Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12482126›Full record

Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2002

Cefepime monotherapy as an empirical initial treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia.

J Montalar, A Segura, C Bosch, A Galan, O Juan, C Molins, V Giner, J Aparicio

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Low-dose beta-lactam plus amikacin in febrile neutropenia: cefepime vs. piperacillin/tazobactam, a randomized trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empirical therapy for fever in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J MontalarMedical Oncology Unit, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain. jmontalar@telefonica.net
A Segura
C Bosch
A Galan
O Juan
C Molins
V Giner
J Aparicio
Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESHospital de Sagunto · ESHospital Universitario Doctor Peset · ESHospital Arnau de Vilanova · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, monotherapy is considered a valid alternative to the combination antibiotic treatments used for initial, empirical management of febrile neutropenia. The advent of new cephalosporins warrants assessment. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of cefepime monotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients with febrile granulocytopenia (< 1000 leukocytes/muL and/or < 500 neutrophils/muL). A prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized trial was conducted. Initial treatment consisted of iv cefepime, 2 g every 8 h. If the patient was still febrile after 72 h, amikacin, vancomycin/teicoplanin, and amphotericin B were added sequentially. Response was evaluated according to EORTC criteria. One hundred twenty episodes were analyzed in 81 males and 39 females (median age, 52 yr; range, 15-83). The median leukocyte count at the time of diagnosis was 781 microL(-1) (range, 100-2600) and the median neutrophil count was 173 microL(-1) (range 0-500). The median duration of neutropenia (< 1000 neutrophils/microL) was 4.8 d (range, 3-20). Fifty-two episodes (44%) were confirmed microbiologically (42 presented as bacteremia), 31 with Gram-positive bacteria and 21 with Gram-negative bacteria, 47 (39.3%) were confirmed clinically, 16 (13.3%) were considered as probable infections, and 5 (4.2%) as doubtful infections. Protocol success was achieved in 110 episodes (91.7%), 8 (6.6%) were treatment failures, and 2 (1.7%) were not evaluable. Ninety-nine episodes (83.3%) were controlled with cefepime monotherapy, with 19 other episodes requiring additional antibiotics: amikacin in 7 (5.8%), amikacin + vancomycin/teicoplanin in 12 (10.1%). Three patients (2,5%) died during an episode of neutropenic fever. Cefepime is effective as an initial, empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia. The early addition of amikacin and/or vancomycin resolves most of the monotherapy failures, which seem somewhat lower than with other monotherapies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmikacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsBacterial InfectionsCefepimeCephalosporinsDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFeverHumansMaleMiddle AgedAmikacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsCefepimeCephalosporinsTeicoplaninVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID12482126
OpenAlexW1983718859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.