Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Cefepime”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Cefepime versus ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer: a prospective randomized trial of the treatment efficacy and cost.

The efficacy, safety, and cost of cefepime and ceftazidime + amikacin as empirical therapy in children with febrile neutropenia is compared. A prospective randomized study in children with cancer was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either cefepime 150 mg/kg/day or ceftazidime 150 mg/kg/day combined with amikacin 15 mg/kg/day. Treatment modification was defined as all the changes in the empirical antimicrobials after the first 72 h. Overall treatment success was defined as cure of febrile episode with or without modification. Costs of hospitalization, antimicrobial drugs, and supportive therapy were calculated. Fifty febrile netropenic episodes were evaluated. Infectious agents were microbiologically identified in 28% of episodes. The incidence of gram-negative and gram-positive isolates was equal. Overall treatment success was 100% and success of initial empirical therapy without modification was 52 and 40% in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin groups, respectively. The response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimen was 64 and 52 % in the cefepime and cefepime + amikacin arms, respectively. Glycopeptide and antifungal drugs were added more frequently in the ceftazidime + amikacin group. Duration of fever, hospitalization, and antimicrobial drug administration were longer in the ceftazidime + amikacin arm. The costs of the antimicrobial drugs, hospitalization, and total cost were lower in the cefepime arm. Cefepime monotherapy is as effective as ceftazidime + amikacin combination in febrile neutropenia of pediatric cancer patients and must be preferred due to shorter defervescence of fever, shorter hospitalization, and lower therapy cost.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1994

Cost-effectiveness comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis.

A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis, from the institutional perspective, was performed on the 1637 clinically evaluable patients who participated in randomised studies of cefepime versus ceftazidime. The clinical success rate was 88% for patients in both the cefepime and ceftazidime groups. Adverse events occurred in 16.5% of cefepime and 19.0% of ceftazidime patients (p greater than 0.05). In most cases cefepime was administered every 12 hours while ceftazidime was administered every 8 hours. The amount of drug administered per patient (mean+/-SEM) was 17.6+/-0.4g of cefepime and 29.1+/-0.8g of ceftazidime (p less than 0.01). The median number of days of antibiotic treatment was 8 for each group. Decision and sensitivity analyses of drug price and hospital bed cost demonstrated that cefepime was consistently more cost effective than ceftazidime. The probability of clinical success varied between 60 and 97% and revealed that ceftazidime would have to be 31% more effective than cefepime to change the economic decision. If the acquisition prices per gram of drug are similar, cefepime will be cost effective compared with ceftazidime.

Cephalosporins↗
PubMed1994

Antimicrobial activity of cefepime tested against Bush group I beta-lactamase-producing strains resistant to ceftazidime. A multilaboratory national and international clinical isolate study.

The potency of cefepime, a parenteral aminothiazolyl methoxyimino cephalosporin, was assessed against 256 ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli from five medical centers in the United States. In addition, cefepime activity was compared with that of ciprofloxacin and imipenem against 506 ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli collected during an 11-medical-center international study. All US clinical isolates were susceptible (< or = 8 micrograms/ml) to cefepime except Enterobacter cloacae (94% susceptible) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19% susceptible). Enterobacteriaceae isolates from the 11-nation sample were > 80% cefepime susceptible with the exception of those from Brazil (48% susceptible) and Italy (55% susceptible). These international, enteric isolates were also very susceptible to ciprofloxacin (55%-100% susceptible) and imipenem (84%-100% susceptible). Nonenteric organisms (Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, and Acinetobacter) from the same international locations had overall rates of susceptibility of 47% for ciprofloxacin, 28% for imipenem, and only 5% for cefepime. Cross-resistance between the broad-spectrum cephalosporins (cefepime or ceftazidime) with either imipenem or ciprofloxacin was incomplete. Cefepime appears to have a spectrum of use against a significant number of contemporary, ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacillus isolates worldwide.

Cefepime↗
PubMed1999

Comparison of ex-vivo serum bactericidal activity of cefepime, ceftazidime and cloxacillin against Staphylococcus aureus.

