Comparison of antipseudomonal β-lactams for febrile neutropenia empiric therapy: systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactam empiric monotherapy for febrile neutropenia by network meta-analysis.MethodsSearches using Pubmed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science Core Collection were carried out in June 2016. English articles, non-English articles, full-length articles, short articles and conference abstracts were allowed. Eligible trial design was a parallel-group individual randomization. We included febrile neutropenia adult and paediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy for either solid tumours or haematological malignancies and treated with intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams for initial empiric therapy. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID 42016043377.ResultsOf 1275 articles detected by the search, 50 studies with 10 872 patients were finally included. Among the guideline-recommended cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and ceftazidime; imipenem/cilastatin showed the highest odds of treatment success without modification, which was the primary endpoint, based on the random-effect model network analysis. Ceftazidime was related to lower treatment success rate without modification compared with imipenem/cilastatin with OR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.89, p 0.006). Imipenem/cilastatin showed the lowest odds of all-cause death. Patients treated with cefepime had higher risk for all-cause death compared with those treated with imipenem/cilastatin (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.11-3.78, p 0.029). Any adverse event was significantly more prevalent in the imipenem/cilastatin arm; however, there was no difference concerning adverse events leading to discontinuation.ConclusionsImipenem/cilastatin, piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem may be reasonable first-choice medications for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia.