1. A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections.
- Author
-
Badaró R, Molinar F, Seas C, Stamboulian D, Mendonça J, Massud J, and Nascimento LO
- Subjects
- Abdominal Abscess microbiology, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cefepime, Cephalosporins adverse effects, Community-Acquired Infections drug therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Peritonitis microbiology, Pneumonia, Bacterial microbiology, Prospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, South America, Treatment Outcome, Urinary Tract Infections microbiology, Abdominal Abscess drug therapy, Cephalosporins therapeutic use, Drug Therapy, Combination therapeutic use, Peritonitis drug therapy, Pneumonia, Bacterial drug therapy, Sepsis drug therapy, Urinary Tract Infections drug therapy
- Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2002
- Full Text
- View/download PDF