ArticlePharmacotherapy2009
Assessment of an alternative meropenem dosing strategy compared with imipenem-cilastatin or traditional meropenem dosing after cefepime failure or intolerance in adults with neutropenic fever.
Article in Pharmacotherapy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of twice a day and three times a day meropenem administration in elderly patients in a Japanese community hospital.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Severe Drug-Induced Agranulocytosis Successfully Treated with Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor.Case reports in medicine · 2018Article
- Review
- Meropenem Assessment before and after Implementation of a Small-Dose, Short-Interval Standard Dosing Regimen.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving an alternative dosage of meropenem with those of patients receiving imipenem-cilastatin or the traditional dosage of meropenem after failure of or intolerance to cefepime for treatment of febrile neutropenia.
designRetrospective, single-center cohort study.
setting1250-bed urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-seven adults with neutropenic fever who received either imipenem-cilastatin or meropenem; imipenem-cilastatin was the preferred carbapenem until September 1, 2006, after which meropenem became the formulary carbapenem. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf the 127 patients, 40 received imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg every 6 hours between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006; 87 patients received meropenem between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007: 29 received a traditional dosage of meropenem 1 g every 8 hours, and 58 received an alternative dosage of meropenem 500 mg every 6 hours. Primary outcomes of time to defervescence (median 3 vs 2 vs 3 days), need for additional antibiotics (20% vs 17% vs 14%), and time to receipt of additional antibiotics (median 5 vs 2 vs 1 days) were not significantly different among the imipenem-cilastatin, traditionally dosed meropenem, and alternatively dosed meropenem groups, respectively. In addition, significant differences in secondary outcomes, which were treatment duration (median 10 vs 8 vs 8 days), seizure rate (0% vs 0% vs 0%), in-hospital mortality (5% vs 7% vs 7%), and 30-day mortality (13% vs 7% vs 14%), were not identified among the three groups, respectively.
conclusionThe alternative meropenem dosage of 500 mg every 6 hours yielded similar patient outcomes, including time to defervescence, need for additional antibiotics, duration of therapy, and mortality, when compared with the traditional meropenem dosage and imipenem-cilastatin in adults with febrile neutropenia. In addition, no adverse effects on clinical outcomes were observed with the alternative dosage of meropenem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.