Cefepime (1 g), ceftazidime (1 g), and cloxacillin (2 g) were administered intravenously to 10 volunteers each. After infusion of a single dose over 30 min, blood samples were obtained at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 h (for ceftazidime at 0.5 and 4 h) after dosing. Drug levels were determined by the bioassay method. Serum bactericidal activity against five clinical isolates of cloxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus were determined by the microdilution method according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines. The mean peak serum level was 76.88 +/- 24.71 mg/L for cefepime, 42.8 +/- 15.98 mL/L for ceftazidime, and 92.81 +/- 24.7 mg/L for cloxacillin. Concentrations of cefepime were detected during the whole testing period (mean trough level, 1.43 +/- 0.9 mg/L at 12 h), whereas concentrations of cloxacillin were measurable up to 5 h after administration (mean trough level, 0.90 +/- 0.97 mg/L). The mean peak reciprocal bactericidal titers were 29.41 for cefepime, 5.6 for ceftazidime, and 377 for cloxacillin. Effective bactericidal titers were detected as long as 5 h for cefepime (approximately 40% of the dosing interval) and 3 h for cloxacillin (at least 50% of the dosing interval). For ceftazidime, serum bactericidal activity was markedly lower compared with that of cefepime. Although cefepime has demonstrated an improved antistaphylococcal bactericidal activity compared with ceftazidime, it was somewhat lower than that of cloxacillin.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

In-vitro activity of cefepime and other broad-spectrum antimicrobials against several groups of gram-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus aureus.

The in vitro activity of cefepime was compared with that of amikacin, ceftazidime, imipenem, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazobactam by using the E-test against five groups of carefully selected organisms: Klebsiella pneumoniae (68 isololates), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (62), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (60), and two groups of Enterobacteriaceae (60 and 62 isolates, respectively). The bacteria were subdivided according to whether the infection was nosocomial or community-acquired, applying accepted and predefined criteria. These isolates were obtained from patients admitted to our medical center throughout 1998. We retrospectively compared antimicrobial susceptibilities of the study sample with those of the +/- 3000 bacterial strains isolated from blood stream infections since 1990: the study sample appeared to represent adequately the clinical databank. Presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) was determined in all groups of Enterobacteriaceae with the ESBL screening E-test strip. Of the 252 Gram-negative bacilli tested, 242 (96%) were susceptible to cefepime, whereas only 168 (67%) were susceptible to ceftazidime, 211 (84%) to amikacin, and 220 (87%) to piperacillin-tazobactam (p < 0.001). Imipenem was slightly superior to cefepime with only seven isolates resistant (3%), six of which were P. aeruginosa. Cefepime was more active against Enterobacteriaceae than ceftazidime (93% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). This superiority was most evident against nosocomial strains of K. pneumoniae, against which cefepime was > three times more active than ceftazidime. The high level of resistance seen in nosocomial isolates of K. pneumoniae is consistent with high rates of ESBL production (69%, compared with 15-26% in other Enterobacteriaceae). The MIC90 of cefepime to methicillin-sensitive S. aureus was 1.5 micrograms/mL, whereas that of ceftazidime was 4 micrograms/mL; the susceptibility rate of both was 100%. In conclusion, cefepime possesses in vitro potencies against MSSA and current clinical strains of Gram-negative bacilli, many of which harbor resistance to other antimicrobial agents. Hence, it seems very suitable for empiric coverage of serious nosocomial infections.

Cefepime↗
PubMed1998

Efficacy and safety of cefepime treatment in Chinese patients with severe bacterial infections: in comparison with ceftazidime treatment.

An open label, randomized comparative study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cefepime, in comparison with ceftazidime, in the treatment of adult hospitalized Chinese patients with severe bacterial infections. Forty patients with severe infections including septicemia, urinary tract infection and bacterial pneumonia were randomly assigned to receive treatment with cefepime (2 g intravenously every 12 h) or ceftazidime (2 g intravenously every 8 h). The cefepime group (20 evaluable patients) and ceftazidime group (16 evaluable patients) were comparable with respect to age, sex, underlying diseases and distribution of infection type. In both groups urinary tract infection was the most common type of infection and Escherichia coli was the most common etiologic microorganism. The rates of satisfactory clinical response were similar in the cefepime and ceftazidime groups (95 versus 93.7%; 95% confidence interval: -0.14 - 0.17, P = 0.87). The bacteriological response rates of the cefepime and ceftazidime groups did not differ significantly (88.9 versus 85.7%; 95% confidence interval: -0.30 - 0.36, P = 0.85). Both cefepime and ceftazidime were well tolerated, with similar incidence of side effects. The results of this study suggest that cefepime is as safe and effective as ceftazidime for the treatment of serious infections in adult hospitalized Chinese patients.

Asian People↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of cefepime pharmacokinetics in neonatal foals and adult dogs.

