The Experts below are selected from a list of 797520 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Kelly Chibale - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Chitalu C Musonda - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Vanessa Yardley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Renata Carvalho C De Souza - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Tsutomu Takahashi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • cefozopran meropenem or imipenemecilastatin compared with cefepime as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic adult patients a multicenter prospective randomized trial
    2015
    Co-Authors: Takahiko Nakane, Kazuo Tamura, Masayuki Hino, Toshiharu Tamaki, Isao Yoshida, Toshihiro Fukushima, Youichi Tatsumi, Yasuaki Nakagawa, Kazuo Hatanaka, Tsutomu Takahashi
    Abstract:

    We conducted an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cefozopran, meropenem or imipenemecilastatin using cefepime as a control in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. Three hundred and seventy-six patients received cefepime, cefozopran, meropenem or imipenemecilastatinas initial therapy for FN. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of response rates including modification at day 7 in cefozopran, meropenem or imipenemecilastatin patients compared with cefepime in the per-protocol population (delta ¼ 10%). The response rates for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenemecilastatin were not significantly different compared with cefepime (cefozopran: 54/90 (60%), meropenem: 60/92 (65%), and IPM/CS: 63/88 (72%) versus cefepime: 56/85 (66%) (p ¼ 0.44, 1.0 and 0.51, respectively)), and the differences in treatment success for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenemecilastatin compared with cefepime were � 5.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): � 20.1 e8.4), � 0.7% (95% CI: � 14.6e13.3), and 5.7% (95% CI: � 8.1e19.4), respectively. The same tendency was seen in the modified intention-to-treat population. Based on the evaluation of initial drug efficacy performed on days 3e5, there was no significant difference between the four drugs. In the subgroup with an absolute neutrophil count � 100 � 10 6 /L for longer than seven days, there was significantly better efficacy in the carbapenem arm compared to 4th generation beta-lactams (52% versus 27% at days 3e5, p ¼ 0.006, and 76% versus 48% at day 7, p ¼ 0.002). Our results suggest that the effects of

  • cefozopran meropenem or imipenem cilastatin compared with cefepime as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic adult patients a multicenter prospective randomized trial
    Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 2015
    Co-Authors: Takahiko Nakane, Kazuo Tamura, Masayuki Hino, Toshiharu Tamaki, Isao Yoshida, Toshihiro Fukushima, Youichi Tatsumi, Yasuaki Nakagawa, Kazuo Hatanaka, Tsutomu Takahashi
    Abstract:

    We conducted an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin using cefepime as a control in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. Three hundred and seventy-six patients received cefepime, cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatinas initial therapy for FN. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of response rates including modification at day 7 in cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin patients compared with cefepime in the per-protocol population (delta = 10%). The response rates for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin were not significantly different compared with cefepime (cefozopran: 54/90 (60%), meropenem: 60/92 (65%), and IPM/CS: 63/88 (72%) versus cefepime: 56/85 (66%) (p = 0.44, 1.0 and 0.51, respectively)), and the differences in treatment success for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime were -5.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): -20.1-8.4), -0.7% (95% CI: -14.6-13.3), and 5.7% (95% CI: -8.1-19.4), respectively. The same tendency was seen in the modified intention-to-treat population. Based on the evaluation of initial drug efficacy performed on days 3-5, there was no significant difference between the four drugs. In the subgroup with an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 100 × 10(6)/L for longer than seven days, there was significantly better efficacy in the carbapenem arm compared to 4th generation beta-lactams (52% versus 27% at days 3-5, p = 0.006, and 76% versus 48% at day 7, p = 0.002). Our results suggest that the effects of these four drugs as empiric therapy were virtually the same for adult FN patients, although non-inferiority was shown only in imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime (clinical trial number: UMIN000000462).