BACKGROUND: Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants' characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
RESULT: The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93-1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52-1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.
CONCLUSION: Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.
BACKGROUND: People with febrile neutropaenia are usually treated in a hospital setting. Recently, treatment with oral antibiotics has been proven to be as effective as intravenous therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment have not been fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy (treatment failure and mortality) and safety (adverse events of antimicrobials) of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment in people with cancer who have low-risk febrile neutropaenia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (from 1948 to November week 4, 2018), Embase via Ovid (from 1980 to 2018, week 48) and trial registries (National Cancer Institute, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Directory). We handsearched all references of included studies and major reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outpatient with inpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop febrile neutropaenia. The outpatient group included those who started treatment as an inpatient and completed the antibiotic course at home (sequential) as well as those who started treatment at home.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality, and extracted data. Primary outcome measures were: treatment failure and mortality; secondary outcome measures considered were: duration of fever, adverse drug reactions to antimicrobial treatment, duration of neutropaenia, duration of hospitalisation, duration of antimicrobial treatment, and quality of life (QoL). We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data; we calculated weighted mean differences for continuous data. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted.
MAIN RESULTS: We included ten RCTs, six in adults (628 participants) and four in children (366 participants). We found no clear evidence of a difference in treatment failure between the outpatient and inpatient groups, either in adults (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.85, I2 0%; six studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.99, I2 0%; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). For mortality, we also found no clear evidence of a difference either in studies in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.71; six studies; 628 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or in children (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.70; three studies; 329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).According to the type of intervention (early discharge or exclusively outpatient), meta-analysis of treatment failure in four RCTs in adults with early discharge (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.95; P = 0.26, I2 0%; 364 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was similar to the results of the exclusively outpatient meta-analysis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.13; P = 0.65, I2 19%; two studies; 264 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Regarding the secondary outcome measures, we found no clear evidence of a difference between outpatient and inpatient groups in duration of fever (adults: mean difference (MD) 0.2, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.76, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.6, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.71, 3 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in duration of neutropaenia (adults: MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.79, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.65, 95% CI -0.1.86 to 0.55, 2 studies, 268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to adverse drug reactions, although there was greater frequency in the outpatient group, we found no clear evidence of a difference when compared to the inpatient group, either in adult participants (RR 8.39, 95% CI 0.38 to 187.15; three studies; 375 participants; low-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.98; two studies; 156 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four studies compared the hospitalisation time and found that the mean number of days of hospital stay was lower in the outpatient treated group by 1.64 days in adults (MD -1.64, 95% CI -2.22 to -1.06; 3 studies, 251 participants; low-certainty evidence) and by 3.9 days in children (MD -3.90, 95% CI -5.37 to -2.43; 1 study, 119 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the 3 RCTs of children in which days of antimicrobial treatment were analysed, we found no difference between outpatient and inpatient groups (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.26 to 1.12; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence).We identified two studies that measured QoL: one in adults and one in children. QoL was slightly better in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group in both studies, but there was no consistency in the domains included.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient treatment for low-risk febrile neutropaenia in people with cancer probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure and mortality compared with the standard hospital (inpatient) treatment and may reduce time that patients need to be treated in hospital.
介绍：诊断I-123扫描已被证明低估分化甲状腺癌（DTC）与I-131治疗后扫描相比的疾病负担，特别是在先前放射性碘（RAI）治疗和/或远处的儿童和患者转移.I-124 PET / CT已被证明在成像DTC相关转移性疾病方面非常有效。方法：我们对I-124 PET / CT敏感性和特异性进行了系统评价和荟萃分析，确定了I-131后处理扫描证实的RAI治疗适合RAI治疗的病变。结果：共有141例患者和415例DTC病变。个别研究中存在显着的异质性。 124-I PET / CT检测适合I-131治疗的分化型甲状腺癌病变的合并灵敏度分别为94.2％（91.3-96.4％CI，p <0.01），合并特异度为49.0％（34.8〜63.4％ CI，p <0.01）。合并的阳性似然比（LR）为1.43（1.05-1.94 CI），合并的阴性LR为0.28（0.15-0.53 CI）。总体而言，诊断优势比为7.90（3.39-18.48 CI）。 I-124 PET / CT鉴定的病灶数量虽小，但在治疗后扫描未检出。结论：I-124 PET / CT是诊断RAI急性DTC病变的敏感工具，但也检测到在治疗后I-131扫描中不可视化的一些新病变。可能需要进一步精心设计的剂量学研究，以充分确定I-124 PET CT用于鉴定I131治疗潜在病变的作用。 DTC患者的I-124 PET / CT可能在特定临床情况下有其他应用。本文受版权保护。版权所有。
Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
METHODS:
Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants' characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
RESULT:
The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93-1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52-1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.
CONCLUSION:
Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.
