ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of amikacine and ceftazidime as an empirical antibiotic therapy for neutropenic patients affected by haematological neoplasms and to investigate the presence of prognostic features suggesting a poor outcome with this antibiotic combination at the onset of infection. This could allow the identification of subgroups of patients with a low rate of response to amikacin/ceftazidime therapy; in these patients different initial empirical therapy may be indicated. The study population comprised 166 severely neutropenic (absolute neutrophil count below 500/microliters) oncohaematological patients with fever or clinical signs of infection. Multivariate analysis confirmed four negative prognostic factors: 3 or more days of hospitalization at the onset of an infectious episode, a diagnosis of acute myelmany factors are present, cases can be stratified into three groups, of significantly different prognosis: favourable (0 or 1 factor) 76% success; intermediate (2 factors) 52% success; unfavourable (3 or 4 factors) 19% success. At the onset of an infectious episode a subgroup of patients with a very low response rate to empirical amikacin/ceftazidime antibiotic therapy is identifiable, for whom a different therapy is indicated. Because of the high rate of proven or probable fungal infections in this group, the immediate administration of a systemic antifungal therapy, in addition to antibacterial agents, could be considered in these high-risk patients. Studies should be specifically addressed to evaluating a stratification of empirical antibiotic therapy according to risk factors present at the onset of infection.
Subject(s)
Amikacin/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Ceftazidime/therapeutic use , Neutropenia/physiopathology , Adult , Amikacin/administration & dosage , Antifungal Agents/administration & dosage , Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Cause of Death , Ceftazidime/administration & dosage , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Leukemia/drug therapy , Lymphoma/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Mycoses/diagnosis , Mycoses/drug therapy , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Pneumonia/microbiology , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Remission Induction , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Clinical trials have shown that antiplatelet agents are effective in the prevention of thrombosis in arterial diseases and increase bleeding time. To compare the effects of three such drugs [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) at two dose levels, ticlopidine and indobufen] on bleeding time, we performed a randomized cross-over study on 12 normal subjects. All received the four treatments (ASA 300 mg daily and 500 mg twice daily, ticlopidine 250 mg twice daily and indobufen 200 mg twice daily, each for 6 days plus one dose on day 7) in a sequential manner with a washout period of 15 days between the treatments. Bleeding time was measured using a Surgicut device (Ortho, Milan, Italy) before treatment, 2 and 24 h after the first administration, and before and 2, 24, 48 and 72 h after the last administration. ASA (at both doses) and indobufen quickly induced a significant prolongation of bleeding time, but the effect of indobufen soon wore off after the treatment was stopped, unlike that of ASA. In contrast, ticlopidine treatment prolonged bleeding time only after the first 24 h, and after 7 days the mean value was significantly higher than with ASA (both doses) and indobufen. This significant difference in bleeding time between ticlopidine and the other drugs was still present 48 h after the end of treatment.
