Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Feld, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ho, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Feld, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ho, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 18, Issue 21 (November), 2000: 3690-3698
© 2000 American Society for Clinical Oncology

Meropenem Versus Ceftazidime in the Treatment of Cancer Patients With Febrile Neutropenia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

By Ronald Feld, Ben DePauw, Steven Berman, Armand Keating, Winston Ho

From the Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; the University Hospital St Radboud, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; St Francis Medical Center, Honolulu, HI; and St Joseph Hospital, Orange, CA.

Address reprint requests to Ronald Feld, MD, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2M9; email ronald.feld{at}uhn.on.ca

PURPOSE: To compare meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at medical centers in North America and the Netherlands. A total of 411 cancer patients (196 treated with meropenem and 215 treated with ceftazidime), who had 471 episodes of fever, participated in the trial. For each neutropenic episode, patients were allocated at random to receive intravenous administration of meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 hours). Treatment could be modified at any time. Key end points were clinical and bacteriologic outcomes, eradication of infecting organism, and adverse events.

RESULTS: The rate of successful clinical response at the end of therapy was significantly higher for patients treated with meropenem than for those on ceftazidime for all episodes (54% v 44%, respectively) and for episodes of fever of unknown origin (62% v 46%, respectively), but differences between groups were not statistically significant for clinically defined or microbiologically defined infections. Meropenem was significantly more effective than ceftazidime in severely neutropenic (<= 100 cells/µL) patients (55% v 43%, respectively), bone marrow transplant patients (73% v 27%, respectively), and patients given antibiotic prophylaxis before study entry (71% v 52%, respectively). Common adverse effects of meropenem and ceftazidime therapy were rash, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with meropenem represents a suitable choice for initial empirical antibiotic therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Intensive Care MedHome page
R. P. Baughman
The Use of Carbapenems in the Treatment of Serious Infections
J Intensive Care Med, July 1, 2009; 24(4): 230 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
P. A. Pizzo
Where do we go from here?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2009; 63(suppl_1): i16 - i17.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
K. J. Williams
Why monotherapy?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2009; 63(suppl_1): i18 - i20.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
K. T. Kwon, H. S. Cheong, J.-Y. Rhee, Y. M. Wi, S. Y. Ryu, S. T. Heo, C. S. Moon, H. K. Ki, K. H. Kim, C. W. Jung, et al.
Panipenem Versus Cefepime as Empirical Monotherapy in Adult Cancer Patients with Febrile Neutropenia: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., January 17, 2008; (2008) hym151v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
M. Paul, D. Yahav, A. Fraser, and L. Leibovici
Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., February 1, 2006; 57(2): 176 - 189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
M. A. Sanz, J. Lopez, J. J. Lahuerta, M. Rovira, M. Batlle, C. Perez, L. Vazquez, A. Julia, J. Palau, M. Gutierrez, et al.
Cefepime plus amikacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin for initial antibiotic therapy in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia: results of an open, randomized, multicentre trial
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., July 1, 2002; 50(1): 79 - 88.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2000 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online