This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Giamarellou, H.
Right arrow Articles by Zoumbos, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Giamarellou, H.
Right arrow Articles by Zoumbos, N.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, December 2000, p. 3264-3271, Vol. 44, No. 12
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Monotherapy with Intravenous Followed by Oral High-Dose Ciprofloxacin versus Combination Therapy with Ceftazidime plus Amikacin as Initial Empiric Therapy for Granulocytopenic Patients with Fever

Helen Giamarellou,1,* Harry P. Bassaris,2 George Petrikkos,3 Wilhelm Busch,4 Michel Voulgarelis,3 Anastasia Antoniadou,1 Elisabeth Grouzi,2 and Nikolaos Zoumbos2

4th Department of Internal Medicine1 and 1st Department of Propedeutic Medicine,3 Athens University School of Medicine, Athens, and Department of Internal Medicine, Patras University School of Medicine, Patras,2 Greece, and Bayer Vital GmbH & Co. KG, Pharma Medicine, Leverkusen, Germany4

Received 2 March 2000/Returned for modification 23 May 2000/Accepted 24 August 2000

The aim of the present study was to obtain clinical experience with the use of high-dose ciprofloxacin as monotherapy for the treatment of febrile neutropenia episodes (granulocyte count, <500/mm3) compared to a standard regimen and to clarify whether ciprofloxacin administration may be switched to the oral route. In a prospective randomized study ciprofloxacin was given at 400 mg three times a day (t.i.d.) for at least 72 h followed by oral administration at 750 mg twice a day (b.i.d). That regimen was compared with ceftazidime given intravenously at 2 g t.i.d. plus amikacin given intravenously at 500 mg b.i.d. The frequency of successful clinical response without modification at the end of therapy was almost identical for ciprofloxacin (50% [62 of 124 patients]) compared with that for ceftazidime plus amikacin (50.8% [62 of 122 patients]) in an intent-to-treat analysis; the frequencies were 48.3% (57 of 118 patients) versus 49.6% (56 of 113 patients), respectively, in a per-protocol analysis (P values for one-sided equivalence, 0.0485 and 0.0516, respectively; delta  = 10%), with no significant differences among patients with bacteremia and other microbiologically or clinically documented infections and fever of unknown origin. For 82 (66.1%) patients, it was possible to switch from parenteral ciprofloxacin to the oral ciprofloxacin, and the response was successful for 61 (74.4%) patients. The efficacies of the regimens against streptococcal bacteremias were 16.6% (one of six patients) for the ciprofloxacin group and 33.3% (one of three patients) for the combination group (it was not statistically significant), with one breakthrough streptococcal bacteremia observed among the ciprofloxacin-treated patients. Adverse events were mostly self-limited and were observed in 27 (20.6%) ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 26 (19.7%) patients who were receiving the combination. This study demonstrates that high-dose ciprofloxacin given intravenously for at least 3 days and then by the oral route is therapeutically equivalent to the routine regimen of intraveneous ceftazidime plus amikacin even in febrile patients with severe neutropenia (polymorphonuclear leukocyte count, <100 mm3). However, it is very important that before an empirical therapy is chosen each hospital determine bacteriologic predominance and perform resistance surveillance.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 4th Department of Internal Medicine, Athens Medical School, Sismanoglio General Hospital, 151 26 Maroussi Attikis, Athens, Greece. Phone: 301 80 39 542. Fax: 301 80 39 543. E-mail:hgiama{at}ath.forthnet.gr.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, December 2000, p. 3264-3271, Vol. 44, No. 12
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Wickens, H. J., Jacklin, A. (2006). Impact of the Hospital Pharmacy Initiative for promoting prudent use of antibiotics in hospitals in England. J Antimicrob Chemother 58: 1230-1237 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Bliziotis, I. A., Michalopoulos, A., Kasiakou, S. K., Samonis, G., Christodoulou, C., Chrysanthopoulou, S., Falagas, M. E. (2005). Ciprofloxacin vs an Aminoglycoside in Combination With a {beta}-Lactam for the Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Mayo Clin Proc. 80: 1146-1156 [Abstract]  
  • Vidal, L., Paul, M., Ben dor, I., Soares-Weiser, K., Leibovici, L. (2004). Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 54: 29-37 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Peacock, J. E. Jr., Herrington, D. A., Wade, J. C., Lazarus, H. M., Reed, M. D., Sinclair, J. W., Haverstock, D. C., Kowalsky, S. F., Hurd, D. D., Cushing, D. A., Harman, C. P., Donowitz, G. R. (2002). Ciprofloxacin plus Piperacillin Compared with Tobramycin plus Piperacillin as Empirical Therapy in Febrile Neutropenic Patients: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. ANN INTERN MED 137: 77-87 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Donowitz, G. R., Maki, D. G., Crnich, C. J., Pappas, P. G., Rolston, K. V.I. (2001). Infections in the Neutropenic Patient-- New Views of an Old Problem. ASH Education Book 2001: 113-139 [Abstract] [Full Text]