Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, December 2000, p. 3264-3271, Vol. 44, No. 12
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;
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
= 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.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»