The pharmacokinetics of cefepime, a new fourth generation cephalosporin with enhanced antibacterial activity, was examined in neonatal foals and adult dogs. Cefepime was administered intravenously (i.v.) at a dose of 14 mg/kg to five neonatal foals and six adult dogs. Blood samples were collected in both groups of animals and plasma cefepime concentrations measured by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Cefepime concentrations in both groups of animals were described by a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with elimination half-lives of 1.65 and 1.09 h for the foal and dog, respectively. We tested whether or not pharmacokinetic parameters for cefepime could be scaled across species using principles of allometry. The parameters of elimination half-life (t(1/2)beta), apparent volume of distribution (VDarea), and systemic clearance (CL) were scaled linearly to body weight on a double logarithmic plot with allometric exponents for body weight of 0.26, 1.08 and 0.72, respectively. This study further determined doses for cefepime, a potentially useful antibiotic for neonatal foals and dogs, from the pharmacokinetic values. An i.v. dose of cefepime estimated from this study for treating sensitive bacteria was 11 mg/kg every 8 h for neonatal foals and 40 mg/kg every 6 h for dogs.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Is there a rationale for the continuous infusion of cefepime? A multidisciplinary approach.

This review is the fruit of multidisciplinary discussions concerning the continuous administration of beta-lactams, with a special focus on cefepime. Pooling of the analyses and viewpoints of all members of the group, based on a review of the literature on this subject, has made it possible to test the hypothesis concerning the applicability of this method of administering cefepime. Cefepime is a cephalosporin for injection which exhibits a broader spectrum of activity than that of older, third-generation cephalosporins for injection (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime). The specific activity of cefepime is based on its more rapid penetration (probably due to its zwitterionic structure, this molecule being both positively and negatively charged) through the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, its greater affinity for penicillin-binding proteins, its weak affinity for beta-lactamases, and its stability versus certain beta-lactamases, particularly derepressed cephalosporinases. The stability of cefepime in various solutions intended for parenteral administration has been studied, and the results obtained demonstrated the good compatibility of cefepime with these different solutions. These results thus permit the administration of cefepime in a continuous infusion over a 24-h period, using two consecutive syringes.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed1991

A randomized trial of cefepime (BMY-28142) and ceftazidime for the treatment of pneumonia.

Cefepime is a new cephalosporin with a broad antimicrobial spectrum that includes Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. To study the efficacy and safety of cefepime for treatment of pneumonia, 65 patients were randomized to therapy with either cefepime or ceftazidime at a two to one ratio. Of the 57 evaluable patients, 89% of the cefepime patients and 84% of the ceftazidime patients were cured clinically or improved. Haemophilus spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Neisseria spp. were common pathogens. Bacteriological cure was achieved in 31 (91%) of cefepime patients and 17 (100%) ceftazidime patients. Adverse clinical and laboratory reactions possibly due to study drug occurred in 9 (21%) cefepime patients and in 1 (5%) ceftazidime patient. Most reactions were mild and resolved with discontinuation of study drug. In this study, cefepime appeared as effective as ceftazidime for the treatment of pneumonia.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Multiple dose pharmacokinetics, safety, and effects on faecal microflora, of cefepime in healthy volunteers.

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 12 healthy volunteers pharmacokinetics, safety and impact on the faecal microflora of cefepime were determined. For eight days eight volunteers received cefepime 1000 mg bd by constant infusion over 30 min, four volunteers received placebo. Concentrations of cefepime in serum and urine were measured by bioassay and HPLC. The correlation between the two methods was good and the bioassay results were used for pharmacokinetic calculations. The faecal flora was analysed twice before the study, twice during the study and four times after cefepime administration. There were no significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters between days 1 and 8. The following values (mean +/- S.D.) represent day 1. The maximum concentration of 72.69 +/- 12.2 mg/L immediately after infusion decreased to 0.56 +/- 0.17 mg/L after 12 h. The mean 12 h recovery in urine was 93.69 +/- 2.14%. Pharmacokinetic parameters based on an open two-compartment model were as follows (mean +/- S.D.): area under the curve, 142.65 +/- 18.35 mg.h/L; elimination half-life 110.3 +/- 8.3 min; steady state volume of distribution 16.0 +/- 1.9 L/70 kg; total clearance, 107.0 +/- 16.0 mL/min; renal clearance 103.0 +/- 15.2 mL/min. No accumulation was observed during the eight day study period with cefepime at this dosage; trough levels on days 2-7 ranged from 0.52 +/- 0.26 mg/L to 0.90 +/- 0.33 mg/L. In the cefepime treated group the following side-effects were noted: headache (5), fatigue (4), nausea/stomach ache (2), soft stool (2), transient scotoma (1). Side-effects in the placebo group were: headache (2) fatigue (3), nausea/stomach-ache (1), soft stool (2) and photophobia (1). During cefepime administration a decrease in the number of Escherichia coli and bifidobacteria in faeces was observed, whereas Bacteroides spp. and clostridia showed a slight increase. The numbers of faecal bacteria returned to normal 20 to 48 days after the study was completed.

