ArticleInfection2015
Ertapenem usage in cancer patients with and without neutropenia: a report on 97 cases from a comprehensive cancer center.
Article in Infection, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (FUO) in adult neutropenic patients: guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).Annals of hematology · 2017Review
- Bacterial Pneumonia in Patients with Cancer: Novel Risk Factors and Management.Clinics in chest medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeErtapenem is being increasingly utilized in cancer patients, but published data regarding its usage are limited. Our objective was to describe the various indications for ertapenem therapy and its safety and efficacy in cancer patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who received monotherapy with ertapenem for at least 72 h, between January 2007 and February 2013.
resultsAmong 97 unique patients who received ertapenem monotherapy, the most common indications were: (1) To facilitate discharge from the hospital of stable patients still requiring antimicrobial therapy (46 %). (2) Primary therapy of various documented infections (bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and skin structure infection) with ertapenem (28 %). (3) De-escalation from a different broad-spectrum agent or regimen to ertapenem within the hospital setting in patients not ready for discharge (25 %). The median age of the 97 patients studied was 59 years (range 9-87 years) with 52 % being men. Most patients had underlying hematologic malignancies (54 %), and 7 % were recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Twenty-nine patients (30 %) were neutropenic, 26 % were diabetic, and 6 % had chronic lung disease. Primary ertapenem monotherapy was successful in all patients, de-escalation in 95.8 % of patients, and the strategy of discharge on outpatient therapy with ertapenem in 95.6 % of patients. Patients failing de-escalation or early discharge responded to alternative regimens. We documented no significant ertapenem associated toxicity or adverse events.
conclusionsErtapenem appears to be safe and effective for several indications in cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.