Changes in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics after cefepime shortage: a time series analysis.

The original cefepime product was withdrawn from the Swiss market in January 2007 and replaced by a generic 10 months later. The goals of the study were to assess the impact of this cefepime shortage on the use and costs of alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, on antibiotic policy, and on resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa toward carbapenems, ceftazidime, and piperacillin-tazobactam. A generalized regression-based interrupted time series model assessed how much the shortage changed the monthly use and costs of cefepime and of selected alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics (ceftazidime, imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam) in 15 Swiss acute care hospitals from January 2005 to December 2008. Resistance of P. aeruginosa was compared before and after the cefepime shortage. There was a statistically significant increase in the consumption of piperacillin-tazobactam in hospitals with definitive interruption of cefepime supply and of meropenem in hospitals with transient interruption of cefepime supply. Consumption of each alternative antibiotic tended to increase during the cefepime shortage and to decrease when the cefepime generic was released. These shifts were associated with significantly higher overall costs. There was no significant change in hospitals with uninterrupted cefepime supply. The alternative antibiotics for which an increase in consumption showed the strongest association with a progression of resistance were the carbapenems. The use of alternative antibiotics after cefepime withdrawal was associated with a significant increase in piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem use and in overall costs and with a decrease in susceptibility of P. aeruginosa in hospitals. This warrants caution with regard to shortages and withdrawals of antibiotics.

The impact of a nationwide antibiotic restriction program on antibiotic usage and resistance against nosocomial pathogens in Turkey.

PURPOSE: Antimicrobial resistance among microorganisms is a global concern. In 2003, a nationwide antibiotic restriction program (NARP) was released in Turkey. In this study we evaluated the effect of NARP on antibiotic consumption, antimicrobial resistance, and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data obtained from all of the four university hospitals, and one referral tertiary-care educational state hospital in Ankara. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of 14,233 selected microorganisms all grown in blood cultures and antibiotic consumption from 2001 to 2005 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: A negative correlation was observed between the ceftriaxone consumption and the prevalence of ceftriaxone resistant E.coli and Klebsiella spp. (rho:-0.395, p:0.332 and rho:-0.627, p:0.037, respectively). The decreased usage of carbapenems was correlated with decreased carbapenems-resistant Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp (rho:0.155, p:0.712 and rho:0.180, p:0.668, respectively for imipenem). Methicillin resistance rates of S.aureus were decreased from 44% to 41%. After two years of NARP 5,389,155.82 USD saving occurred. CONCLUSION: NARP is effective in lowering the costs and antibiotic resistance.

Comparing outcomes of meropenem administration strategies based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles: a qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence comparing traditional and alternative dosing strategies for meropenem, based on clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1950-September 2009), EMBASE (1980-September 2009), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-September 2009) were searched, using the terms meropenem, carbapenems, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. Reference citations from publications identified were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles discussing administration of meropenem to adults with normal renal function and comparing at least 2 regimens, 1 of which included the manufacturer-recommended regimen of 0.5 g or 1 g every 8 hours infused over 30 minutes, with clinical, pharmacodynamic, or pharmacoeconomic endpoints, were included. The pharmacodynamic endpoint of interest was percent time that the unbound drug concentration exceeded the minimal inhibitory concentration for a bacterial pathogen. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen studies were reviewed, which included 13 pharmacokinetic and dynamic assessments using Monte Carlo simulations, 5 clinical evaluations, and 3 pharmacoeconomic appraisals. Data on clinical and economic outcomes are largely nonrandomized retrospective analyses and case reports. Meropenem via intermittent prolonged infusion potentially increases the likelihood of achieving pharmacodynamic targets. However, a strong link with improved clinical outcomes is lacking. Smaller doses with shorter intervals appear to provide pharmacodynamic target attainment rates and clinical outcomes similar to those with traditional dosing, with potential pharmacoeconomic benefits. Meropenem via continuous infusion appears to increase the likelihood of achieving pharmacodynamic targets, compared with intermittent infusions. The sparsity of clinical evidence supporting this practice limits its broad application to practice. No studies have formally examined adverse effects with alternative dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Meropenem alternative dosing strategies provide similar pharmacodynamic target attainment rates compared with traditional dosing strategies. Small doses with shorter interval dosing provide additional pharmacoeconomic benefits and similar clinical outcomes. Alternative dosing strategies for meropenem were largely studied in healthy subjects; individuals with pharmacokinetic parameters that differ significantly may be ideal subjects for empiric dose modification.

[Possibilities of combined and isolated application of carbapenems in patients with secondary widespread peritonitis].

The expediency of meronem (Ronem) application for empiric (beginning) therapy in patients, suffering secondary extended peritonitis were analized.

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections.

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.

Clinical outcomes and cost minimization with an alternative dosing regimen for meropenem in a community hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and cost for the traditional United States Food and Drug Administration-approved dosing regimen for meropenem versus an alternative dosing regimen providing similar pharmacodynamic exposure with a lower total daily dose. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with a cost-minimization analysis. SETTING: A 417-bed, privately owned community hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred patients who received meropenem 1 g every 8 or 12 hours (traditional dosing regimen) between January 1 and September 30, 2004 (historical controls), and 192 patients who received meropenem 500 mg every 6 or 8 hours (alternative dosing regimen) between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients. Cost-minimization analysis was performed by using the drug acquisition cost for meropenem. Demographics, sources of infection, distributions of organisms, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were similar between patients in the traditionally and alternatively dosed groups. Concomitant therapy, duration of therapy, success rates, lengths of stay, and in-hospital mortality rates were also similar between groups. Median time to the resolution of symptoms was 3 days for traditional dosing and 1.5 days for alternative dosing (p<0.0001). A logistic regression model including the dosing strategy showed that only polymicrobial infections and sepsis were associated with increased failure rates. The median cost for antibiotics was $439.05/patient for traditional dosing and $234.08/patient for alternative dosing (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: An alternative dosing regimen for meropenem with a lower total daily dose yielded patient outcomes, including success rates and duration of therapy, equivalent to those of the traditional dosing regimen. Alternative dosing decreased total drug exposure, costs for antibiotics, and time to the resolution of infections.

Cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care.

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem and imipenem plus cilastatin for the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Estimated treatment costs for the patient cohort were pound 14,938 with meropenem and pound 15,585 with imipenem plus cilastatin. QALYs gained were 7,495 with meropenem and 7,413 with imipenem plus cilastatin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be significantly less costly (-pound 636.47, 95% CI -pound 132.33 to -pound 1,140.62) and more effective (0.084, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.144). Meropenem thus appears significantly more effective and less expensive than imipenem plus cilastatin and should therefore be considered the dominant treatment strategy.

Impact of piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use: implications for antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Drug shortages pose a clear detriment to antimicrobial stewardship (AS) efforts. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use, related costs, and associated changes in AS activity. A quasi-experimental quality improvement review compared adult patients receiving meropenem ≥72h three months pre-shortage and three months during the shortage. 320 patients were included (pre-shortage: 103; shortage: 217). Baseline characteristics were similar, but the length of stay was slightly longer in pre-shortage [19 (11-32) days] versus shortage [16 (11-32) days] (p=0.094). In pre-shortage and shortage, median days of therapy and estimated meropenem cost were 7 (5-11) and 7 (5-10) and $309.93 ($173.60-$507.03) and $255.30 ($204.24-$424.31), respectively (p=0.411 and p=0.050). Frequency of ID consultation was similar (16.8% in pre- and 25.3% in shortage, p=0.091). AS interventions increased during the shortage period (99 in pre-shortage and 205 in shortage). De-escalation occurred in 19.4% versus 32.7% of the patients in pre-shortage and shortage (p=0.014). The piperacillin-tazobactam shortage was associated with a 111% increase in meropenem prescriptions despite active AS, but was not associated with changes in mortality, length of therapy, or meropenem costs. AS should be aware that shortages may require proactive countermeasures to avoid inappropriate antimicrobial use during shortage periods.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenteral antimicrobials for acute melioidosis in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Melioidosis is a common community-acquired infectious disease in northeast Thailand associated with overall mortality of approximately 40% in hospitalized patients, and over 70% in severe cases. Ceftazidime is recommended for parenteral treatment in patients with suspected melioidosis. Meropenem is increasingly used but evidence to support this is lacking. METHODS: A decision tree was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-severe and severe suspected acute melioidosis cases with either ceftazidime or meropenem. RESULTS: Empirical treatment with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective providing meropenem reduces mortality in severe cases by at least 9% and the proportion with subsequent culture-confirmed melioidosis is over 20%. CONCLUSIONS: In this context, treatment of severe cases with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective, while the evidence to support the use of meropenem in non-severe suspected melioidosis is not yet available.