Bacteroides↗
PubMed1993

Cefepime monotherapy for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients.

In a pilot study, we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of cefepime, a new cephalosporin with extended-spectrum activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, as empirical monotherapy for 108 febrile episodes in 84 granulocytopenic cancer patients. Cefepime (2 g tds) was given for a minimum of 7 days or until resolution of infection. Of the 108 episodes, 91 were evaluable. Microbiologically documented infections occurred in 25 patients (27%) (18 Gram-positive, 7 Gram-negative), of whom 18 had bacteraemia. Infection was clinically documented in 47 patients (52%) and fever was unexplained in 19 (21%). Overall, 71% (65/91) of the infections resolved. Response rates were 86% (6/7) for Gram-negative infections, 44% (8/18) for Gram-positive infections (57% for cefepime-susceptible Gram-positive bacteria), 77% (36/47) for clinically documented infections and 79% (15/19) for unexplained fevers. Of the 26 patients (29%) whose primary infections did not improve with cefepime monotherapy, 23 responded after the addition of other antibiotics. Sixteen patients (18%) developed secondary infections of which 13 were microbiologically documented; Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from seven patients, Gram-negative bacteria from two, fungi from three and a virus from one. Adverse effects were mild and did not require premature discontinuation of therapy except for one patient who developed an immediate allergic reaction after the first dose of cefepime from which he recovered fully. The survival rate after resolution of granulocytopenia was 96%; three patients died of primary bacterial infection and one from secondary disseminated candidiasis. In this pilot study, cefepime monotherapy appeared safe and effective as empirical therapy for fever in cancer patients with granulocytopenia. Whether cefepime is superior to other advanced-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of Gram-positive infections will require evaluation in a larger comparative study.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Cefepime versus cefotaxime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

Patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) were randomized 2:1 to receive either cefepime 2 g i.v. bd or cefotaxime 2 g i.v. tds. Bronchopneumonia alone or associated with another LRTI was diagnosed in 30 of 37 cefepime recipients and in 11 of 18 cefotaxime recipients; other diagnoses included bronchitis, lobar pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. The mean duration of treatment was 5.9 days in the cefepime group and 5.4 days in the cefotaxime group. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to clinical or bacteriological outcome. Treatment was associated with a satisfactory clinical response in 27 (73%) of 37 evaluable cefepime patients and in 10 (56%) of 18 evaluable cefotaxime patients. Treatment resulted in eradication of 33 (89%) of 37 pathogens in the cefepime group, including 13 of 15 strains of Staphylococcus aureus, and of 16 (73%) of 22 pathogens in the cefotaxime group, including eight of ten strains of S. aureus. Two Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains persisted in the cefotaxime group. The sole clinical adverse event reported was a rash in one cefepime patient which did not require discontinuation of treatment. No clinically relevant changes in laboratory test results were attributed to either agent. Cefepime twice daily and cefotaxime three times daily were of comparable safety and efficacy in the treatment of bronchopneumonia and other LRTIs.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

In-vitro activities of cefepime against Enterobacter cloacae, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic gram-negative bacilli.

Infections caused by resistant bacterial pathogens such as Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa have become an increasing problem with respect to therapy in large medical centres in Korea. The MICs of cefepime for aerobic Gram-negative bacilli isolated during 1991, mostly from in-patients in a hospital in Seoul, were determined by the agar dilution method and compared with those of several other antimicrobials. Of the agents tested, cefepime had the lowest MIC90s for C. freundii and E. cloacae (0.12 and 8 mg/L, respectively). The MIC90s of cefepime and amikacin (both 8 mg/L) were the lowest for S. marcescens. The MIC90s of cefepime, ceftazidime and doxycycline (all 32 mg/L) were the lowest for Acinetobacter anitratus. For P. aeruginosa, the MIC90 was relatively high (32 mg/L) but still the lowest of the antimicrobials tested. Of the cefotaxime-resistant E. cloacae isolates studied, only 7% were resistant to cefepime, while 100%, 96% and 89% were resistant to ceftazidime, ceftizoxime and cefuzonam, respectively. Similarly, only 6% of gentamicin-resistant isolates were resistant to cefepime, compared with 91%, 72%, 69% and 63% to ceftazidime, ceftizoxime, cefuzonam and cefotaxime, respectively. In conclusion, isolates from Korean patients are often resistant to several antimicrobial agents. However, based on the results of this study, cefepime may be very useful as treatment for patients with nosocomial infections caused by aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, including those which are resistant to most of the third-generation cephalosporins and gentamicin.

