Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Feb 26;100(8):e24883. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024883

Meta-analysis: combination of meropenem vs ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

Ying Wang a, Zhichao Du a, Yongdong Chen b, Yugang Liu b,∗, Zhitang Yang c
Editor: YX Sun
PMCID: PMC7909104  PMID: 33663117

Abstract

Background:

Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants’ characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

Result:

The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93–1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91–1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52–1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.

Conclusion:

Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.

Keywords: amikacin, ceftazidime, febrile neutropenia, meropenem, meta-analysis

1. Introduction enhanced myelosuppression

Since last decades, the survival rate of patients with malignancy had considerably increased resulting from improving chemotherapy.[1,2] However, the majority of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy show febrile neutropenia (FN) which is a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy diagnosed as the reduced complete blood cell count. FN will make patients vulnerable to bacteria, fungi and viruses commonly encountered.[3] Reports indicated that patients with profound neutropenia were in high risk (approximately 90%) of acquiring life- threatening infectious complications.[4,5] In clinical management, prompt antimicrobial therapy, especially broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, is applied at the onset of fever before the nature and susceptibility of the pathogen being detected in such infection.

Considering advantages of decreased toxicity and cost compared to multidrug regimens in many researches,[6–8] monotherapy with a broad-spectrum cephalosporin, such as ceftazidime and cefepime, or a carbapenem, is reported as an effective treatment [9–11] and suggested being used successfully as monotherapy.[12,13] Dr. Rejin Kebudi and the co-workers discover the beta lactam drugs cefepime and ceftazidime are effective and safe for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.[14] As an ultra-broad spectrum antibiotic of the carbapenem group, meropenem is highly active in vitro against most of the gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and anaerobes responsible for infections in neutropenic patients.[15] Unlike imipenem, meropenem is detected able to be given without concomittant addition of Cilastatin. It is possibly the last line of defense against multi drug resistant gram-negative infections. It is noteworthy that meropenem should be used with caution and discretion especially, as there are not many drugs in the pipeline in the near future.[3] Therefore, combination therapy with a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside has been traditionally recommended for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients at the same time.

Taken above, there are still confusions on the curative effect and safety of traditional combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin vs monotherapy with meropenem. Collecting and analyzing the latest newly published articles since 1995, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized control trails interfering the combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin or/and monotherapy with meropenem in treatment of cancer patients with FN.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Information sources and search strategy

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index (SCI), Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for clinical trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with FN. This searching was performed with the following keywords: monotherapy, combination therapy, ceftazidime plus amikacin, meropenem, and FN in cancer. The published language was limited to English.

2.2. Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were as followings:

  • 1.

    randomized controlled trials (RCTs);

  • 2.

    clinical trials on therapy of cancer patients with FN;

  • 3.

    published from 1995 till now;

  • 4.

    randomization procedure was performed;

  • 5.

    interventions with meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin were conducted in trails;

  • 6.

    scientific standard for curative effect;

  • 7.

    reasonable exclusion criteria for participant selection.

Exclusion criteria were:

  • 1.

    overlapping data;

  • 2.

    not randomized studies;

  • 3.

    only relevant to monotherapy or combination therapy;

  • 4.

    review, abstracts, animal studies or letter;

  • 5.

    in vitro activity only.

2.3. Data extraction

Titles and abstracts were scanned to filter out reviews, unavailable full articles and irrelevant ones by reviewers, independently. Then full texts of included studies were assessed for final quality eligibility basing on the consolidated standards of reporting trails.[16] The methodological quality of the trials was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool in RevMan 5.3 for bias risk analysis.

Data from the included trials was extracted independently for quantitative analysis, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion subsequently. The primary information of study ID, published year, drug regimen and reverse effects were collected. The quantitative data included the patient characteristics, such as average age, sample size, sex ratio, value of successful case and failure case at the end of the study therapy.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Heterogeneity was explored using a Chi-Squared test, and the quantity of heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic with Review Manager. P ≤ .10 or I2 ≥ 50% suggests that there is heterogeneity and random-effect model should be chosen.[17] In experimental group, the first outcome was comparison on the success rate of meropenem vs control (ceftazidime plus amikacin) for empirical treatment of cancer patients with FN; the second outcome was the comparison of the failure rate; the third outcome was on the mentioned drug-related adverse effects. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects.[18,19] For all analyses, results from the fixed-effect models are presented only when there was no heterogeneity between studies; otherwise, results from the random-effect models are presented. The reported results of outcomes of the analyzed studies were weighted by the inverse of their variance with the fixed-effect models.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of eligible studies

Relevant publications were retrieved from databases (PubMed, Google scholar, and SCI). As the outcome of assessment, Figure 1 showed the risk of bias for all the 6 included studies. A total of 15 relevant publications were adopted through reading records. After full-text scanning, 9 publications were excluded with reasons: 2 studies[20,21] were clinical trials single about combination therapy in FN patients with cancer; 3 publications[22–24] studied on monotherapy with meropenem only; while 2 publications[12,25] studied on the comparison of meropenem vs ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy; 1 study[26] was on cefepime vs meropenem; one of the full-text articles[27] were not available. (Fig. 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias graph.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram demonstrating studies processed for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Eventually, 6 papers[28–33] were available for data extraction and assessment (Table 1). Inventions performed in 6 RCTs were all divided into 2 groups: meropenem group and ceftazidime plus amikacin group. Drug regimen of these 3 antibiotics varied according to verified empirical therapy so that the differences on doses between groups were negligible.

Table 1.

Characteristics of all included studies in the meta-analysis.

Study IDs Years Interventions Participants M:F Ratio Mean Ages (years) Success Numbers Failure Adverse Effects
Hung-2003 2003 meropenem (40 mg/kg/does max 1g/dose q8h) 39 21/18 4.2 (0.7 ± 16.3) 28 10 not mentioned
ceftazidime (50 mg/kg/does max 2 g/dose q8 hour) plus amikacin (5 mg/kg/does max 0.25 g/dose q8 hour) 37 24/13 3.6 (0.6 ± 12.4) 21 14 not mentioned
Agaoglu-2001 2001 meropenem alone (60 mg/kg/d i.v. in 3 doses) 30 1/8 6 22 8 in the meropenem arm, 3 patients had vomiting but no seizures
ceftazidime (100 mg/kg/d i.v. in 3 doses) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg/d i.v. in 2 doses) 29 7 23 6
cefepime (100 mg/kg/d i.v. in 3 doses) plus netilmicin (5 mg/kg/d i.v. in 2–3 doses) 28 9 22 6
Akova-1999 1999 meropenem (1 g tds) 40 25/15 36 (39 ± 17) 24 13 5.5% hypersensitivity; 11% transient increase in transaminases; 1% nausea and 1% diarrhoea
ceftazidime (2 g tds) plus amikacin (1 g single daily) 43 25/18 22 18 17.5% transient increase in transaminases; 5% diarrhoea
Behre-1998 1998 Meropenem (1 g every 8 h by intravenous infusion for 20 ± 30 minutes) 34 22/12 46 (18 ± 76) 20 14 13% drug-related effects like nausea, diarrhoea and rash
ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h by intravenous infusion) plus Amikacin (15 mg/kg per day in 2 or 3 equally divided doses) 37 24/13 50 (22 ± 70) 23 14 15% drug-related effects like diarrhoea and increase on SGOT, SGPT, Bilirubin
de la Camara-1997 1997 meropenem (1 g/8 hour) 46 22/24 42.2 (17 ± 71) 17 29 Erythema multiforme; Alkaline phosphatase increase; SGOT/SGPT increase
ceftazidime (2 g/8 hour) plus amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) 47 27/20 41.6 (16 ± 66) 17 30 Renal function alteration; Rash; Deafness
Cometta-1996 1996 meropenem (1 g every 8 hour [q8 hour] for adults and children weighing more than 50 kg, 20 mg/kg q8 hour for children weighing less than 50 kg) infused over a period of 20 to 30 minutes 483 275/208 38 (1 ± 81) 270 190 151 of 516 (29%). However, only 19 patients (all adults) in the monotherapy arm experienced an adverse event considered related or probably related to the study drug.
ceftazidime (2 g q8 hour for adults, 35 mg/kg q8 hour for children) plus amikacin (20 mg/kg/day given in a single daily dose) 475 266/209 39 (1 ± 77) 245 206 148 of 511 (29%). However, only 31 (30 adults and 1 child) in the combination arm experienced an adverse event considered related or probably related to the study drug.
Open in a new tab

