Daptomycin vs. glycopeptides in the treatment of febrile neutropenia: results of the Izmir matched cohort study
- 113 Downloads
In this multicentre, retrospective, matched cohort study we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of neutropenic fever cases that were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin).
Data and outcomes of adult (aged > 18-years old) patients with neutropenic fever [(1) without clinical and radiological evidence of pneumonia, (2) who were treated with daptomycin or a glycopeptide (teicoplanin or vancomycin) for any reason and for at least 72 h] were extracted from the hospital databases. Matching was performed with all of the three following criteria: (1) underlying disease, (2) reason for starting daptomycin or glycopeptide (microbiologic evidence vs. microbiologic evidence, clinical infection vs. clinical infection and empirical therapy vs. empirical therapy) and (3) neutropenic status.
Overall 128 patients [(69/123) (56.1%) in the daptomycin cohort (D) and 59/123 (48%) in the glycopeptide cohort (G)] had a resolution of fever at the end of 72 h antibiotic treatment (p = 0.25). There was no significant difference in cured, improved and (cured + improved) rates between (D) and (G) cohorts as well as fever of unknown origin cases or microbiologically confirmed infections or clinically defined infections subgroups (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference (p > 0.05), in terms of persistent response in the (D) versus (G) cohorts,
These findings suggest that although not better, daptomycin efficacy is comparable to vancomycin if used as empiric therapy in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia. We conclude that daptomycin may be used at least as a salvage therapy alternative to glycopeptides in the treatment of adult febrile neutropenia cases. A large, randomized-controlled trial may further consolidate the evidence related to this question.
KeywordsLipopeptides Neutropenic fever Bacteremia Empirical therapy Linezolid
Authors thank ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (Esgich). This research did not receive any specific grant from any party. Authors also thank Anthony Patterson, PhD (Assistant Professor in English Language and Literature in Celal Bayar University) and Emine Sevim Kocakız (English Teacher) for English proofreading.
Conflict of interest
ORS, SU, BA, HP and MT received speaker’s honorarium from MSD.
- 1.Febrile Neutropenia Study Group. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of neutropenic patients. Flora. 2004;9:5–28.Google Scholar
- 4.Ozden M, Denk A, Demirdag K, et al. Investigation of febrile neutropenic cases and risk factors. Mediterr J Infect Microb Antimicrob. 2013;2:3.Google Scholar
- 15.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twenty-third informational supplement M100-S23. Wayne: CLSI; 2013.Google Scholar
- 22.Heinz WJ, Buchheidt D, Christopeit M, et al. 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). Ann Hematol. 2017;96:1775–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Üniversite hastaneleri borç batağında. University hospitals are in debt swamp. https://www.cnnturk.com/ekonomi/universite-hastaneleri-borc-bataginda. Accessed 21st October 2018.
- 27.Bülüç F, Ozkan O, Agirbas İ. Evaluation of financial performance of university hospitals by ratio analysis method. Bus Manag Stud Int J. 2017;5:268-281.Google Scholar