HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 September ; 34(9): 964–968. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000778.

Cefepime and Ceftazidime Safety in Hospitalized Infants

Christopher J. Arnold, MD*,†, Jessica Ericson, MD*,‡, Nathan Cho*, James Tian*, Shelby
Wilson*, Vivian H. Chu, MD, MHS*,†, Christoph P. Hornik, MD, MPH*,‡, Reese H. Clark, MD§,
Daniel K. Benjamin Jr., MD, PhD, MPH*,‡, and P. Brian Smith, MD, MPH, MHS*,‡ on behalf of
the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act – Pediatric Trials Network Administrative Core
Committee¶
*Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC
Author Manuscript

†Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University, Durham, NC

‡Department of Pediatrics, Duke University, Durham, NC
§Pediatrix Medical Group, Sunrise, FL

Abstract
Background—Cefepime and ceftazidime are cephalosporins used for the treatment of serious
gram-negative infections. These cephalosporins are used off-label in the setting of minimal safety
data for young infants.

Methods—We identified all infants discharged from 348 neonatal intensive care units managed
by the Pediatrix Medical Group between 1997 and 2012 who were exposed to either cefepime or
Author Manuscript

ceftazidime in the first 120 days of life. We reported clinical and laboratory adverse events
occurring in infants exposed to cefepime or ceftazidime and used multivariable logistic regression
to compare the odds of seizures and death between the 2 groups.

Results—A total of 1761 infants received 13,293 days of ceftazidime, and 594 infants received
4628 days of cefepime. Laboratory adverse events occurred more frequently on days of therapy
with ceftazidime compared with cefepime (373 vs. 341 per 1000 infant days, p<0.001). Seizure
was the most commonly observed clinical adverse event, occurring in 3% of ceftazidime-treated
infants and 4% of cefepime-treated infants (p=0.52). Mortality was similar between the
ceftazidime and cefepime groups (5% vs. 3%, p=0.07). There was no difference in the adjusted
odds of seizure (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.89–1.03]) or the combined
outcome of mortality or seizures (OR = 1.00 [0.96–1.04]) in infants exposed to ceftazidime vs.
Author Manuscript

those exposed to cefepime.

Conclusions—In this cohort of infants, cefepime was associated with fewer laboratory adverse
events than ceftazidime, although this may have been due to a significant difference in clinical
exposures and severity of illness between the 2 groups. There was no difference in seizure risk or
mortality between the 2 drugs.

Address for correspondence: P. Brian Smith, MD, MPH, MHS, Box 17969, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27710;
telephone: 919-668-8951; fax: 919-668-7058; [email protected].
¶See Acknowledgments for listing of committee members.
The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
 Arnold et al. Page 2

Cephalosporins are one of the most widely used classes of antibiotics. Their broad spectrum,
Author Manuscript

which includes both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, coupled with an overall
low toxicity profile have made cephalosporins a popular choice for both targeted and
empiric therapy.1

Cefepime is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in children
and infants >2 months of age, while ceftazidime is approved for use in children and infants
>1 month of age. Both drugs have been shown to be similarly efficacious in treating a
variety of infections in older infants and children.2–4 In these studies, the safety profiles
appear similar, with rash, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and elevation in hepatic transaminases
being the most commonly observed side effects. However, despite the available data in
children and older infants, little is known about the safety profile of either drug in young
infants.
Author Manuscript

Neurotoxicities, including seizure, occur with both drugs.5 Life-threatening and fatal
occurrences of encephalopathy, seizure, and non-convulsive status epilepticus have been
reported in both children and adults treated with cefepime and ceftazidime.5 Neurotoxicity is
included on both FDA labels as a potential adverse event (AE), with specific attention in
patients with renal failure. In children, the incidence of neurotoxicity appears to be
low,2–4, 6–8 but few data regarding neurotoxicity risk are available in young infants.

Given the paucity of safety data in young infants and the use of these extended-spectrum
cephalosporins in this population, we sought to compare the safety profile of cefepime and
ceftazidime in infants using a large multicenter database.