SGOT = serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, SGPT = serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase.

3.2. Quantitative synthesis

In this analysis, participants treated by meropenem were considered as experimental cases, while the ones treated by ceftazidime plus amikacin were as control. In order to estimate the pharmaceutical effects of meropenem vs ceftazidime plus amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with FN, only the cured or improved cases but not the undetectable or unchanged ones were considered as “events” in analysis.

No heterogeneity between studies had been identified in these outcomes (Chi2 = 2.46, df = 5 (P = .78); I2 = 0%). The outcome of the comparison on the success rate indicated that the treatment effect of ceftazidime plus amikacin was better than meropenem monotherapy (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93–1.46; 1270 participants) (Fig. 3). Meanwhile, failure rate of meropenem was higher than ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.68–1.07; 1270 participants) (Fig. 4). Analyzing the adverse effects, more patients suffered drug-related adverse effects when treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52–1.15; 1445 participants) (Fig. 5). (Table 2) Common responses were nausea, diarrhoea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT), and bilirubin. For further understand the effect of drug to children and adults, data were sub-grouped on age (Table 3). Data of Cometta-1996[31] was not included in the adult group for existence of children without final treated data. In the sub-grouped outcome of the success cases, however, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91–1.46; 1130 participants older than 16) (Fig. 6). No differences were identified in subgroup analysis of failure cases (Fig. 7). Articles mentioned adverse effects were all trails on adults.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Comparison on the success rate of meropenem vs combined therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin. The size of each square denotes the proportion of information given by each trial. Vertical line, “no difference” point in emergence of success cases treated by meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin; horizontal lines, 95% CIs = squares, ORs = diamond, pooled OR for all studies.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Failure rate of meropenem vs ceftazidime plus amikacin. The size of each square denotes the proportion of information given by each trial. Vertical line, “no difference” point in emergence of failure cases treated by meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin; horizontal lines, 95% CIs = squares, ORs = diamond, pooled OR for all studies.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Outcomes of drug-related adverse effects from the 2 treatments. The size of each square denotes the proportion of information given by each trial. Vertical line, “no difference” point in emergence of adverse effects treated by meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin; horizontal lines, 95% CIs = squares, ORs = diamond, pooled OR for all studies.

Table 2.

Outcomes without subgroup of analysis on treatment effects.

Outcome without Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate
success case 6 1270 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.17 [0.93, 1.46]
failure case 6 1270 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.86 [0.68, 1.07]
adverse effect 6 1445 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.78 [0.52, 1.15]
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Outcomes with subgroup of analysis on treatment effects.

Outcome and Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate
success case 6 1270 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.17 [0.93, 1.46]
adult 4 1135 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.15 [0.91, 1.46]
children 2 135 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.32 [0.63, 2.76]
failure case 6 1270 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.86 [0.68, 1.07]
adult 4 1135 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.87 [0.42, 2.25]
children 2 135 Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.76 [0.36, 1.58]
Open in a new tab

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Sub-grouped outcome of the success cases. The size of each square denotes the proportion of information given by each trial. Vertical line, “no difference” point in emergence of success cases treated by meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin; horizontal lines, 95% CIs = squares, ORs = diamond, pooled OR for all studies. Grouped by age, adult, and children.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of failure cases. The size of each square denotes the proportion of information given by each trial. Vertical line, “no difference” point in emergence of failure cases treated by meropenem and ceftazidime plus amikacin; horizontal lines, 95% CIs = squares, ORs = diamond, pooled OR for all studies. Grouped by age, adult, and children.

