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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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