A randomized non-inferiority study comparing imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam with standard-of-care Gram-negative coverage in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

Abstract

Antibiotic overuse leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance that threatens immunocompromised cancer patients. Infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality. Hence, empirical therapy with standard-of-care (SOC) antibiotics could be suboptimal in these vulnerable patients. New antibiotics covering potential resistant pathogens may be considered. We conducted a randomized non-inferiority study comparing safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IPM/REL), a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination, with SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem) in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients received at least 48 h of IV antibiotics and were assessed at end-of-IV (EOIV) therapy, test of cure (TOC; Days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; Days 35-42). A total of 100 patients were enrolled (49 IPM/REL and 50 SOC). Demographics and rates of documented microbiological infections were similar in both groups. In the SOC arm, 86% of antibiotics consisted of cefepime. Patients on IPM/REL had a higher favourable clinical response at EOIV than those on SOC (90% versus 74%; P = 0.042); however, responses were similar at TOC and LFU. Microbiological eradication was comparable at all three timepoints. Study drug-related adverse events and adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were similar in both groups, with no study drug-related mortality. Our results suggest that compared with SOC antibiotics, predominantly cefepime, IPM/REL for empirical coverage of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is generally safe and could be associated with a better clinical outcome at EOIV. The current SOC consisting mainly of agents that do not cover for ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bacteria should be reconsidered.