METHODS
Author Manuscript

Data Source and Definitions

We identified all infants discharged from 348 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs)
managed by the Pediatrix Medical Group between 1997 and 2012 who were treated with
either cefepime or ceftazidime in the first 120 days of life and who had at least 1 positive
culture from the blood, urine (obtained by in-and-out catheter or suprapubic tap), or
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the first day of cefepime or ceftazidime therapy or up to 5 days
prior to the first dose of these antibiotics. The study was limited to infants with a positive
culture to minimize the baseline differences in acuity of illness between the cohorts. We
included only the first course of therapy with either cefepime or ceftazidime for each infant.
We excluded infants with major congenital anomalies. The data were obtained from an
electronic health record that captures information from daily notes written by clinicians and
includes maternal history, demographics, medications, microbiology results, laboratory
Author Manuscript

results, diagnoses, and procedures. Medication dosing amounts and interval were not
recorded.

We categorized infants according to the cephalosporin received. We defined a course of

cefepime or ceftazidime as any number of uninterrupted days of therapy with either drug.
We defined inotropic and mechanical ventilator support as therapy with any inotrope
(amrinone, dobutamine, dopamine, epinephrine, milrinone, norepinephrine, or

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 3

phenylephrine) or invasive mechanical ventilation on a day of therapy with cephalosporins.

Author Manuscript

We defined small for gestational age (SGA) as <10th percentile for age as previously
reported by Olsen et al.9 We excluded positive cultures from organisms considered
contaminants, including non-speciated streptococci, Bacillus spp., gram-positive rods (not
including Listeria spp.), Lactobacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Stomatococcus spp., and
Bacteroides spp. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) were included if there were 2
positive cultures for CoNS within a 4-day period, 3 positive cultures for CoNS within a 7-
day period, or 4 positive cultures for CoNS within a 10-day period. Multiple positive
cultures for the same organism within a 21-day period were considered a single infectious
episode.

The primary outcome measure for the study was the incidence of clinical and laboratory
AEs in the 2 groups. An AE was attributed to cefepime or ceftazidime if it occurred on a day
of therapy with either drug. AEs included laboratory and clinical AEs (surgical necrotizing
Author Manuscript

enterocolitis [NEC], medical NEC, focal intestinal perforation, grade III–IV intraventricular
hemorrhage [IVH], periventricular leukomalacia, seizures, hyperbilirubinemia requiring
exchange transfusion, and rash). Each new clinical diagnosis occurring during treatment
with either drug was counted as a separate AE. Laboratory AEs were categorized as an AE
or a severe adverse event (SAE) based on pre-specified cut-off values (Table 1). Each
laboratory abnormality was counted as a separate AE or SAE and was counted each day that
it occurred during therapy with either cefepime or ceftazidime. We defined concomitant
antibiotic use as any antibiotic administered on a day of therapy with either cefepime or
ceftazidime.

Statistical Analysis
We used standard summary statistics, including counts and percentages and means, medians,
Author Manuscript

and percentiles, to describe categorical and continuous study variables. We compared infant
characteristics including baseline severity-of-illness surrogates (mechanical ventilator and
inotropic support) between infants receiving cefepime and those receiving ceftazidime using
chi-square tests of association and Wilcoxon rank sum tests where appropriate. Fisher’s
exact test was used to compare each categorical variable. We reported AEs occurring while
on cefepime or ceftazidime as both number of days with an AE per 1000 infant days of
exposure and the proportion of infants exposed to either drug who suffered an AE at least
once while receiving the drug.

We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between therapy with
cefepime vs. ceftazidime and the odds, at the infant level, of AEs, seizure, mortality, and the
combined outcome of seizures or mortality while on therapy. We used standard tests and
Author Manuscript

graphing techniques to evaluate all model assumptions. In addition to cephalosporin type,

the final model included the following covariates: gestational age, SGA status, therapy with
inotropes while on cefepime or ceftazidime, need for mechanical ventilation while on
cefepime or ceftazidime, postnatal age at the time of first treatment with cefepime or
ceftazidime, and year of discharge. We considered p <0.05 statistically significant. No
adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. All analyses were performed using Stata
12 (College Station, TX). The study was approved by the Duke University Institutional

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 4

Review Board without the need for written informed consent as the data were collected
Author Manuscript

without identifiers.

Comparison to More Established Cephalosporin: Cefotaxime

Cefotaxime is a more frequently used cephalosporin with a more established safety profile in
the neonatal population. Therefore, laboratory and clinical AEs in infants receiving
cefotaxime were also compared with those in infants receiving cefepime and ceftazidime.

RESULTS
We identified 2355 infants and 17,921 days of therapy with either cefepime or ceftazidime.
Of those, 1761 infants (75%) received ceftazidime for 13,293 days (74%), and 594 infants
(25%) received cefepime for a total of 4628 days (26%) (Table 2). The median gestational
age for those who received ceftazidime was 26 weeks (interquartile range; 25, 29) vs. 27
Author Manuscript

weeks (25, 30) for those receiving cefepime (p=0.12), and median birth weight was 865 g
(680, 1255) for those on ceftazidime vs. 909 g (700, 1318) for those on cefepime (p=0.08).
Median postnatal age at the time of first antibiotic exposure was 16 days (10, 27) for those
receiving ceftazidime vs. 18 days (9, 30) in the cefepime group (p= 0.08). Infants more often
required inotropic and mechanical ventilator support and had a new positive culture on days
of therapy with ceftazidime compared with cefepime (12% vs. 10%, p <0.001; 60% vs. 49%,
p <0.001; 6% vs. 5%, p=0.02).

There was no statistically significant difference in the microbiological distribution of

organisms isolated in cultures between the 2 groups. Thirty-eight infants (2%) in the
ceftazidime group had positive CSF cultures vs. 20 infants (3%) in the cefepime group
(p=0.10).
Author Manuscript

The overall incidence of any laboratory AEs and SAEs was higher in the ceftazidime group
(373/1000 infant days vs. 341/1000 infants days, p<0.001, and 112/1000 infant days vs.
87/1000 infant days, p<0.001, respectively). The majority of this difference was due to
differences in the incidence of complete blood count AEs (331/1000 infant days vs.
300/1000 infant days, p<0.001) and SAEs (88/1000 infant days vs. 58/1000 infant days,
p<0.001) (Table 3). There was a higher incidence of leukopenia (AE) and thrombocytopenia
(both AE and SAE) in the ceftazidime group (29/1000 infant days vs. 23/1000 infant days,
p=0.03; 225 vs. 202, p=0.001; 43 vs. 24, p<0.001). Among electrolyte abnormalities, only
hyperkalemia AEs were more frequent on days of therapy with ceftazidime compared with
cefepime (32/1000 infant days vs. 21/1000 infant days, p<0.001).

The overall incidence of clinical AEs in the cohort was 14/1000 infant days. There were no
Author Manuscript

significant differences between the ceftazidime and cefepime groups in clinical AEs overall
(14/1000 infant days vs. 13/1000 infant days, p=0.63, respectively) (Table 4). The most
common clinical AEs in both the ceftazidime and cefepime groups were seizure (4/1000
infant days vs. 5/1000 infant days, 0=0.52), grade III or IV IVH (3/1000 infant days vs.
3/1000 infant days, p=0.74), and medical NEC (3/1000 infant day vs. 3/1000 infant days,
p=0.77). There was no difference in the proportion of infants who suffered a seizure while
exposed to ceftazidime vs. cefepime (3% vs. 4%, p=0.52). Overall, 18 infants (3%) died

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 5

while on cefepime vs. 84 infants (5%) while on ceftazidime (p=0.07). There was no
Author Manuscript

difference in the adjusted odds ratio for adverse events, seizure, death, or the combined
outcome of seizure and death (Table 5).

