Monotherapy versus dual therapy based on risk categorization of febrile neutropenic patients

9Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Cefepime monotherapy was compared with cefepime-plus-amikacin dual therapy for treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Response rates were significantly lower for patients receiving monotherapy who had neutrophil counts of <500 cells/mm3 but did not differ significantly between patients receiving dual therapy who had neutrophil counts of ≥500 cells/mm3 or <500 cells/mm3. Dual therapy is recommended for the initial treatment of patients with neutropenia with <500 cells/mm3. Dual therapy was significantly more effective in patients with neutropenia lasting <5 days. The response rates to monotherapy or dual therapy did not differ significantly when neutropenia persisted for ≥6 days, indicating that sustained neutropenia is a risk factor for failure of initial empirical therapy. The rate of response to monotherapy was lower in leukemic patients, whereas the rate of response to dual therapy did not differ between leukemic and nonleukemic groups. The rate of response to either monotherapy or dual therapy did not differ for patients with temperatures of ≥38°C or 37.5°C-38°C. Overall, defervescence occurred in >80% of patients with mild infections, whereas only 32% of those with moderate to severe infection responded by day 3 and 69.8% by day 7.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ohyashiki, K. (2004). Monotherapy versus dual therapy based on risk categorization of febrile neutropenic patients. In Clinical Infectious Diseases (Vol. 39). https://doi.org/10.1086/383056

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free