Aminoglycosides↗
PubMed1995

Activity of cefepime against ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacilli using low and high inocula.

Cefepime is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin that is reported to have enhanced activity against ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. In this study the effects of varying inoculum size on in-vitro susceptibility to cefepime and other selected antimicrobial agents were determined by agar dilution MICs and in time-kill studies. Among strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 55) and Enterobacter spp (n = 56) that had previously been identified as ceftazidime-resistant, 73% and 96% were susceptible to cefepime (MIC < or = 16 mg/L), respectively, when tested with an inoculum of 10(4) cfu. However, with an inoculum of 10(7) cfu, 98% and 100% of strains were resistant, respectively. Furthermore, the bactericidal activity of cefepime against ceftazidime-resistant isolates was also inoculum-dependent. In time-kill studies, bactericidal action was obtained only at the lowest concentration of organisms (10(4) cfu/mL). beta-Lactamase extracted from an isolate of P. aeruginosa that demonstrated an inoculum effect had a lower affinity for cefepime than for ceftazidime. Overall, cefepime proved to be more resistant to hydrolysis by the beta-lactamase. However, differences in kinetics of the beta-lactamase against cefepime or ceftazidime do not appear to be of consequence in determining susceptibility of P. aeruginosa and Enterobacter spp. at high bacterial densities, since most strains with chromosomally-mediated beta-lactamase are highly resistant.

Cefepime↗
PubMed2004

Evaluation of a new cefepime-clavulanate ESBL Etest to detect extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in an Enterobacteriaceae strain collection.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated the performance of a new ESBL Etest configuration based on clavulanate synergy with cefepime compared with cefotaxime-clavulanate and ceftazidime-clavulanate ESBL Etest strips for the detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) in an Enterobacteriaceae strain collection, with special focus on Enterobacter spp. METHODS: Overall, a total of 54 clinical isolates of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae species were evaluated: Enterobacter aerogenes (n=3), Enterobacter cloacae (n=10), Escherichia coli (n=10), Klebsiella oxytoca (n=3), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=25) and Proteus mirabilis (n=3). To check Etest behaviour with resistance phenotypes similar to ESBL, our panel was expanded by six clinical isolates of K. oxytoca that were identified as putative producers of their chromosomal K1 beta-lactamase. RESULTS: With this panel, ESBL Etest was 98% sensitive with cefepime-clavulanate, 83% with cefotaxime-clavulanate, and 74% with ceftazidime-clavulanate strips. Concentrating on Enterobacter spp., reliable ESBL detection could only be achieved by the new cefepime-clavulanate strip since it confirmed ESBL production in all strains (100% sensitivity) whereas only 4/13 (31%) of Enterobacter strains were positive using cefotaxime-clavulanate or ceftazidime-clavulanate strips. A limitation of using the new cefepime strip was less than optimal specificity with K1 phenotypes of K. oxytoca: among six strains, four isolates were scored false-positive by Etest strips containing cefepime-clavulanate. CONCLUSION: The new Etest ESBL strip containing cefepime-clavulanate is a valuable supplement to current methods for detection of ESBLs. In our study collection, the cefepime-clavulanate strip was the best configuration for detection of ESBLs, particularly in Enterobacter spp.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2006