During this same time period, there were 4538 infants who received a total of 34,448 days of
cefotaxime therapy. The median gestational age was 29 weeks (26, 33), and the median birth
weight was 1165 g (806, 1920), which was not statistically different from the other 2 groups.
The incidence of laboratory AEs and SAEs was significantly lower in infants receiving
cefotaxime (297/1000 infant days and 74/1000 infant days, p <0.001) than in those receiving
cefepime or ceftazidime. However, the overall incidence of clinical AEs was not statistically
different for those in the cefotaxime group (14/1000 infant days, p=0.67) compared with the
cefepime (13/1000 infant days) and ceftazidime (14/1000 infant days) groups. The incidence
of seizures, specifically, was also no different in the cefotaxime group (5/1000 infant days,
p=0.67) compared with the cefepime (5/1000 infant days) and ceftazidime (4/1000 infant
Author Manuscript

days) groups. Finally, there was no difference in the adjusted odds ratio for adverse events,
seizure, death, or the combined outcome of seizure and death compared to the other 2
groups.

DISCUSSION
This is the largest study to date examining the safety of cefepime and ceftazidime use in
young infants. Laboratory adverse events (both AEs and SAEs) were more frequent in the
ceftazidime group compared with the cefepime group. This was largely due to significant
differences in leukocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Although the incidence of
laboratory AEs was higher in the ceftazidime group, this difference did not persist on
adjusted analysis. One potential explanation for this observation is that there were
Author Manuscript

significant differences between the cefepime and ceftazidime groups with respect to clinical
exposures and indicators of severity of illness. Specifically, there was greater use of
inotropic support and mechanical ventilation, as well as a greater number of positive blood
cultures in the ceftazidime group, suggesting a higher level of baseline illness in the
ceftazidime group that would predispose these infants to a higher risk of laboratory AEs.
There was no difference in the incidence of clinical AEs, which were infrequent, occurring
in only 1% of infant days in both groups. This is in contrast to prior studies done in older
infants, which have shown a similar incidence of AEs in children receiving cefepime
compared with third-generation cephalosporins.2–4, 7

The most commonly observed clinical AE was seizure; seizures occurred in 4% of infants
on cefepime, a drug for which seizures have not been consistently reported as an AE in large
trials with older children.2–4, 6–8, 10 Consistent with previous studies,4, 5, 7 the incidence of
Author Manuscript

seizure in the ceftazidime group was 3%. In our study, there was no significant difference in
seizure risk between the cefepime and ceftazidime groups. Neurotoxicity has been raised as
a concern with cefepime, resulting in a safety announcement by the FDA in June 2012
cautioning dose adjustment in the setting of renal failure and close monitoring for signs of
seizure or encephalopathy.11 Similarly, the FDA label for ceftazidime includes neurotoxicity
as a potential adverse event.12 In a recent study examining the incidence of seizure among
infants exposed to antimicrobial therapy, seizures occurred in 5.4% (3.0 per 1000 infant

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 6

days) and 7.8% (2.3 per 1000 infant days) of infants treated with imipenem/cilastin and
Author Manuscript

meropenem, respectively.13 This group of infants could be considered a reasonable

comparator given that carbapenem therapy is often necessary in the setting of significant
illness, much like cefepime and ceftazidime.

