Risk of Neutropenia in Adults Treated with Piperacillin–Tazobactam or Cefazolin: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neutropenia is an adverse effect associated with the use of several antibiotics, including piperacillin–tazobactam (P/T). Previous findings have suggested that the risk of neutropenia in children is significantly higher with P/T than with ticarcillin–clavulanate. Objectives: To compare the risk of neutropenia associated with P/T and with cefazolin in an adult population and to describe the characteristics of neutropenia episodes observed. Methods: This descriptive retrospective study involved patients aged 18 years or older who received a minimum of 10 days of treatment with P/T or cefazolin between January 2009 and December 2013. Patients who experienced neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 1.5 × 109/L) were compared, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models, between those who received P/T and those who received cefazolin. Results: A total of 207 patients were included (104 who received P/T and 103 who received cefazolin). Ten episodes of neutropenia were observed, 5 with each antibiotic (4.8% and 4.9%, respectively; odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.278–3.527). The mean cumulative dose of piperacillin was 290.4 g among patients who experienced neutropenia and 247.0 g among all patients treated with P/T, and the mean treatment duration was 24.0 days and 21.0 days, respectively. The average time before the onset of neutropenia was slightly longer with P/T than with cefazolin (22.0 versus 17.2 days, p = 0.38). Conclusions: Although these results require confirmation in a larger clinical trial (to lessen possible attribution bias), the risk of neutropenia appeared to be similar between P/T and cefazolin. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : La neutropénie est un effet indésirable associé à l’utilisation de plusieurs antibiotiques, dont la pipéracilline-tazobactam (P/T). Des données récentes indiquent que le risque de neutropénie chez les enfants est significativement plus élevé avec la P/T qu’avec l’association ticarcilline-clavulanate. Objectifs : Comparer le risque de neutropénie associé à la P/T et à la céfazoline chez une population adulte et décrire les caractéristiques des épisodes de neutropénie observés. Méthodes : Cette étude rétrospective descriptive impliquait des patients âgés d’au moins 18 ans ayant reçu un traitement d’au moins 10 jours par P/T ou céfazoline entre janvier 2009 et décembre 2013. Les patients ayant présenté une neutropénie (nombre absolu de neutrophiles < 1,5 × 109/L) ont été comparés, à l’aide de modèles de régression logistique univariée et multivariée, entre ceux qui ont reçu de la P/T et ceux qui ont reçu de la céfazoline. Résultats : Au total, 207 patients ont été inclus (104 ayant reçu de la P/T et 103 ayant reçu de la céfazoline). Dix épisodes de neutropénie ont été observés, 5 avec chaque antibiotique (4,8 % et 4,9 %, respectivement; rapport des cotes 0,99; intervalle de confiance à 95 % 0,278-3,527). La dose cumulée moyenne de pipéracilline était de 290,4 g chez les patients ayant présenté une neutropénie et de 247,0 g chez tous les patients traités par P/T. La durée moyenne du traitement était de 24,0 jours et 21,0 jours, respectivement. Le délai moyen avant l’apparition de la neutropénie était légèrement plus long avec la P/T qu’avec la céfazoline (22,0 contre 17,2 jours, p = 0,38). Conclusions : Bien que ces résultats nécessitent une confirmation dans un essai clinique de plus grande envergure (afin de réduire d’éventuels biais d’attribution), le risque de neutropénie semble être similaire chez les personnes ayant reçu de la P/T et ceux ayant reçu de la céfazoline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".