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic rationale for cefepime dosing regimens in intensive care units.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To develop a population pharmacokinetics (PK) model for cefepime in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). (ii) To assess the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile of various cefepime dosing regimens and to assess their expected probability of target attainment (=PTA expectation value) against common ICU pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. METHODS: Thirteen ICU patients received cefepime 2 g 12 hourly intravenous (3 min). Twelve blood samples were taken on two occasions: (i) immediately after initial dose; and (ii) between days 3 and 6 after starting therapy. Population PK models were developed using NONMEM. Based on the final covariate model, Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken (n=1000) to simulate free-drug concentrations of cefepime for two administration methods: (i) intermittent bolus administration (IBA); and (ii) continuous infusion (CI). Concentration-time profiles were evaluated by the probability of achieving free-drug concentration above the MIC for >65% of the dosing interval. Finally, using local MIC distributions of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii the PTA expectation values for each dosing administration method were evaluated. RESULTS: A three-compartment model with zero-order input best described the concentration-time data. The PTA expectation values for E. coli and K. pneumoniae were >90% in all CI doses but only when administered as 1 g every 6 h and higher daily doses for IBA. For the current treatment protocol, 2 g every 12 h, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii achieved target concentrations of only 54% and 28%, respectively. For P. aeruginosa, a CI of at least 4 g/day was required to achieve a PTA expectation value>90% while for A. baumannii a 6 g/day CI only achieved a PTA expectation value of 75%. CONCLUSIONS: When given as IBA or CI for E. coli and K. pneumoniae, cefepime should be successful in achieving the bactericidal target. For P. aeruginosa higher doses of cefepime (>4 g/day) are required to achieve the required PTA expectation value. Cefepime fails to achieve the bactericidal target even when administered at high doses, e.g. 6 g/day, for A. baumannii.

Acinetobacter Infections↗
PubMed2001

Empiric use of cefepime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in children.

BACKGROUND: These studies were designed to assess the efficacy and safety of cefepime, a fourth generation cephalosporin, for the treatment of serious infections, including lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in children. METHODS: Four clinical trials of cefepime for the treatment of serious bacterial infections enrolled 259 children with LRTI. In 3 trials cefepime was compared with ceftazidime (n = 166), cefotaxime (n = 16) or cefuroxime (n = 12). One trial was noncomparative (n = 65). RESULTS: Treatment with cefepime 50 mg/kg/ dose administered every 8 to 12 h produced a satisfactory clinical response (clinical signs of infection resolved or improved with no evidence of recurrent infection at posttreatment follow-up) in 88 to 100% of patients, comparable with comparator therapy. In children from whom a causative pathogen was identified, bacteriologic eradication was comparable between cefepime and comparator therapy. Cefepime was as safe and well-tolerated as comparator therapy. Few treatment-related clinical or laboratory adverse events were noted and were equivalent to comparator in all studies. CONCLUSION: Cefepime is as effective, safe and well-tolerated for the empiric treatment of children with LRTI as comparator agents but offers the advantage of an enhanced spectrum of activity for Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens compared with second or third generation cephalosporins.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Comparative study of cefepime versus ceftazidime in the empiric treatment of pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: In view of the recent trend toward monotherapy in the treatment of bacterial infection, we evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of cefepime vs. ceftazidime for the empiric treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients. METHODS: In a single site, open label study, 104 neutropenic pediatric cancer patients [96% with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of <500 neutrophils/mm3] with a median age of 6 years were randomized (1:1) to receive either intravenous cefepime or ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/dose every 8 h; < or = 6 g/day) for empiric treatment of fever (temperature >38.0 degrees C occurring at least twice in 24 h, or single >38.5 degrees C). Febrile episodes were classified as either microbiologically or clinically documented infection or fever of unknown origin. Therapy continued until the ANC was > or = 1,000 neutrophils/mm3 or there was an increasing ANC in low risk patients (maximum duration of treatment, 8 weeks). The primary efficacy endpoints assessed were clinical and microbiologic response to assigned drug therapy. Secondary outcome measures were rate of early discontinuation of study drug and use of concomitant antibiotic therapy to modify initial study drug regimen. RESULTS: Of 68 patients who could be evaluated for efficacy, 74% (26 of 35) of cefepime-treated patients and 70% (23 of 33) of ceftazidime-treated patients responded to treatment. The small number of study patients precluded statistical analysis of results. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, 59% of the patients treated with cefepime and 47% of ceftazidime-treated patients responded to therapy. Cefepime patients developed fewer new infections than ceftazidime patients (9% vs. 21%, respectively) and early discontinuation of study drug therapy occurred slightly more often in the ceftazidime group. Further, the use of concomitant systemic antimicrobial therapy (mostly vancomycin) occurred less often in the cefepime-treated patients, as compared with the ceftazidime group [35% [17 of 49] vs. 44% (24 of 55), respectively]. No deaths or serious adverse events were considered to be related to study therapy. The most frequent adverse event was rash that was moderate in severity, and it occurred equally in both groups. CONCLUSION: Cefepime appears to be safe and effective compared with ceftazidime for initial empiric therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.

Adolescent↗