Loading…

Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia

Background/Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs in up to 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. Evidence suggests using extended infusions (EI) of beta‐lactams can improve outcomes in some populations, but there is limited clinical literature comparing cefepime standard infusion (SI) v...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pharmacotherapy 2022-10, Vol.42 (10), p.798-805
Main Authors: Crawford, Robert, Perkins, Nicholson B., Hobbs, Diana A., Hobbs, Athena L. V.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73
container_end_page 805
container_issue 10
container_start_page 798
container_title Pharmacotherapy
container_volume 42
creator Crawford, Robert
Perkins, Nicholson B.
Hobbs, Diana A.
Hobbs, Athena L. V.
description Background/Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs in up to 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. Evidence suggests using extended infusions (EI) of beta‐lactams can improve outcomes in some populations, but there is limited clinical literature comparing cefepime standard infusion (SI) versus EI for FN. The FDA‐approved regimen for FN was used at a large community teaching hospital for patients with FN until a hospital‐wide EI beta‐lactam protocol was introduced that allowed for EI cefepime in FN at the physicians' discretion. We sought to compare outcomes between patients with FN who received SI and EI cefepime. Methods Patients with acute myeloid or lymphocytic leukemia who developed FN between April 2014 and January 2021 were included in this single‐center, retrospective study. The primary outcome was to compare mean time to defervescence after the initiation of cefepime SI or EI regimens. SI regimens consisted of IV cefepime 2G q8h/0.5 h, and EI regimens as IV cefepime 1G q8h/4 h. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day all‐cause mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of cefepime, and need to escalate therapy. Results Overall, 193 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Time to defervescence was significantly shorter with EI compared with the SI group (median 48 h [48–100.5] vs. 70 h [48–113], p = 0.005). Cefepime duration of therapy was significantly shorter in the EI compared with the SI group (median 6.0 days vs. 8.0 days, p = 0.002). There was no difference between other secondary outcomes including LOS, mortality, and antibiotic escalation. Conclusion Despite reduced total daily dose of cefepime, EI cefepime administered as a 1G/0.5 h LD followed 2 h later by 1G q8h/4 h for FN acutely achieves more rapid defervescence than the FDA‐approved SI regimen and ultimately attains comparable patient outcomes.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/phar.2728
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2714655149</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2714655149</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhi1UJLYLB_6BJS7tIYs_Eid7XK0oICG1QnCOZp2xMCROaju7cOu1N34jvwSH5VSpp9FIz_NqRi8hp5wtOGPifHgAvxClqA7IjFdlkS05z7-QGRNlmTHGqiPyNYTHhHKVixn5e2c7pLGnDRr0WwwanUaKW2hHiLZ31PSe4nNE12Dz9ueVbsOChgiuAT_t1pkxTJxOAcMUZh0dkoouBrqz8YGCHiPSFscn7CzQpFKDG29bpA7H6PsBnYVjcmigDXjyOefk_sfF3foqu_l5eb1e3WRaSlZlBishtFFG5ZUBnnO9VNJUBUDDl4UAkEIWqjE6X0ppYNPkqlQbQI25QY6lnJNv-9zB979HDLHubPq6bcFhP4ZalDxXRcGTPydn_6CP_ehdui5RouClklwk6vue0r4PwaOpB2878C81Z_VUSj2VMhlVYs_37C59__J_sP51tbr9MN4BccqTnA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2725176312</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Crawford, Robert ; Perkins, Nicholson B. ; Hobbs, Diana A. ; Hobbs, Athena L. V.</creator><creatorcontrib>Crawford, Robert ; Perkins, Nicholson B. ; Hobbs, Diana A. ; Hobbs, Athena L. V.</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs in up to 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. Evidence suggests using extended infusions (EI) of beta‐lactams can improve outcomes in some populations, but there is limited clinical literature comparing cefepime standard infusion (SI) versus EI for FN. The FDA‐approved regimen for FN was used at a large community teaching hospital for patients with FN until a hospital‐wide EI beta‐lactam protocol was introduced that allowed for EI cefepime in FN at the physicians' discretion. We sought to compare outcomes between patients with FN who received SI and EI cefepime. Methods Patients with acute myeloid or lymphocytic leukemia who developed FN between April 2014 and January 2021 were included in this single‐center, retrospective study. The primary outcome was to compare mean time to defervescence after the initiation of cefepime SI or EI regimens. SI regimens consisted of IV cefepime 2G q8h/0.5 h, and EI regimens as IV cefepime 1G q8h/4 h. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day all‐cause mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of cefepime, and need to escalate therapy. Results Overall, 193 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Time to defervescence was significantly shorter with EI compared with the SI group (median 48 h [48–100.5] vs. 70 h [48–113], p = 0.005). Cefepime duration of therapy was significantly shorter in the EI compared with the SI group (median 6.0 days vs. 8.0 days, p = 0.002). There was no difference between other secondary outcomes including LOS, mortality, and antibiotic escalation. Conclusion Despite reduced total daily dose of cefepime, EI cefepime administered as a 1G/0.5 h LD followed 2 h later by 1G q8h/4 h for FN acutely achieves more rapid defervescence than the FDA‐approved SI regimen and ultimately attains comparable patient outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0277-0008</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1875-9114</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/phar.2728</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>acute lymphocytic leukemia ; acute myeloid leukemia ; Cefepime ; cefepime extended infusion ; febrile neutropenia ; Leukemia ; Lymphatic leukemia ; Mortality ; Neutropenia ; Patients ; time to defervescence</subject><ispartof>Pharmacotherapy, 2022-10, Vol.42 (10), p.798-805</ispartof><rights>2022 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3650-3959 ; 0000-0002-2109-6123</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Crawford, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perkins, Nicholson B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Diana A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Athena L. V.</creatorcontrib><title>Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia</title><title>Pharmacotherapy</title><description>Background/Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs in up to 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. Evidence suggests using extended infusions (EI) of beta‐lactams can improve outcomes in some populations, but there is limited clinical literature comparing cefepime standard infusion (SI) versus EI for FN. The FDA‐approved regimen for FN was used at a large community teaching hospital for patients with FN until a hospital‐wide EI beta‐lactam protocol was introduced that allowed for EI cefepime in FN at the physicians' discretion. We sought to compare outcomes between patients with FN who received SI and EI cefepime. Methods Patients with acute myeloid or lymphocytic leukemia who developed FN between April 2014 and January 2021 were included in this single‐center, retrospective study. The primary outcome was to compare mean time to defervescence after the initiation of cefepime SI or EI regimens. SI regimens consisted of IV cefepime 2G q8h/0.5 h, and EI regimens as IV cefepime 1G q8h/4 h. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day all‐cause mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of cefepime, and need to escalate therapy. Results Overall, 193 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Time to defervescence was significantly shorter with EI compared with the SI group (median 48 h [48–100.5] vs. 70 h [48–113], p = 0.005). Cefepime duration of therapy was significantly shorter in the EI compared with the SI group (median 6.0 days vs. 8.0 days, p = 0.002). There was no difference between other secondary outcomes including LOS, mortality, and antibiotic escalation. Conclusion Despite reduced total daily dose of cefepime, EI cefepime administered as a 1G/0.5 h LD followed 2 h later by 1G q8h/4 h for FN acutely achieves more rapid defervescence than the FDA‐approved SI regimen and ultimately attains comparable patient outcomes.</description><subject>acute lymphocytic leukemia</subject><subject>acute myeloid leukemia</subject><subject>Cefepime</subject><subject>cefepime extended infusion</subject><subject>febrile neutropenia</subject><subject>Leukemia</subject><subject>Lymphatic leukemia</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Neutropenia</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>time to defervescence</subject><issn>0277-0008</issn><issn>1875-9114</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhi1UJLYLB_6BJS7tIYs_Eid7XK0oICG1QnCOZp2xMCROaju7cOu1N34jvwSH5VSpp9FIz_NqRi8hp5wtOGPifHgAvxClqA7IjFdlkS05z7-QGRNlmTHGqiPyNYTHhHKVixn5e2c7pLGnDRr0WwwanUaKW2hHiLZ31PSe4nNE12Dz9ueVbsOChgiuAT_t1pkxTJxOAcMUZh0dkoouBrqz8YGCHiPSFscn7CzQpFKDG29bpA7H6PsBnYVjcmigDXjyOefk_sfF3foqu_l5eb1e3WRaSlZlBishtFFG5ZUBnnO9VNJUBUDDl4UAkEIWqjE6X0ppYNPkqlQbQI25QY6lnJNv-9zB979HDLHubPq6bcFhP4ZalDxXRcGTPydn_6CP_ehdui5RouClklwk6vue0r4PwaOpB2878C81Z_VUSj2VMhlVYs_37C59__J_sP51tbr9MN4BccqTnA</recordid><startdate>202210</startdate><enddate>202210</enddate><creator>Crawford, Robert</creator><creator>Perkins, Nicholson B.</creator><creator>Hobbs, Diana A.</creator><creator>Hobbs, Athena L. V.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3650-3959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-6123</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202210</creationdate><title>Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia</title><author>Crawford, Robert ; Perkins, Nicholson B. ; Hobbs, Diana A. ; Hobbs, Athena L. V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>acute lymphocytic leukemia</topic><topic>acute myeloid leukemia</topic><topic>Cefepime</topic><topic>cefepime extended infusion</topic><topic>febrile neutropenia</topic><topic>Leukemia</topic><topic>Lymphatic leukemia</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Neutropenia</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>time to defervescence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Crawford, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perkins, Nicholson B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Diana A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Athena L. V.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pharmacotherapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Crawford, Robert</au><au>Perkins, Nicholson B.</au><au>Hobbs, Diana A.</au><au>Hobbs, Athena L. V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia</atitle><jtitle>Pharmacotherapy</jtitle><date>2022-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>798</spage><epage>805</epage><pages>798-805</pages><issn>0277-0008</issn><eissn>1875-9114</eissn><abstract>Background/Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs in up to 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. Evidence suggests using extended infusions (EI) of beta‐lactams can improve outcomes in some populations, but there is limited clinical literature comparing cefepime standard infusion (SI) versus EI for FN. The FDA‐approved regimen for FN was used at a large community teaching hospital for patients with FN until a hospital‐wide EI beta‐lactam protocol was introduced that allowed for EI cefepime in FN at the physicians' discretion. We sought to compare outcomes between patients with FN who received SI and EI cefepime. Methods Patients with acute myeloid or lymphocytic leukemia who developed FN between April 2014 and January 2021 were included in this single‐center, retrospective study. The primary outcome was to compare mean time to defervescence after the initiation of cefepime SI or EI regimens. SI regimens consisted of IV cefepime 2G q8h/0.5 h, and EI regimens as IV cefepime 1G q8h/4 h. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day all‐cause mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of cefepime, and need to escalate therapy. Results Overall, 193 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Time to defervescence was significantly shorter with EI compared with the SI group (median 48 h [48–100.5] vs. 70 h [48–113], p = 0.005). Cefepime duration of therapy was significantly shorter in the EI compared with the SI group (median 6.0 days vs. 8.0 days, p = 0.002). There was no difference between other secondary outcomes including LOS, mortality, and antibiotic escalation. Conclusion Despite reduced total daily dose of cefepime, EI cefepime administered as a 1G/0.5 h LD followed 2 h later by 1G q8h/4 h for FN acutely achieves more rapid defervescence than the FDA‐approved SI regimen and ultimately attains comparable patient outcomes.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/phar.2728</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3650-3959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-6123</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0277-0008
ispartof Pharmacotherapy, 2022-10, Vol.42 (10), p.798-805
issn 0277-0008
1875-9114
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2714655149
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects acute lymphocytic leukemia
acute myeloid leukemia
Cefepime
cefepime extended infusion
febrile neutropenia
Leukemia
Lymphatic leukemia
Mortality
Neutropenia
Patients
time to defervescence
title Time to defervescence evaluation for extended‐ vs. standard‐infusion cefepime in patients with acute leukemia and febrile neutropenia
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T07%3A54%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Time%20to%20defervescence%20evaluation%20for%20extended%E2%80%90%20vs.%20standard%E2%80%90infusion%20cefepime%20in%20patients%20with%20acute%20leukemia%20and%20febrile%20neutropenia&rft.jtitle=Pharmacotherapy&rft.au=Crawford,%20Robert&rft.date=2022-10&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=798&rft.epage=805&rft.pages=798-805&rft.issn=0277-0008&rft.eissn=1875-9114&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/phar.2728&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2714655149%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3308-fe822cf6f648fa141c963f85aad1952aa32356dfc4933fabd4676baece4fe1e73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2725176312&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true