The strengths of our study include a large, diverse, multicenter cohort of infants. With this
large sample size, we were able to examine differences among relatively rare outcomes (e.g.,
mortality, seizures) between ceftazidime and cefepime. In addition, we were able to compare
outcomes with cefotaxime as a “standard” comparator and found no major differences in the
incidence of clinical AEs. Our study is limited by its use of electronic medical record data
rather than a prospective, randomized clinical trial. We were only able to describe
associations between AEs and drug exposure, not infer causality. We did not adjust for
laboratory AEs present prior to initiation of therapy with ceftazidime or cefepime.
Additionally, we did not adjust for multiple comparisons. This potentially could result in
Author Manuscript

higher apparent incidences of AEs associated with these antibiotics. Also, frequency of
laboratory checks were only obtained at the discretion of the individual providers.
Additionally, seizure diagnosis was based on physician reporting rather than use of
electroencephalogram-confirmed seizures. Despite an attempt to control for baseline
differences between the groups, the analysis is susceptible to unmeasured confounders given
the lack of randomization. Finally, we did not have access to data on dosing amount and
interval, limiting our ability to evaluate an infant’s drug exposure and incidence of safety
events.

Our study suggests that the safety profile of cefepime is similar to that of ceftazidime in the
neonatal population. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate the safety and dosing
of cefepime and ceftazidime in young infants and to determine the potential seizure risk in
Author Manuscript

this vulnerable population.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded under National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) contract
HHSN2752010000031 for the Pediatric Trials Network and under NICHD award number 1R25-HD076475-01.
Research reported in this publication was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational
Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number UL1TR001117. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funding
organizations played no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of
the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Dr. Ericson receives support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD;
5T32HD060558). Dr. Hornik receives salary support for research from the National Center for Advancing
Translational Sciences of the NIH (UL1TR001117). Dr. Benjamin receives support from the United States
government for his work in pediatric and neonatal clinical pharmacology (1R01HD057956-05, 1K24HD058735-05,
Author Manuscript

UL1TR001117, and NICHD contract HHSN275201000003I) and the nonprofit organization Thrasher Research
Fund for his work in neonatal candidiasis (www.thrasherresearch.org); he also receives research support from
industry for neonatal and pediatric drug development (www.dcri.duke.edu/research/coi.jsp). Dr. Smith receives
salary support for research from the NIH and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
(HHSN267200700051C, HHSN275201000003I, and UL1TR001117); he also receives research support from
industry for neonatal and pediatric drug development (www.dcri.duke.edu/research/coi.jsp).

The Pediatric Trials Network Administrative Core Committee

Katherine Y. Berezny, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Edmund Capparelli, University of
California–San Diego, San Diego, CA; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC;

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 7

Gregory L. Kearns, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO; Matthew Laughon, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Andre Muelenaer, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA; T.
Author Manuscript

Michael O'Shea, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, NC; Ian M. Paul, Penn State College of
Medicine, Hershey, PA; John van den Anker, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health,
Washington, DC; Kelly Wade, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; Thomas J. Walsh, Weill
Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY.

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: David Siegel, Perdita
Taylor-Zapata, Anne Zajicek, Alice Pagan

The EMMES Corporation (Data Coordinating Center): Ravinder Anand, Gina Simone

REFERENCES
1. Pacifici GM. Pharmacokinetics of cephalosporins in the neonate: a review. Clinics. 2011; 66:1267–
1274. [PubMed: 21876985]
2. Arrieta AC, Bradley JS. Empiric use of cefepime in the treatment of serious urinary tract infections
in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001; 20:350–355. [PubMed: 11303849]
Author Manuscript

3. Bradley JS, Arrieta A. Empiric use of cefepime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections
in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001; 20:343–349. [PubMed: 11303848]
4. Schaad UB, Eskola J, Kafetzis D, et al. Cefepime vs. ceftazidime treatment of pyelonephritis: a
European, randomized, controlled study of 300 pediatric cases. European Society for Paediatric
Infectious Diseases (ESPID) Pyelonephritis Study Group. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998; 17:639–644.
[PubMed: 9686732]
5. Chow KM, Szeto CC, Hui AC, Wong TY, Li PK. Retrospective review of neurotoxicity induced by
cefepime and ceftazidime. Pharmacotherapy. 2003; 23:369–373. [PubMed: 12627936]
6. Saez-Llorens X, O'Ryan M. Cefepime in the empiric treatment of meningitis in children. Pediatr
Infect Dis J. 2001; 20:356–361. [PubMed: 11303850]
7. Mustafa MM, Carlson L, Tkaczewski I, McCracken GH Jr, Buchanan GR. Comparative study of
cefepime versus ceftazidime in the empiric treatment of pediatric cancer patients with fever and
neutropenia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001; 20:362–369. [PubMed: 11303851]
8. Saez-Llorens X, Castano E, Garcia R, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of cefepime and
Author Manuscript

