| pubmed-article:8994754 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0015967 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0030705 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1257890 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0087111 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1556084 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0002499 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0007559 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0055003 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0332189 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1579762 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0009491 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C2603343 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1880496 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:issue | 1 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1997-4-4 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:abstractText | We conducted a randomized multicenter study to compare the efficacy and safety of two antibiotic regimens (cefepime [2 g b.i.d.] plus amikacin or ceftazidime [2 g t.i.d.] plus amikacin) as first-line therapy for fever in patients with hematologic malignancies and neutropenia. A total of 353 patients were randomized according to a 2:1 (cefepime:ceftazidime) ratio. Two hundred-twelve patients in the cefepime group and 107 in the ceftazidime group (90% of all patients) were evaluable for efficacy. The polymorphonuclear neutrophil count was < 100/mm3 on enrollment for 70% of the patients. The mean duration of neutropenia was 26 days. The efficacy in both study arms was comparable, although a trend in favor of cefepime was seen in terms of therapeutic success (response rate, 27% vs. 21% for the ceftazidime group). The overall response rate after glycopeptides were added to the regimens was 60% for the cefepime group and 51% for the ceftazidime group; the bacterial eradication rates were 81% vs. 76%, respectively, and the rates of new bacterial infections were 14% vs. 18%, respectively. We conclude that the combination cefepime/amikacin is at least as effective as the reference regimen of ceftazidime/amikacin in this setting. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:month | Jan | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:issn | 1058-4838 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:NagoHH | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MoreauPP | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:CordonnierCC | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HerbrechtRR | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DelmerAA | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DelainMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:GresJ JJJ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:RollinCC | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:NaletVV | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:GardembasMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LadebSS | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:volume | 24 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:pagination | 41-51 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2004-11-17 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:8994754-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:year | 1997 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:articleTitle | Cefepime/amikacin versus ceftazidime/amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a comparative study. The French Cefepime Study Group. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:affiliation | Service d'Hématologie Clinique, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:publicationType | Clinical Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:8994754 | pubmed:publicationType | Multicenter Study | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8994754 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:8994754 | lld:pubmed |
