Equivalent efficacies of meropenem and ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy of febrile neutropenic patients. The Meropenem Study Group of Leuven, London and Nijmegen

Abstract

The efficacies of meropenem, a novel carbapenem, and ceftazidime, as empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients, were compared in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. One hundred and twelve adult patients were given meropenem 1 g tds iv for 153 episodes of fever, while 109 patients received ceftazidime 2 g tds iv for 151 episodes. All patients survived the first 3 days of therapy and, by the end of the treatment courses, 67 (44%) episodes had responded to meropenem, compared with 62 (41%) to ceftazidime. Eighty (53%) episodes initially treated with ceftazidime and 63 (41%) episodes treated with meropenem were considered to have failed treatment because it was thought necessary to administer additional antibacterial agents; however, modifications were made twice as often because of fever that persisted beyond 2-3 days than because of obvious causes of failure such as persistent infection. Three patients in the ceftazidime group and five in the meropenem group died. Meropenem was well tolerated, with no reports of nausea or toxicity to the central nervous system. Although ceftazidime was shown in the present study to be as effective as meropenem, the broader spectrum of activity of meropenem against Gram-positive cocci suggests that it might be more appropriate as empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients who are at high risk of acquiring infections caused by these bacteria.