↓ Skip to main content

A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, October 2002
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, October 2002
DOI 10.1590/s1413-86702002000500001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Badaró, Fernando Molinar, Carlos Seas, Daniel Stamboulian, João Mendonça, João Massud, Luiz Olympio Nascimento

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone +/-aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93%) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90%) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83%) for those treated with comparator (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.6% to 16.3%). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86% for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97% for cefepime vs 94% for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of cefepime patients and 19% of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 28%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 21%