Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2025
Comparison of 2-hour drip infusions of meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for febrile neutropenia in pediatric patients.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the treatment of pediatric hematological neoplastic diseases has improved greatly, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more frequent and sometimes proves fatal as chemotherapy is intensified. A prospective, randomized study was performed to compare the usefulness of 2-hour drip infusions of meropenem (MEPM) and piperacillin/tazobactam (PIPC/TAZ) for pediatric patients with FN. Ninety-three patients with 405 febrile episodes were randomly assigned to receive MEPM or PIPC/TAZ. MEPM 120 mg/kg/day was administered as a 2-hour drip infusion three times a day, whereas PIPC/TAZ 360 mg/kg/day was administered as a 2-hour drip infusion four times a day. In addition, in cases that failed first-line therapy, the antibiotic administration was alternated and randomized with or without intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as the second-line treatment. As the first-line treatment, MEPM was effective in 74.8% of the 206 episodes, and PIPC/TAZ was effective in 74.9% of the 199 episodes. The total success rate in second-line treatment was 65.6%. MEPM was effective in 70.8% of the 48 episodes, and PIPC/TAZ was effective in 60.4% of the 48 episodes. The combined first- and second-line treatment efficacy rates were 89.4% for the first-line treatment with MEPM and the second-line treatment with PIPC/TAZ group and 91.3% in the first-line treatment with PIPC/TAZ and second-line treatment with MEPM groups, with an overall efficacy rate of 90.4%, an excellent result. However, the efficacy of IVIG could not be proven in this study. Adolescents and young adults in the present study also presented with lower rates of antibiotic efficacy.
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.