Meropenem: an updated review of its use in the management of intra-abdominal infections.

UNLABELLED: Meropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of activity which encompasses gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. Like other carbapenems, meropenem is stable against chromosomal and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. In patients with moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections, empirical monotherapy with meropenem achieved clinical response rates ranging from 91 to 100% in 7 randomised comparative trials. Efficacy rates were similar to those of imipenem/cilastatin (94 to 97%), clindamycin plus tobramycin (93%) and, overall, to cefotaxime plus metronidazole (75 to 100%), although there were differences between trials versus this combination regimen. According to limited data, meropenem also achieved clinical response rates of over 80% in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. Meropenem is well tolerated, the most common adverse events being diarrhoea, rash, nausea/vomiting and inflammation at the injection site which are reported in <2.5% of patients each. Meropenem also has an improved CNS tolerability profile compared with imipenem/cilastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive comparative clinical data demonstrate that meropenem can be used effectively as empirical monotherapy in moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections. It also shows potential in the most severe forms of infection, although experience in this infection type remains limited. Compared with standard combination regimens, meropenem offers the benefits of ease of administration without the need for monitoring. It also offers improved CNS tolerability compared with imipenem/cilastatin with the option of a higher maximum dosage, which may be a particular advantage in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections.

Meropenem. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious infections.

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibiotic which is active against the majority of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria implicated in serious infections. Its therapeutic efficacy in a wide range of serious infections is similar to that of imipenem/cilastatin and standard combination drug regimens. Hence, meropenem is suitable for use as monotherapy. Although the acquisition cost of meropenem is likely to be higher than that of aminoglycoside- and metronidazole-containing combination regimens, the latter incur additional drug administration costs and potentially higher costs for treatment of adverse effects. In addition, aminoglycoside-containing regimens also incur assay and toxicity monitoring costs. Economic analyses are required to compare overall treatment costs with combination therapy and meropenem. Cost analyses indicate that the ability to give meropenem, but not imipenem/cilastatin, by rapid intravenous bolus injection results in lower drug administration costs than with the standard infusion method. More comprehensive pharmacoeconomic data on meropenem are required. However, assuming that meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin have similar acquisition costs, the option of administering meropenem by bolus injection and its lower epileptogenic potential at high dosages (thus permitting its use in meningitis) should be considered potentially important attributes when choosing a carbapenem antibiotic for inclusion in a hospital formulary.

Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of sequential intravenous (i.v.) to oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v./PO) with that of i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v.) and i.v. imipenem-cilastatin (IMI i.v.) in patients with intra-abdominal infections. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in a double-blind randomised clinical trial were eligible for inclusion into this cost-effectiveness analysis. Decision analysis was used to characterise the economic outcomes between groups and provide a structure upon which to base the sensitivity analyses. 1996 cost values were used throughout. SETTING: The economic perspective of the analysis was that of a hospital provider. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Among 446 economically evaluable patients, 176 could be switched from i.v. to oral administration. The 51 patients randomised to CIP/MTZ i.v./PO who received active oral therapy had a success rate of 98%, mean duration of therapy of 9.1 days and mean cost of $US7678. There were 125 patients randomized to either CIP/MTZ i.v. or IMI i.v. who received oral placebo while continuing on active i.v. antibacterials; their success rate was 94%, mean duration of therapy was 10.1 days and mean cost was $US8774 (p = 0.029 vs CIP/MTZ i.v./PO). Of the 270 patients who were unable to receive oral administration, 97 received IMI i.v. and had a success rate of 75%, mean duration of therapy of 13.8 days and a mean cost of $US12,418, and 173 received CIP/MTZ i.v. and had a success rate of 77%, mean duration of therapy of 13.4 days and mean cost of $US12,219 (p = 0.26 vs IMI i.v.). CONCLUSIONS: In patients able to receive oral therapy, sequential i.v. to oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was cost effective compared with full i.v. courses of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole or imipenem-cilastatin. In patients unable to receive oral therapy, no difference in mean cost was found between i.v. imipenem-cilastatin or i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole.

Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost, efficacy and cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. DESIGN: The analysis was retrospective and based on a decision tree. Effectiveness data were obtained from 19 published clinical trials. Direct costs were quantified per patient from the time the decision was made to administer the antibacterial to the end of the first course of treatment or the end of a subsequent course of treatment, if required. The primary end-point was the cost per successfully treated patient. The cost per life saved was also analysed. Various follow-up times were taken into account. PERSPECTIVE: German National Health Insurance funds. STUDY POPULATION: 1744 patients with intra-abdominal infection. INTERVENTIONS: Tazobactam/piperacillin (total daily dosage of 13.5 g/day) and imipenem/cilastatin (total daily dosage of 1.5 to 4 g/day). The mean duration of treatment varied from 5.5 to 8.2 days for tazobactam/piperacillin and 5 to 9.4 days for imipenem/cilastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS: Compared with imipenem/cilastatin, treatment with tazobactam/piperacillin was more effective and the overall treatment costs were lower. In the base-case analysis, the cost-efficacy ratio (cost per successfully treated patient) was 7881 German deutschmarks (DM) for tazobactam/piperacillin and DM11,390 for imipenem/cilastatin. The incremental cost-efficacy ratio (per life saved) varied between -DM72,567 and -DM350,738 for tazobactam/piperacillin. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were robust against various assumptions on cost parameters, clinical outcomes and length of treatment. All costs reflect 1998 values; $US1 = DM1.85. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tazobactam/piperacillin is more cost efficacious in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections and that it offers a cost advantage through fewer relapses and lower daily therapeutic costs.

Prospective randomized study to compare imipenem 1.5 grams per day vs. 3.0 grams per day in infections of granulocytopenic patients.

The objective of this presented prospective randomized study was to compare the efficacy of empirical antimicrobial monotherapy with imipenem 3 x 0.5 g per day to 3 x 1.0 g per day for treatment of infections in neutropenic patients. A total of 192/220 febrile episodes were evaluable for clinical efficacy. The overall response rate was 53/93 (57%) vs. 57/99 (58%). Of the different infection types, fever of unknown origin (FUO) showed the best response, with defervescence in 29/41 (71%) and 36/42 (86%) cases, respectively (not significant). Unfavourable results were found in pneumonias [5/20 (25%) vs. 4/23 (17%)]. The median time until persistent defervescence was equal in both groups (2 days), likewise the median duration of imipenem therapy in responders (7 days). The most frequent micro-organisms were Gram-negative, documented in 22% of the febrile episodes in the lower dosage group vs. 17% of all episodes in the patients with imipenem 3.0 g per day (Gram-positives 17% vs. 14%, fungal 5% vs. 8%). In the lower dosage group, fever with abdominal symptoms occurred less frequently (8% vs. 15%), and significantly more patients tolerated imipenem without any side-effects (95.8% vs. 79.4%), especially regarding severe nausea/vomiting (2.1% vs. 11.8%). Of the initial non-responders, 35/40 (88%) vs. 41/42 (98%) were cured after therapy modification. There was no significant difference in the use of further antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, ceftazidime or amphotericin B, except a marginally higher use of metronidazole in patients with imipenem 3.0 g per day (3% vs. 10%). Overall, we found no significant differences in efficacy between the two study groups, but more frequent side-effects with imipenem 3.0 g per day.

Economic benefit of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts.

The economic benefit of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts is described. The pharmacodynamics of novel meropenem dosing regimens were compared with FDA-approved regimens by using Monte Carlo simulation with 5000 subjects. Using the meropenem NCCLS-susceptibility breakpoint of 4 micrograms/mL, the percentage of the dosing interval that drug concentration remained above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%t > MIC) was calculated for each regimen. Probability distributions for half-life and volume of distribution using previously published pharmacokinetic data from healthy volunteers were developed. Cost-minimization analysis was performed from the institution's perspective using both drug acquisition and supply costs. Daily costs for the lower dosage regimens were calculated using 2001 average wholesale prices. The mean %t > MIC for meropenem 500 mg administered every six hours (43.91% [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.77-51.46%]) was similar to that of 1000 mg every eight hours (45.77% [95% CI, 40.06-50.69%]). The mean %t > MIC for meropenem 1000 mg administered every six hours (61.02% [95% CI, 54.71-67.43%]) was similar to the regimen of 2000 mg every eight hours (57.77% [95% CI, 51.84-63.76%]). The 500-mg regimen reduced drug costs by $38.64 per day compared with the standard regimen of 1000 mg administered every eight hours. A pharmacodynamically influenced dosage strategy for meropenem resulted in %t > MIC exposure similar to standard regimens and required a lesser amount of the drug, thereby reducing costs without compromising efficacy.

Clinical and economic benefits of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts.

PURPOSE: The clinical and economic outcomes of a meropenem dosage strategy based on pharmacodynamic concepts are retrospectively reviewed. METHODS: The medical records of all patients receiving at least one day of meropenem at a large teaching hospital during 2002 were reviewed. Patients were included if they were clinically evaluable, had no prior successful antibiotic therapy, and received a meropenem dosage appropriate for renal function. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the rate of response (days to normalization of temperature or lymphocyte count) and success rate. A cost-minimization analysis was performed from the hospital's perspective for level 1, 2, and 3 costs. The average wholesale price of meropenem for 2002 and the cost for one hospital day at our institution were used to calculate economic outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 136 patients identified as receiving at least one dose of meropenem, 85 met inclusion criteria, of whom 45 received meropenem 500 mg every six hours and 40 received meropenem 1000 mg every eight hours. No significant differences in demographics, site of infection, meropenem-related length of stay, or rate of response were found. Clinical success rates were similar between groups (p = 0.862). Patients taking the 500-mg regimen received less meropenem during treatment than those in the 1000-mg group (13 g versus 18 g, respectively) (p = 0.012). Median level 1 and 2 costs were significantly lower for the 500-mg regimen (p = 0.009 and p = 0.008, respectively). Level 3 costs were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: A pharmacodynamically designed meropenem dosage strategy of 500 mg every six hours yielded similar clinical outcomes to a regimen of 1000 mg every eight hours and reduced the daily drug acquisition costs associated with antibiotic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of cefepime + netilmicin or ceftazidime + amikacin or meropenem monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with malignancy in Turkey.

Infection remains the major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised children with malignancy. In addition, the economic impact of antibiotic treatment should always be evaluated, especially in developing countries. In our center between January 1998 and January 1999, 73 children with hematological malignancies [acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML)]; 9 children with solid tumors (rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma) had 87 febrile neutropenic episodes (related to chemotherapy). These children were randomized prospectively into three treatment groups. The first group (n: 28) received cefepime plus netilmicin, while the second group (n: 29) was treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin and the third (n: 30) with meropenem as monotherapy. The aim of the study was to compare the success rates and cost of fourth generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside and monotherapy of meropenem with ceftazidime plus amikacin, which is the standard therapy for febrile neutropenia. Microbiologically documented infections were 29.9%, clinically documented infections were 9.2% and 60.9% of the febrile neutropenic episodes were considered to be FUO. Gram-positive microorganisms were the most commonly isolated agents from blood cultures [MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in 6 patients and MSSA (Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus) in 4 patients]. The success rates were 78.5%, 79.3% and 73.3 % for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd groups respectively. In 4 patients (4.5%) fever responded only to amphotericin-B therapy. There was no statistically significant difference between the three treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, safety and tolerance (chi2 test, p>0.05), but while the third and fourth generation cephalosporins + aminoglycosides were comparable for cost, the monotherapy regimen was the most expensive. The main determining factors for the choice of treatment of febrile neutropenic children, especially in a developing country, are cost, presence of indwelling catheter and the bacterial flora of the unit, as well as efficacy.

Carbapenems in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized elderly patients: a comparative study against standard therapy.

In this open, prospective, study were enrolled 204 hospitalized elderly patients with severe (88 males, 116 females, age range 70-94). Patients were randomized to receive one of the following antibiotic treatment regimens: meropenem 500 mg i.v. t.i.d. (52); imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg i.v. t.i.d. (51), clarithromycin 500 mg + ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. b.i.d. (52), clarithromycin 500 mg + amikacin 250 mg i.v. b.i.d. (49). In 99 cases causative germs were isolated (24 meropenem, 26 imipenem, 23 clarithromycin + ceftriaxone, 26 ceftriaxone + amikacin). A satisfactory clinical, bacteriological response was achieved respectively in 86.5% 77% in meropenem; 86.3% 71% in imipenem/cilastatin; 69% 61% in ceftriaxone + clarithromycin and in 85.7% 77% in clarithromycin + amikacin. The mean total cost for each patient was $1,560; $1,620; $1,760 and $1,792 in meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, clarithromycin + ceftriaxone and clarithromycin + amikacin respectively. This study shows that treatment with either meropenem or imipenem is as efficacious as conventional therapy in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP), and that meropenem is the most cost-effective.

Meropenem (meronem, zeneca).

Meropenem is the latest in a series of antibiotics noted for their broad spectrum of activity. Is it an alternative to established antibiotic regimen in the treatment of infections in hospitalized patients?