Evidence Hub

Treatment of community-onset pneumonia in neutropenic cancer patients: β-lactam monotherapy versus combination antibiotic regimens

Hyeri Seok, Jae-Hoon Ko, K. Peck, Ji-Yeon Kim, J. Lee, G. Park, Young-Cho Sun, C. Kang et al.

Pneumonia, 2019

165 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough β-lactam monotherapy may be sufficient in non-critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the value of combination antibiotic regimens in community-onset neutropenic pneumonia remains unclear.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the effects of combination antibiotic regimens to those of β-lactam monotherapy in cancer patients with community-onset neutropenic pneumonia. Electronic medical records of patients diagnosed with community-onset neutropenic pneumonia between March 1995 and February 2015 at a tertiary care center were reviewed.ResultsDuring the study period, 165 cancer patients with community-onset neutropenic pneumonia were identified. Seventy-two patients received β-lactam monotherapy and 93 received combination therapy (β-lactam plus either a macrolide or fluoroquinolone). Causative pathogens were identified in 27.9% of the patients, and only two were positive for atypical pathogens. Although 30-day mortality was higher in the β-lactam group (15.3% versus 4.3%; P = 0.015), combination therapy was not associated with a statistically significant survival benefit in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.20–3.67; P = 0.827). Duration of neutropenia, C-reactive protein level, and Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index were significant factors for 30-day mortality. In a subgroup analysis of patients treated with cefepime, the most frequently used…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 165 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free