meropenem and Chemotherapy-Induced-Febrile-Neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia is often observed in patients with hematologic malignancies, especially in those with acute leukemia. Meropenem has potent and broad antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, and is recommended as first-line empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia. In contrast, the safety and efficacy of doripenem in patients with febrile neutropenia and hematologic malignancies is limited. In this randomized, prospective, cooperative, open-label trial, we compared doripenem (1.0 g every 8 h) to meropenem (1.0 g every 8 h) as first-line empiric antibacterial treatment of febrile neutropenia. To evaluate efficacy and safety, 133 hospitalized patients with acute leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, who developed febrile neutropenia during or after chemotherapy, were randomized to each drug. Resolution of fever within 3 to 5 days without treatment modification (i.e., the primary endpoint) did not significantly differ between the doripenem and meropenem groups (60.0% vs. 45.6%, respectively; P = 0.136). However, resolution of fever within 7 days of treatment was significantly higher in the doripenem group than in the meropenem group (78.4% vs. 60.2%, respectively; P = 0.037). Similar rates of adverse events (grades 1-2) were observed in both groups. Thus, we conclude that both drugs are safe and well-tolerated for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, and that the clinical efficacy of doripenem is noninferior to that of meropenem. UMIN Clinical Trial Registry number: 000006124.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Doripenem; Female; Fever; Humans; Leukemia; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Prospective Studies

This randomized prospective study was designed to assess whether piperacillin/tazobactam (PIPC/TAZ) is as effective as meropenem (MEPM) as a first-line antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia (FN).. FN episodes were randomly assigned to receive either PIPC/TAZ (337.5 mg/kg per day in three doses, 1-hr DIV, maximum 13.5 g per day) or MEPM (120 mg/kg per day in three doses, 1-hr DIV, maximum 3 g per day). Clinical responses were evaluated 120 hr after the DIV.. A total of 434 febrile episodes in 105 patients (42 females and 63 males) with a median age of 8 years (range 0-25) were included in this trial. Blood cultures were positive in 47 out of the 434 episodes (10.8%). Regarding responses to the treatment, success rates between the PIPC/TAZ and MEPM groups were similar (62.4 vs. 65.9%, P = 0.484), even if patients were restricted to those with bacteremia (26.1 vs 37.5%, P = 0.534). Mortality rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (0.8 vs. 0%, P = 0.500).. Both PIPC/TAZ and MEPM appeared to be equally efficacious and safe. Carbapenems are now broadly used to treat FN; however, this may increase the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria. In this regard, the treatment using PIPC/TAZ for FN is more beneficial.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Meropenem; Penicillanic Acid; Piperacillin; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Prospective Studies; Thienamycins

We conducted an open-label, randomized study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin using cefepime as a control in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. Three hundred and seventy-six patients received cefepime, cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatinas initial therapy for FN. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of response rates including modification at day 7 in cefozopran, meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin patients compared with cefepime in the per-protocol population (delta = 10%). The response rates for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin were not significantly different compared with cefepime (cefozopran: 54/90 (60%), meropenem: 60/92 (65%), and IPM/CS: 63/88 (72%) versus cefepime: 56/85 (66%) (p = 0.44, 1.0 and 0.51, respectively)), and the differences in treatment success for cefozopran, meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime were -5.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): -20.1-8.4), -0.7% (95% CI: -14.6-13.3), and 5.7% (95% CI: -8.1-19.4), respectively. The same tendency was seen in the modified intention-to-treat population. Based on the evaluation of initial drug efficacy performed on days 3-5, there was no significant difference between the four drugs. In the subgroup with an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 100 × 10(6)/L for longer than seven days, there was significantly better efficacy in the carbapenem arm compared to 4th generation beta-lactams (52% versus 27% at days 3-5, p = 0.006, and 76% versus 48% at day 7, p = 0.002). Our results suggest that the effects of these four drugs as empiric therapy were virtually the same for adult FN patients, although non-inferiority was shown only in imipenem-cilastatin compared with cefepime (clinical trial number: UMIN000000462).

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefepime; Cefozopran; Cephalosporins; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Thienamycins; Young Adult