Abstract
Infections remain the major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic cancer patients. The current study addresses the question whether monotherapy with the new broad-spectrum carbapenem meropenem exhibits efficacy comparable to that of the standard combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Seventy-one patients with hematological malignancies (55%) or solid tumors (45%), neutropenia <500/μl, and fever <38.5 °C were randomly assigned to either meropenem (1 g every 8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) intravenously. Meropenem (n=34) and ceftazidime/amikacin (n=37) were equivalent with respect to the clinical response at 72 h (62% versus 68%) (p<0.05) and at the end of unmodified therapy (59% versus 62%). Gram-positive bacteremia responded poorly in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin group (29% versus 25%), whereas all gram-negative bacteremias responded except for one in the meropenem group caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All patients survived to 72 h. One patient in each group died of gram-positive sepsis resistant to study medication. No significant side effects occurred in any regimen. This study suggests that meropenem monotherapy might be as effective as combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: 13 June 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 5 December 1997
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Behre, G., Link, H., Maschmeyer, G. et al. Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Ann Hematol 76, 73–80 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002770050366
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002770050366