolinar,FernandoSeas,CarlosStamboulian,DanielMendonça,JoãoMassud,JoãoNascimento,Luiz Olympioeng2003-07-15T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1413-86702002000500001Revistahttps://www.bjid.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjid@bjid.org.br||lgoldani@ufrgs.br1678-43911413-8670opendoar:2003-07-15T00:00Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
title A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
spellingShingle A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
Badaró,Roberto
Cefepime
ampicillin
caphalotin
ceftriaxone
aminoglycoside
urinary tract infections
intra-abdominal infections
sepsis
title_short A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
title_full A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
title_fullStr A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
title_full_unstemmed A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
title_sort A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
author Badaró,Roberto
author_facet Badaró,Roberto
Molinar,Fernando
Seas,Carlos
Stamboulian,Daniel
Mendonça,João
Massud,João
Nascimento,Luiz Olympio
author_role author
author2 Molinar,Fernando
Seas,Carlos
Stamboulian,Daniel
Mendonça,João
Massud,João
Nascimento,Luiz Olympio
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Badaró,Roberto
Molinar,Fernando
Seas,Carlos
Stamboulian,Daniel
Mendonça,João
Massud,João
Nascimento,Luiz Olympio
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Cefepime
ampicillin
caphalotin
ceftriaxone
aminoglycoside
urinary tract infections
intra-abdominal infections
sepsis
topic Cefepime
ampicillin
caphalotin
ceftriaxone
aminoglycoside
urinary tract infections
intra-abdominal infections
sepsis
description The safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone ± aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93%) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90%) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83%) for those treated with comparator (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.6% to 16.3%). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86% for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97% for cefepime vs 94% for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of cefepime patients and 19% of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis.
publishDate 2002
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2002-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702002000500001
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702002000500001
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1413-86702002000500001
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases v.6 n.5 2002
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
instname:Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)
instacron:BSID
instname_str Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)
instacron_str BSID
institution BSID
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
collection Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bjid@bjid.org.br||lgoldani@ufrgs.br
_version_ 1754209238294462464