Giampaolo Bucaneve

Itraconazole Oral Solution as Prophylaxis for Fungal Infections in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of itraconazole oral solution for preventing fungal infections, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial was conducted: 405 neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned to receive either itraconazole, 2.5 mg/kg every 12 hours (201 patients), or placebo (204 patients). Proven and suspected deep fungal infection occurred in 24% of itraconazole recipients and in 33% of placebo recipients, a difference of 9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6% to 22.5%; P = .035). Fungemia due to Candida species was documented in 0.5% of itraconazole recipients and in 4% of placebo recipients, a difference of 3.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5% to 6%; P = .01). Deaths due to candidemia occurred in none of the itraconazole recipients compared with 4 placebo recipients, a difference of 2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.05% to 4%; P = .06). Aspergillus infection was documented in four itraconazole recipients (one death) and one placebo recipient (one death). Side effects causing drug interruption occurred in 18% of itraconazole recipients and 13% of placebo recipients. Itraconazole oral solution was well-tolerated and effectively prevented proven and suspected deep fungal infection as well as systemic infection and death due to Candida species.

A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing Piperacillin-Tazobactam with and without Amikacin as Empiric Therapy for Febrile Neutropenia

In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g 3 times daily intravenously) plus placebo versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin (7.5 mg/kg twice daily intravenously) for the treatment of 760 febrile, adult patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced profound (<500 neutrophils/mm3) and prolonged (>10 days) neutropenia. A total of 733 patients were assessable for efficacy of the drug regimens, and an overall successful outcome was reported in 49% (179 of 364) of the patients who received monotherapy, compared with 53% (196 of 369) of patients who received combination therapy (P=.2). Response rates were similar with both regimens, as were incidences of bacteremia and clinically documented and possible infections. In our epidemiological setting, the initial empiric combination therapy was not associated with improved outcomes when compared with initial monotherapy.

Preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia : fluconazole compared with oral amphotericin B

