z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients
Author(s) -
I.R.O. Nováková,
J. Peter Donnelly,
Ben de Pauw
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.07
H-Index - 259
eISSN - 1070-6283
pISSN - 0066-4804
DOI - 10.1128/aac.35.4.672
Subject(s) - ceftazidime , teicoplanin , medicine , bacteremia , antibiotics , adverse effect , surgery , vancomycin , gastroenterology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , staphylococcus aureus , bacteria , pseudomonas aeruginosa , genetics
In a prospective randomized study, 120 febrile, granulocytopenic patients received as initial therapy ceftazidime with or without teicoplanin. At the onset of fever, patients had no obvious infectious focus. For 103 assessable episodes, initial bacteremias were detected in 18 of 51 patients (35%) given ceftazidime and 20 of 52 patients (38%) given the combination; 13 and 17 bacteremias caused by gram-positive bacteria occurred in these groups, respectively. There was no difference in terms of the final response (25 of 51 patients [49%] treated with ceftazidime alone versus 33 of 52 patients [63%] given the combination), and the morbidity was comparable for both treatment groups. The duration of fever and of total antibiotic therapy were similar in both groups. Initial therapy was modified in 26 patients (51%) treated with ceftazidime, with 20 surviving the infection, and in 19 patients (37%) treated with the combination, with 15 surviving. Persistent fever was the main reason for changing treatment, and no patient died of a gram-positive infection. Subsequent infective events occurred in 16 patients (31%) given ceftazidime and in 25 patients (48%) given the combination. Lung infiltrates developed in 12 and 13 patients, respectively, but more new infections occurred in the combination group. Allergic skin reactions were also more frequent in this group. Thus, while teicoplanin provides simple, reliable, and safe treatment of patients with presumed gram-positive infections, it is not useful when given empirically to this patient population, and treatment may result in more infective complications and adverse events.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom