Empiric monotherapy for febrile neutropenia--a randomized study comparing meropenem with ceftazidime

Abstract

In this Swedish multicentre study we compared the efficacy of meropenem with ceftazidime for treatment of febrile neutropenia. 192 patients were randomized and the number of evaluable patients was 92 in the meropenem group and 95 in the ceftazidime group. 40 (43%) patients in the meropenem arm and 49 (52%) in the ceftazidime arm had acute leukaemia. 56 (61%) and 52 (55%) patients respectively had a neutrophil count of < 0.1 x 10(9)/l at randomization and the median duration of neutropenia was 6.5 and 8 d, respectively. Thirty-one (34%) and 28 (29%) patients had a microbiologically defined infection, 14 (15%) and 17 (18%) a clinically defined infection and the remaining 47 (51%) and 50 (53%) had unexplained fever. After 72 h of treatment, 46 (50%) patients in the meropenem arm and 53 (56%) patients in the ceftazidime arm were alive on unmodified monotherapy. 42 (46%) and 47 (49%) of these completed the study on monotherapy alone. Only 2 patients (2%) in each arm had to stop treatment owing to allergic reactions. None of the observed differences were statistically significant and we therefore conclude that meropenem was an effective and safe alternative to ceftazidime for empiric treatment of fever during neutropenia.