Superficial and systemic fungal infections are a major problem among neutropenic patients with acute leukemia [1] or those having bone marrow transplantation [2]. It remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and many centers administer amphotericin B empirically to patients with neutropenia and fever refractory to antibacterial treatment [3, 4]. Antifungal prophylaxis is also used widely, but its efficacy in reducing systemic fungal infection is debated [5]. However, oral polyene antibiotics, usually poorly tolerated because of their bitter taste, have been shown to reduce oral candidiasis, and, in a placebo-controlled study, oral amphotericin B was shown to decrease autopsy-proven systemic candidiasis [6]. Among the imidazoles, ketoconazole and miconazole have been used with contrasting results in the prevention of systemic fungal infections, but because of their toxicities and the emergence of fungal-resistant strains, they are rarely used. Fluconazole, an oral triazole with systemic activity, tested in placebo-controlled trials in a daily oral dose of 400 mg, was found to be effective in reducing systemic fungal infections in marrow recipients [7] but did not show the same benefit in patients with acute leukemia receiving therapy to induce remission [8]. Our aim was to clarify the role of systemic and topical antifungal prophylactic agents in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia by doing a large, randomized, multicenter trial that compared the efficacy and tolerability of oral fluconazole with high-dose amphotericin B suspension. Methods Eligible patients included consecutive adults who had acute leukemia, were hospitalized at participating centers, and were receiving cytotoxic therapy likely to induce neutropenia (neutrophil count < 1000/mm3) within 7 days. Patients received remission-induction or reinduction therapy according to the GIMEMA protocols [9, 10]. We excluded from the study before randomization patients younger than 14 years, patients with a history of hypersensitivity to triazoles, patients treated with antifungal therapy in the previous 15 days, patients with evidence of a preexisting systemic fungal infection, and patients who had nasal colonization with Aspergillus spp. Study Protocol After informed consent was obtained, the patients were randomly assigned to receive either fluconazole, 150 mg as a once-daily capsule, or amphotericin B suspension, 500 mg every 6 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to treatments using random permuted blocks of 10 containing different and balanced sequences of the two regimens. Antifungal prophylaxis was started 1 to 3 days before the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy and continued until the neutrophil count returned to 1000/L or a systemic fungal infection was proved or suspected. All patients received oral ciprofloxacin, 500 mg twice daily, as antibacterial prophylaxis [11]; antiviral prophylaxis and central venous catheters were used according to autonomous decisions made at each participating center. The patients were treated under conventional ward conditions or in single rooms, depending on the center. Prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and colony-stimulating factors were not used. All patients were examined daily for clinical signs of fungal infection. When axillary temperature increased to more than 38 C or infection was suspected, samples for microbiological cultures, including at least three separate blood specimens, were obtained, prophylactic therapy with ciprofloxacin was discontinued, and treatment with amikacin, ceftazidime, and a glycopeptide antibiotic (teicoplanin or vancomycin) was started; if fever persisted despite 4 to 6 days of systemic antibiotics, empiric intravenous amphotericin B was administered. Documented systemic fungal infections were treated with systemic antifungal agents (mainly intravenous amphotericin B), and superficial fungal infections were treated with topical antifungal agents. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the two prophylactic regimens, the following variables were measured: documented systemic fungal infection; suspected systemic fungal infection; superficial fungal infection; the interval to the development of documented systemic fungal infection or to the use of empiric antifungal therapy; compliance; treatment interruption caused by side effects; and mortality. Definition of Fungal Infection Superficial fungal infection was defined as clinically apparent infection of the oropharynx or skin, along with positive cultures; a suspected case of systemic fungal infection was defined as any episode of fever that persisted despite 4 to 6 days of empiric antibiotic therapy, for which empiric intravenous amphotericin B therapy was administered; definite systemic fungal infection was defined as one in which there was both clinical evidence of blood or tissue infection and a culture or biopsy specimen from the involved site showing a pathogenic fungal organism [7]. Compliance Compliance was monitored by the nurse who counted capsules of fluconazole and measured the volume of amphotericin B oral suspension each day and recorded these data on the clinical report form. Compliance was defined as excellent if the patient took all the drug doses, as good if the patient missed fewer than three consecutive doses or took more than 80% of the total number of doses, and as poor if the patient missed more than three consecutive doses or took less than 80% of the total number of doses. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was done at the GIMEMA Infection Program Data Center with the SAS package (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Results are reported for all patients enrolled in the study (intention-to-treat analysis). Except for three patients randomly assigned to fluconazole and two patients assigned to amphotericin B who did not receive the study drugs and six additional patients in the fluconazole group and five in the amphotericin B group who had a duration of neutropenia of less than 7 days, all other patients were evaluable for the clinical efficacy analysis. The chi-square test with a correction for continuity, or the Fisher exact test when appropriate, was used to compare differences in proportions between the two groups. The log-rank test was used to compare the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The Student unpaired t-test was used to compare the means. Confidence intervals (CIs) of 95% are given where appropriate. Results A total of 820 patients with acute leukemia and neutropenic episodes from 30 centers were studied; 420 were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole, and 400 were randomly assigned to receive oral amphotericin B. The two groups of patients were similar in sex, age, underlying diseases, type of chemotherapy, protective environment, use of central venous catheters, and duration and severity of neutropenia. Patients receiving first-induction chemotherapy were equally distributed in the two treatment groups (Table 1). Table 1. Patient Characteristics according to Treatment Group Systemic Fungal Infection Proven systemic fungal infection occurred in 11 (2.6%) fluconazole recipients and in 10 (2.5%) amphotericin B recipients (P > 0.2). The distribution of fungal isolates was similar in both groups (Table 2): Candida spp. caused 55% of systemic infections in fluconazole recipients and 70% in amphotericin B recipients; no difference was found in the isolation of different Candida spp., including C. krusei, between the two groups. Rates of infections caused by Aspergillus spp. were 45% in fluconazole recipients and 30% in amphotericin B recipients, a difference of 15 percentage points (95% CI for difference, 25% to 56%, P > 0.2), and the Aspergillus isolates were equally distributed. Fungemia caused by Candida spp. was documented in five patients receiving fluconazole and in three treated with amphotericin B. The characteristics of the patients with proven cases of systemic fungal infection and their clinical outcomes are summarized in Table 3. Table 2. Types of Fungi Isolated in Systemic Infections according to Treatment Group* Table 3. Characteristics and Outcomes of the Definite Cases of Systemic Fungal Infection according to Treatment Group Overall, the sites of infection between the two treatment groups were similar (P > 0.2). Simple fungemia caused by Candida isolates was documented in three patients in each group (two cases of C. krusei and one of C. parapsilosis in fluconazole recipients; one case each of C. albicans, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis in amphotericin B recipients), and tissue infection was documented in three fluconazole recipients (C. tropicalis, C. albicans, and C. parapsilosis), and two amphotericin recipients (Candida spp., C. albicans). In patients receiving amphotericin B, esophagitis caused by Candida spp. and urinary tract infection caused by C. tropicalis were also documented. Tissue infection caused by Aspergillus spp. occurred in five fluconazole recipients (four cases of pneumonia and one disseminated infection) and in three amphotericin B-treated patients (two cases of pneumonia and one case of disseminated infection). Deaths from fungal infection were similar. Candida krusei fungemia and C. albicans and C. parapsilosis tissue infections caused death in three fluconazole recipients; C. albicans fungemia and Candida spp. tissue infection caused death in two amphotericin B recipients. Aspergillus pneumonia caused two deaths in the fluconazole group and one death in the amphotericin B group. The interval to the documented systemic fungal infection was 21 days in fluconazole recipients and 15 days in amphotericin B recipients, a nonstatistically significant difference (95% CI for difference, 3 to 15 days; P = 0.15). Superficial Fungal Infection Superficial infections were reported in 7 of the 420 patients receiving fluconazole (1.7%) and in 11 of 400 of those receiving amphotericin B (2.7%), a difference of 1 percentage point (CI for di

Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical antibiotic treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis

We set out to compare the efficacy of antibiotic monotherapy with that of combination therapy including an aminoglycoside for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. We did a meta-analysis of 29 randomised clinical trials pooling data from 4795 febrile episodes and a subset of 1029 bacteraemic episodes by both fixed and random effects models. Outcome measure was clinical failure of antibiotic treatment, defined as modification of the initially allocated regimen or death during treatment. In febrile episodes, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical failure with monotherapy versus combination therapy was 0.88, with 95% CI from 0.78 to 0.99 by the fixed effects model, and 0.87 with 95% CI from 0.75 to 1.01 by the more conservative random effects model. For bacteraemic episodes, the pooled OR of failure with monotherapy was 0.70 (0.54 to 0.92) by the fixed effects model, and 0.72 (0.54 to 0.95) by the random effects model. We conclude that monotherapy has been as effective as aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Fatal haemoptysis in pulmonary filamentous mycosis: An underevaluated cause of death in patients with acute leukaemia in haematological complete remission. A retrospective study and review of the literature

A retrospective study on a consecutive series of 116 patients affected by acute leukaemia with documented pulmonary filamentous mycosis (FM) admitted between 1987 and 1992 to 14 tertiary‐care hospitals in Italy was made in order to evaluate the characteristics of those patients who developed fatal massive haemoptysis.

Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program.

The efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin and vancomycin in the initial empirical antibiotic regimen in febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were compared in a prospective, randomized, unblinded, multicenter trial in the setting of 29 hematologic units in tertiary-care or university hospitals. A total of 635 consecutive febrile patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive intravenously amikacin plus ceftazidime plus either teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg of body weight once daily or vancomycin at 1 g twice daily. An efficacy analysis was done for 527 evaluable patients: 275 treated with teicoplanin and 252 treated with vancomycin. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 78% of patients who received teicoplanin and 75% of those who were randomized to vancomycin (difference, 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 4%; P = 0.33). A total of 102 patients presented with primary, single-agent, gram-positive bacteremia. Coagulase-negative staphylococci accounted for 42%, Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 27%, and streptococci accounted for 21% of all gram-positive blood isolates. The overall responses to therapy of gram-positive bacteremias were 92 and 87% for teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 5%; CI, -17 to 6%; P = 0.22). Side effects, mainly represented by skin rash, occurred in 3.2 and 8% of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -4.8%; CI, 0.7 to 8%; P = 0.03); the rate of nephrotoxicity was 1.4 and 0.8% for the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively (difference, 0.6%; CI, -2 to 1%; P = 0.68). Further infections were caused by gram-positive organisms in two patients (0.7%) treated with teicoplanin and one patient (0.4%) who received vancomycin (difference, 0.3%; CI, -0.9 to 1.0%; P = 0.53). Overall mortalities were 8.5 and 11% for teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -2.5%; CI, - 2 to 7%; P = 0.43); death was caused by primary gram-positive infections in three patients (1%) in each treatment group. When used for initial empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile, neutropenic patients, teicoplanin was at least as efficacious as vancomycin, but it was associated with fewer side effects.

Using teicoplanin for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies

Summary The cumulative experience with teicoplanin in treating febrile neutropenic patients included in three different comparative clinical trials conducted at a single institution during a 3‐year period, is presented. 1 52 febrile episodes in 129 neutropenic patients were treated with iv. teicoplanin (6 mg/kg/d) combined with amikacin (15 mg/kg/d) plus ceftazidime (90 mg/kg/d). The study population comprised 75 patients with acute leukaemia and 77 marrow recipients: 53(% (81/152) had a central venous catheter in place and 68%) (103/152) had severe neutropenia (< 100/mm3) at the beginning of the febrile episode.