cefotaxime for treatment of bacterial meningitis in infants and children. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother. 1995; 39:937–940. [PubMed: 7785999]
9. Olsen IE, Groveman SA, Lawson ML, Clark RH, Zemel BS. New intrauterine growth curves based
on United States data. Pediatrics. 2010; 125:e214–e224. [PubMed: 20100760]
10. Shahid SK. Efficacy and safety of cefepime in late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in
infants: a pilot randomized and controlled study. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2008; 102:63–71.
[PubMed: 18186979]
11. Maxipime (cefepime hydrochloride USP for injection) package insert. Lake Forest, IL: Hospira
Inc; 2014.
12. Fortaz (ceftazidime for injection) package insert. Cary, NC: Covis Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2014.
13. Hornik CP, Herring AH, Benjamin DK Jr, et al. Adverse events associated with meropenem versus
imipenem/cilastatin therapy in a large retrospective cohort of hospitalized infants. Pediatr Infect
Dis J. 2013; 32:748–753. [PubMed: 23838776]
Author Manuscript

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 8

TABLE 1

Laboratory Cut-offs for AEs and SAEs

Author Manuscript

AE value SAE value

Serum electrolytes
Hyperglycemia >250 mg/dL >400 mg/dL
Hypoglycemia <40 mg/dL <20 mg/dL
Hypernatremia >155 mmol/L >160 mmol/L
Hyponatremia <125 mmol/L <115 mmol/L
Hyperkalemia >6 mmol/L >7.5 mmol/L
Hypokalemia <3 mmol/L <2.5 mmol/L
Hypercalcemia (iCa) >12.5 mg/dL (>1.5 mmol/L) >13.5 mg/dL (>1.6 mmol/L)
Hypocalcemia (iCa) <6.0 mg/dL (<0.9 mmol/L) <5.0 mg/dL (<0.8 mmol/L)
Renal dysfunction
Author Manuscript

Elevated BUN >70 mg/dL >100 mg/dL

Elevated creatinine >1.7 mg/dL >3.0 mg/dL
Liver dysfunction
Elevated AST >600 U/L >1200 U/L
Elevated ALT >225 U/L >450 U/L
Elevated GGT >90 U/L >180 U/L
Direct bilirubinemia >5 mg/dL >10 mg/dL
Complete blood count
Leukocytosis >25,000/mm3 >40,000/mm3
Leukopenia <5000/mm3 <2000/mm3
Neutropenia <500/mm3 <100/mm3
Thrombocytopenia <100/mm3 <30/mm3
Author Manuscript

Thrombocytosis >600,000/mm3 >1,000,000/mm3

AE indicates adverse event; SAE, severe adverse event; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase;
GGT, gamma glutamyl transferase.
Author Manuscript

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 9

TABLE 2

Demographics
Author Manuscript

Exposed to Exposed to P
cefepime ceftazidime
(N=594) (N=1761)

Gestational age, weeks 0.45

<26 209 (35%) 669 (38%)
26–28 182 (31%) 547 (31%)
29–32 120 (20%) 343 (19%)
33–36 52 (9%) 131 (7%)
≥37 31 (5%) 70 (4%)
Birth weight, g 0.14
<1000 328 (55%) 1077 (61%)
1000–1499 149 (25%) 380 (22%)
Author Manuscript

1500–2499 78 (13%) 196 (11%)

