No abstract

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00824265).

Introduction:Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an oncological emergency. The choice of empiric therapy depends on the locally prevalent pathogens and their sensitivities, the sites of infection, and cost. The Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines are being followed for the management of FN in India.Methods:This is a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care cancer centre from September 2012 to September 2014.Objectives:The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) To review the pattern of microbial flora, susceptibility pattern, and important clinical variables among bloodstream infections in febrile neutropenic patients with solid tumors and hematological malignancies. (2) As per the institutional protocol to periodically review the antibiotic policy and susceptibility pattern, and compare the findings with an earlier study done in our institute in 2010. This was a prospective study conducted from September 2012 to September 2014.Results:About 379 episodes of FN were documented among 300 patients. About 887 blood cultures were drawn. Of these, 137 (15%) isolates were cultured. Isolates having identical antibiograms obtained from a single patient during the same hospitalization were considered as one. Hence, 128 isolates were analyzed. About 74 (58%) cultures yielded Gram-negative bacilli, 51 (40%) were positive for Gram-positive cocci, and 3 (2%) grew fungi. Among Gram-negative organisms, Escherichia coli followed by Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae accounted for 78% of the isolates. Among Gram-positive cocci, Staphylococcus species accounted for 84% of the isolates. We have noted a changing trend in the antibiotic sensitivity pattern over the years. Following the switch in empirical antibiotics, based on the results of the study done in 2010 (when the empirical antibiotics were ceftazidime + amikacin), the sensitivity to cefoperazone-sulbactam has plunged from about 80% to 60%%. Similar reduction in susceptibility was noted for piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. On the contrary, there was a marked increase in sensitivity to ceftazidime (50–76%). Based on these results, we have reverted to ceftazidime + amikacin as the empirical antibiotics.Conclusion:Every institute must have a regular revision of antibiotic policy based on periodic assessment of the clinical and microbiological profile in FN. This will combat antibiotic resistance.

Paclitaxel is widely used in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Formulations of paclitaxel contain surfactants and solvents or albumin derived from human blood. The use of co-solvents such as polyoxyethylated castor oil is thought to contribute to toxicity profile and hypersensitivity reactions as well as leaching of plasticizers from polyvinyl chloride bags and infusion sets. Currently, nab-paclitaxel, an albumin-bound paclitaxel in nanometer range continues to be the preferred taxane formulation used in clinic. This study (CTRI/2010/091/001116) investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a polyoxyethylated castor oil- and albumin-free formulation of paclitaxel [paclitaxel injection concentrate for nanodispersion (PICN)] compared with nab-paclitaxel in women with refractory MBC. The current study was a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, comparative phase II/III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of PICN (260 mg/m2 [n = 64] and 295 mg/m2 [n = 58] every 3 weeks) compared with nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n = 58]) in women 18 and 70 years old with confirmed MBC. Overall response rate (ORR) was assessed with imaging every 2 cycles. An independent analysis of radiologic data was performed for evaluable patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary efficacy measure. Independent radiologist-assessed ORRs in the evaluable population of women aged ≥70 years were 35, 49, and 43 % in the PICN 260 mg/m2, PICN 295 mg/m2, and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m2 arms, respectively. Median PFS in the evaluable population was 23, 35, and 34 weeks in the PICN 260 mg/m2, PICN 295 mg/m2, and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m2 arms, respectively. Adverse events occurred in similar proportions of patients across treatment arms. Hypersensitivity reactions were not frequently observed with the clinical use of PICN across the treatment cohorts. In women with metastatic breast cancer, PICN at 260 and 295 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was effective and well tolerated and showed similar tolerability compared with nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Statistically, significant differences were not observed in the PICN and nab-paclitaxel treatment arms for radiologist-assessed ORR or median PFS. The novel paclitaxel formulation, PICN, offers apart from efficacy, potential safety advantage of decreased use of corticosteroid pretreatment and the absence of the risk of transmission of blood product-borne disease.