Linked Life Data

10530437

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10530437

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
1999-12-3
pubmed:abstractText
Monotherapy for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia is effective and often less costly than combination therapy but remains controversial. The controversy results from observations that combination therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved outcomes, and this approach became a standard. Many subsequent publications, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for febrile neutropenia, now support monotherapy. However, changes in the pathogens involved in febrile neutropenia and in their resistance prompt a reevaluation. In the evaluation of new antibiotics, recent trials comparing either cefepime or meropenem with combination therapy or with ceftazidime confirm that monotherapy remains a viable therapeutic approach, with infectious mortality in the 5% range in all arms. The choice of monotherapy should, however, be made on the basis of resistance patterns seen in an institution. The agent selected should be very active against the organisms that are likely to cause rapidly fatal infections, and clinicians must be prepared to modify monotherapy as appropriate.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
1058-4838
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
29
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
508-14
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1999
pubmed:articleTitle
Is monotherapy for febrile neutropenia still a viable alternative?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32610, USA. ramphr@medmac.ufl.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Review