Doripenem versus meropenem as first-line empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia: a prospective, randomized study
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
KeywordsDoripenem Meropenem Febrile neutropenia Acute leukemia High-risk myelodysplastic syndrome
The authors would like to thank all institutions and staff members that contributed to this study.
YI was the principal investigator and takes primary responsibility for the paper. TO and YI designed the study. YF, NS, TM, YT, IH, and YA recruited the patients. TO, YTF, and SK reviewed and analyzed the data collected from each institute. YA and SI participated in statistical analysis. TO and YI wrote the paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
- 1.Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, Rolston KV, Young JAH, Wingard JR (2011) Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 52(4):e56–e93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Cometta A, Calandra T, Gaya H, Zinner SH, de Bock R, Del Favero A, Bucaneve G, Crokaert F, Kern WV, Klastersky J, Langenaeken I, Micozzi A, Padmos A, Paesmans M, Viscoli C, Glauser MP (1996) Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40(5):1108–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Reich G, Cornely OA, Sandherr M, Kubin T, Krause S, Einsele H, Thiel E, Bellaire T, Dörken B, Maschmeyer G (2005) Empirical antimicrobial monotherapy in patients after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation: a randomised, multicentre trial. Br J Haematol 130(2):265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lucasti C, Jasovich A, Umeh O, Jiang J, Kaniga K, Friedland I (2008) Efficacy and tolerability of IV doripenem versus meropenem in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection: a phase III, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study. Clin Ther 30(5):868–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Akiyama N, Kanamaru A, Tamura K, Tanimoto M, Ohyashiki K, Nakagawa Y, Urabe A, Masaoka T (2012) Efficacy and safety of doripenem for sepsis with neutropenia in Japanese patients with hematologic diseases. Jpn J Antibiot 65(4):251–262Google Scholar
- 12.Masaoka T (1998) Management of fever of unknown origin in the neutropenic patient: the Japanese experience. Int J Hematol 68(Suppl 1):S9–S11Google Scholar
- 13.Feld R, Paesmans M, Freifeld AG, Klastersky J, Pizzo PA, Rolston KVI, Rubenstein E, Talcott JA, Walsh TJ (2002) Methodology for clinical trials involving patients with cancer who have febrile neutropenia: updated guidelines of the Immunocompromised Host Society/Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, with emphasis on outpatient studies. Clin Infect Dis 35(12):1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Imajo K, Ueda Y, Kawano F, Sao H, Kamimura T, Ito Y, Mugitani A, Suzuki K, Uike N, Miyamura K, Uski K, Morimatsu Y, Akiyama N, Nagai H, Ohara A, Tanimoto M, Takaki K, Chayama K, Urabe M, Nagatoshi Y, Tamura K (2012) A phase III study of the efficacy and safety of meropenem in patients with febrile neutropenia. Jpn J Infect Dis 65(4):271–287Google Scholar
- 15.[Finibax] (2011) Clinical phase 3 study of high dosage [CTD, common technical document]. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan http://www.pmda.go.jp/drugs/2011/P201100084/34001800_21700AMZ00695_K100_1.pdf. Published in Japanese. Accessed 24 January 2019Google Scholar
- 16.de la Camara R, Figuera A, Sureda A, Hermida G, Verge G, Olalla I, Ranada JMF, Albos AD (1997) Meropenem versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a randomized study. Haematologica 82(6):668–675Google Scholar