2500–3499 29 (5%) 75 (4%)
≥3500 10 (2%) 30 (2%)
Race/ethnicity 0.02
White 232 (40%) 742 (44%)
African American 163 (28%) 529 (31%)
Hispanic 159 (27%) 359 (21%)
Other 27 (5%) 72 (4%)
Male 331 (56%) 998 (57%) 0.68
Caesarean section 364 (62%) 1045 (60%) 0.42
Age at first antibiotic exposure, days 0.03
<3 43 (7%) 88 (5%)
Author Manuscript

3–6 52 (9%) 129 (7%)

7–29 341 (57%) 1134 (64%)
30–59 124 (21%) 322 (18%)
60–120 34 (6%) 88 (5%)
Small for gestational age 96 (16%) 283 (16%) 0.97
Author Manuscript

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 3

Laboratory AEs and SAEs Associated with Cefepime and Ceftazidime, per 1000 Infant Days

AE SAE
Arnold et al.

Cefepime Ceftazidime P Cefepime Ceftazidime P

Serum electrolytes 86 89 0.55 24 21 0.28

Hyperglycemia 2 3 0.22 0.2 0.5 0.48
Hypoglycemia 7 7 0.93 2 1 0.18
Hypernatremia 7 8 0.57 0 0.5 0.12
Hyponatremia 6 8 0.44 0.2 0.4 0.61
Hyperkalemia 21 32 <0.001 3 4 0.28
Hypokalemia 10 13 0.10 2 2 0.83
Hypercalcemia 2 1 0.14 0.4 0.8 0.39
Hypocalcemia 11 9 0.30 10 6 0.01
Renal function 21 20 0.46 5 6 0.90
Elevated BUN 14 9 0.01 2 2 0.96
Elevated creatinine 13 15 0.34 3 3 0.94
Liver function tests 22 19 0.31 5 6 0.59
Elevated AST 0 0.2 0.31 0 0.1 0.55
Elevated ALT 1 0.5 0.14 0.2 0.2 0.97
Elevated GGT 4 6 0.20 2 2 0.76
Hyperbilirubinemia 18 14 0.07 3 4 0.53
Complete blood count 300 331 <0.001 58 88 <0.001
Leukocytosis 89 103 0.004 22 34 <0.001

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
Leukopenia 23 29 0.03 3 4 0.34
Neutropenia 4 6 0.31 0.6 0.4 0.45
Thrombocytopenia 202 225 0.001 24 43 <0.001
Thrombocytosis 4 4 0.88 0.2 0 0.09
Any laboratory event 341 373 <0.001 87 112 <0.001

AE indicates adverse event; SAE, severe adverse event; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase; GGT, gamma glutamyl transferase.
Page 10
 Arnold et al. Page 11

TABLE 4

Clinical Adverse Events Associated with Cefepime and Ceftazidime, per 1000 Infant Days
Author Manuscript

Cefepime Ceftazidime P
Necrotizing enterocolitis – medical 3 3 0.77
Necrotizing enterocolitis – surgical 1 2 0.23
Focal intestinal perforation 0 0.2 0.31
Grade III–IV intraventricular hemorrhage 3 3 0.74
Seizure 5 4 0.52
Periventricular leukomalacia 0.2 0.5 0.39
Rash 0.6 0.5 0.61
Hyperbilirubinemia requiring exchange transfusion 0 0.1 0.55
Any clinical adverse event 13 14 0.63
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.
 Arnold et al. Page 12

TABLE 5

Safety Outcomes in Infants Exposed to Ceftazidime Relative to Cefepime*

Author Manuscript

Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Any AE (clinical or laboratory) 1.00 (0.96, 1.03)
Any clinical AE 1.01 (0.96, 1.05)
Any laboratory AE 1.00 (0.97, 1.03)
Seizure 0.96 (0.89, 1.03)
Death 1.02 (0.98, 1.07)
Death or seizure 1.00 (0.96, 1.04)

AE indicates adverse event.

*
Adjusted for gestational age, small for gestational age, inotropic support, mechanical ventilator support, postnatal age at exposure, and year of
discharge.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Pediatr Infect Dis J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.