Prospective randomized clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile, granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients.

The increasing prevalence of bacteremia caused by gram-positive bacteria in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients prompted us to evaluate, in a prospective randomized trial, the role of teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic, when it was added to amikacin plus ceftazidime, as an empiric therapy of fever in these patients. Of 47 evaluable episodes, 22 were treated with the teicoplanin regimen and 25 were treated with the combination of amikacin and ceftazidime. The overall response to therapy of patients treated with teicoplanin was slightly better (82% improvement) than that obtained with amikacin plus ceftazidime (52%). The response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias was 80% (4 of 5) to the regimen that included teicoplanin; 25% (1 of 4) of the patients treated with amikacin plus ceftazidime responded to treatment; and for patients with gram-negative bacteremias, the response rates were, respectively, 100% (4 of 4) and 70% (7 of 10). The better results obtained with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin treatment were most evident in patients with profound (less than 100/mm3) and persistent neutropenia (83 versus 30% improvement). Furthermore, a good response rate of patients with gram-positive bacteremias (seven of eight; 87% improvement) was achieved in a small group of bone marrow transplant patients who were all treated with amikacin-ceftazidime-teicoplanin. No severe side effects were documented in any patient. Teicoplanin, as a drug administered as a single daily dose, seems to be a safe and useful anti-gram-positive agent when used in combination with amikacin-ceftazidime as an empiric therapy of febrile episodes in granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients.

Domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients: a prospective randomized trial comparing oral versus parenteral empirical antibiotic treatment

Abstract Hospitalization and empirical broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics are the standard treatment for febrile cancer patients. Recent evidence supports the suggestion that febrile episodes in a low-risk population can be managed successfully in an outpatient setting, but the optimal drug regimen is unknown. In a prospective randomized clinical trial we compared ciprofloxacin 750 mg p.o. twice a day with ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. as a single daily dose for the empiric domiciliary treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic and nonneutropenic cancer patients. A total of 173 patients, accounting for 183 febrile episodes, were enrolled in the study. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 76 of 93 (82%) febrile episodes in patients who were randomized to the oral regimen and for 68 of 90 (75%) febrile episodes in patients randomized to the i.v. regimen: this difference was not statistically significant. The success rate was similar in all subgroups of patients: neutropenic and nonneutropenic, with documented infection and with fever of unknown origin. There were 3 deaths in the group of patients treated with the parenteral regimen, and two of these were related to treatment failure. Both treatments were well tolerated, and the cost of the oral regimen was lower. This prospective study suggests that domiciliary antibiotic empiric monotherapy is feasible in febrile nonneutropenic or low-risk neutropenic outpatients in whom a bacterial infection is suspected, and that either an oral or a parenteral regimen can be used. A number of factors may influence the choice between an orally and an i.v.-administered antibiotic, but owing to the easier administration and lower cost, the oral regimen seems to be preferable.

Results of a Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Combination of Piperacillin/Tazobactam and Tigecycline in High-Risk Hematologic Patients With Cancer With Febrile Neutropenia

PURPOSE Empiric antibiotic monotherapy is considered the standard of treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer, but this approach may be inadequate because of the increasing prevalence of infections caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, superiority trial, adult, febrile, high-risk neutropenic patients (FhrNPs) with hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g intravenously every 8 hours) with or without tigecycline (50 mg intravenously every 12 hours; loading dose 100 mg). The primary end point was resolution of febrile episode without modifications of the initial allocated treatment. RESULTS Three hundred ninety FhrNPs were enrolled (combination/monotherapy, 187/203) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITTA). The ITTA revealed a successful outcome in 67.9% v 44.3% of patients who had received combination therapy and monotherapy, respectively (127/187 v 90/203; absolute difference in risk (adr), 23.6%; 95% CI, 14% to 33%; P < .001). The combination regimen proved better than monotherapy in bacteremias (adr, 32.8%; 95% CI, 19% to 46%; P < .001) and in clinically documented infections (adr, 36%; 95% CI, 9% to 64%; P < .01). Mortality and number of adverse effects were limited and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION The combination of piperacillin/tazobactam and tigecycline is safe, well tolerated, and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam alone in febrile, high-risk, neutropenic hematologic patients with cancer. In epidemiologic settings characterized by a high prevalence of infections because of MDR microorganisms, this combination could be considered as one of the first-line empiric antibiotic therapies.