Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1999 Feb;18(2):186-95.

[Phare study. Comparative study of combined cefepime-amikacin versus ceftazidime combined with amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonias in ventilated patients. Multicenter group study]

[Article in French]
Affiliations
  • PMID: 10207592
Clinical Trial

[Phare study. Comparative study of combined cefepime-amikacin versus ceftazidime combined with amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonias in ventilated patients. Multicenter group study]

[Article in French]
G Beaucaire et al. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1999 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the associations of cefepime (2 g x 2/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefe-ami) and ceftazidime (2 g x 3/day) + amikacin (7.5 mg.kg-1 x 2/day) (= cefta-ami) in patients under mechanical ventilation suffering from a nosocomial pneumonia.

Study design: Multi-centre, open, comparative, randomised study.

Patients: The study included 275 ICU patients enrolled either in the cefe-ami group (n = 141) or in the cefta-ami group (n = 134).

Methods: All cases were reviewed in a blinded fashion by the steering committee.

Results: Microbiology laboratory tests were positive in 74% of patients of the cefe-ami group and in 63% of the cefta-ami group respectively; 319 presumed causative strains of bacteria were isolated. The mean duration of treatment was 12 days for cefepime, 11 days for ceftazidime and 8 days for amikacin. In intention to treat, the clinical recovery rate was 48.2% in the cefe-ami group and 44.8% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the population with a documented pneumonia, the clinical recovery was significantly better in the cefe-ami group (53.3%), than in the cefta-ami group (39.3%) (P = 0.05). In per protocol analysis, these rates reached 67.7% in the cefe-ami group and 68.2% in the cefta-ami group respectively. In the bacteriologically documented cases the eradication rates were 86.5% and 89.3% respectively.

Conclusion: The efficacy rates of cefe-ami and cefta-ami combinations were similar in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation with a nosocomial pneumonia. However the cefe-ami association was significantly more efficient in the population with a bacteriologically documented pneumonia.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources