Literature DB >> 19637944

Assessment of an alternative meropenem dosing strategy compared with imipenem-cilastatin or traditional meropenem dosing after cefepime failure or intolerance in adults with neutropenic fever.

Heather M Arnold1, Peggy S McKinnon, Kristan M Augustin, Lindsay M Hladnik, Ed Casabar, Richard M Reichley, Erik R Dubberke, Peter Westervelt, David J Ritchie.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving an alternative dosage of meropenem with those of patients receiving imipenem-cilastatin or the traditional dosage of meropenem after failure of or intolerance to cefepime for treatment of febrile neutropenia.
DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center cohort study.
SETTING: 1250-bed urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-seven adults with neutropenic fever who received either imipenem-cilastatin or meropenem; imipenem-cilastatin was the preferred carbapenem until September 1, 2006, after which meropenem became the formulary carbapenem.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 127 patients, 40 received imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006; 87 patients received meropenem between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007: 29 received a traditional dosage of meropenem 1 g every 8 hours, and 58 received an alternative dosage of meropenem 500 mg every 6 hours. Primary outcomes of time to defervescence (median 3 vs 2 vs 3 days), need for additional antibiotics (20% vs 17% vs 14%), and time to receipt of additional antibiotics (median 5 vs 2 vs 1 days) were not significantly different among the imipenem-cilastatin, traditionally dosed meropenem, and alternatively dosed meropenem groups, respectively. In addition, significant differences in secondary outcomes, which were treatment duration (median 10 vs 8 vs 8 days), seizure rate (0% vs 0% vs 0%), in-hospital mortality (5% vs 7% vs 7%), and 30-day mortality (13% vs 7% vs 14%), were not identified among the three groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The alternative meropenem dosage of 500 mg every 6 hours yielded similar patient outcomes, including time to defervescence, need for additional antibiotics, duration of therapy, and mortality, when compared with the traditional meropenem dosage and imipenem-cilastatin in adults with febrile neutropenia. In addition, no adverse effects on clinical outcomes were observed with the alternative dosage of meropenem.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19637944      PMCID: PMC4256050          DOI: 10.1592/phco.29.8.914

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacotherapy        ISSN: 0277-0008            Impact factor:   4.705


  11 in total

1.  2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer.

Authors:  Walter T Hughes; Donald Armstrong; Gerald P Bodey; Eric J Bow; Arthur E Brown; Thierry Calandra; Ronald Feld; Philip A Pizzo; Kenneth V I Rolston; Jerry L Shenep; Lowell S Young
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2002-02-13       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Economic benefit of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts.

Authors:  Joseph L Kuti; Dana Maglio; Charles H Nightingale; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 2.637

3.  Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents.

Authors:  G L Drusano
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 9.079

4.  Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.

Authors:  D W Cockcroft; M H Gault
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.847

5.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients with bacteremia.

Authors:  Robert E Ariano; Anna Nyhlén; J Peter Donnelly; Daniel S Sitar; Godfrey K M Harding; Sheryl A Zelenitsky
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 3.154

6.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

7.  Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients. Swedish study group.

Authors:  A Nyhlén; B Ljungberg; I Nilsson-Ehle
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Utility of obtaining blood cultures in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation.

Authors:  J S Serody; M M Berrey; K Albritton; S M O'Brien; E P Capel; S H Bigelow; D J Weber; J M Wiley; M J Schell; P H Gilligan; T C Shea
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.483

9.  Meta-analysis: effect of prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors on mortality and outcomes of infection.

Authors:  Lillian Sung; Paul C Nathan; Shabbir M H Alibhai; George A Tomlinson; Joseph Beyene
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Clinical and economic benefits of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts.

Authors:  Srividya Kotapati; David P Nicolau; Charles H Nightingale; Joseph L Kuti
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2004-06-15       Impact factor: 2.637

View more
  4 in total

1.  Meropenem Assessment before and after Implementation of a Small-Dose, Short-Interval Standard Dosing Regimen.

Authors:  Ivy Chow; Vincent Mabasa; Connor Chan
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2018-03-07

Review 2.  A Review of Clinical Outcomes Associated with Two Meropenem Dosing Strategies.

Authors:  Kyle John Wilby; Ziad Ghantous Nasr; Shereen Elazzazy; Tim T Y Lau; Anas Hamad
Journal:  Drugs R D       Date:  2017-03

3.  Severe Drug-Induced Agranulocytosis Successfully Treated with Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor.

Authors:  Yohei Kubota; Ezekiel Wong Toh Yoon
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2018-01-23

4.  Comparison of twice a day and three times a day meropenem administration in elderly patients in a Japanese community hospital.

Authors:  Kouji Aimiya; Takayoshi Mamiya; Katsunori Tabuchi; Toshiyuki Kita; Masayuki Hiramatsu
Journal:  Nagoya J Med Sci       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.131

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.