A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

• Autor(a) principal: Weidong, Zhang
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Outros Autores: Chun, Xiao, Sixin, Zhou, Rui, Wang, Li, Wang, Liping, Jia, Jinqiu, Ma, Na, Wang
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Bioscience journal (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340
• topic: Meta-analysis Piperacillin/Tazobactam; cefepime; Febrile neutropenia; cancer; Health Sciences

Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age > 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time > 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.