Meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy for febrile neutropenic cancer patients

Abstract

 A total of 101 cancer patients with 121 febrile neutropenia episodes were randomised to receive empirical treatment with i.v. meropenem (1 g/8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g/8 h). After 3 days, 89% of patients were on unmodified therapy in the meropenem group, compared with 83% in the ceftazidime group. Of the evaluable episodes (n=106), the success rate with unmodified empirical therapy until the end of the treatment course was slightly higher with meropenem than with ceftazidime (48% vs 38%, P=0.39). Furthermore, initial success with further infections was observed in 22% of episodes treated with meropenem and in 13% of episodes treated with ceftazidime. Glycopeptides were used as first modification in 28% and 39% of meropenem and ceftazidime recipients, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated and there were no reports of drug-related nausea/vomiting or seizures. No significant differences in response rate or in tolerability were observed when analysing only the first febrile episodes. In conclusion, meropenem seems to be as efficacious and well tolerated as ceftazidime and may be associated with a lesser requirement for the addition of glycopeptides.