3.3. Tests for publication bias and sensitivity analyses

Taken that the number of studies (N = 6) were too small to test for small study effects, publication bias was analysis only in funnel plot with Review Manager as showed in Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Publication bias was analysis only in funnel plot with Review Manager.

4. Discussion

Patients with malignancy were in high risk of suffering chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment, leading to infection-related morbidity and mortality.[34] During neutropenic period, physicians must be keenly aware of the infection risks, diagnostic methods, and antimicrobial therapies required for febrile patients. Accordingly, researchers were very interested in the treatment of fever, neutropenia, and prophylaxis, treatment of infection.[35]

Prompt empirical antibiotic therapy using new broad-spectrum antibiotics such as carbapenems is becoming common even in patients with high-risk neutropenia of fever, replacing the traditional combination therapy.[29,30,36–38] As the newest member of this group of antibiotics, meropenem was also found as safe and effective as the combination of antibiotics (i.e., aminoglycoside plus beta-lactam such as ceftazidime) in large comparative trials. Considering this controversy, we preformed this review to estimate which treatment is more effective.

Since 1995, there were not many articles of clinical trials on monotherapy with meropenem vs combination therapy of ceftazidime plus amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with FN. With small sample data, we applied fixed-effects meta-analysis model (Mantel-Haenszel method) for analysis. Considering treatment effect and failure rate, meropenem was not ideal comparing with ceftazidime plus amikacin, especially in children. In contrast, previous studies had reported meropenem was effective and well-tolerated when used for the treatment of neutropenic cancer children against most beta-lactamases produced by gram-negative bacteria.[23] As for there was no review on the effect of meropenem versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in this disease, this result was still valuable reference for clinical management. In addition, monotherapy indeed own significant advantages in preventing treatment failures and reducing adverse effects. Researchers indicated that the high activity of meropenem could be explained by ease of entry into bacteria, combining to essential penicillin binding proteins, including those associated with cytolysis. Although meropenem had a broad antibacterial spectrum due to stability to all serine-based β-lactamases, it was slightly less active against staphylococci and enterococci.[24] In this respect, a combined therapy was superior. In subgroup analysis, superiority was not that significant in adults. An explanation was that a slight change in dosage might cast a dramatic effect on the pharmacological action and pharmacokinetics. Moreover, it was observed that duration of FN was significantly longer in patients with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of less than 100/mm3 and even in those with an ANC of less than 200/mm3, and in children who were not in remission for the malign disease.[22]

Drug-related effects like diarrhoea, increased in SGOT, SGPT and bilirubin, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, rash and vertigo were side effects of therapy with both methods, but they were well tolerated. In review, the observed toxicity in combined therapy was higher than that in meropenem, but did not lead to withdrawal from therapy.

5. Conclusion

Efficacy of monotherapy with meropenem was less than that of combined therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with FN. However, the usage of meropenem was safer with less adverse effect. As a clinical reference, we suggest combination therapy as first priority, and meropenem could be chosen as the last defense against pathogenic bacteria. Meanwhile, considering the small sample amount of the included trials, more studies and analysis were still needed.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Data curation: Ying Wang.

Funding acquisition: Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Formal analysis: Ying Wang, Zhichao Du, Yongdong Chen, Yugang Liu.

Investigation: Ying Wang, Yongdong Chen, Yugang Liu.

Methodology: Ying Wang, Zhichao Du, Yongdong Chen.

Project administration: Ying Wang, Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Resources: Zhichao Du.

Software: Zhichao Du, Yongdong Chen.

Supervision: Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Writing – original draft: Ying Wang, Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Writing – review & editing: Yugang Liu, Zhitang Yang.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence intervals, OR = odds ratio.

How to cite this article: Wang Y, Du Z, Chen Y, Liu Y, Yang Z. Meta-analysis: combination of meropenem vs ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Medicine. 2021;100:8(e24883).

This study was funded by grants from Youth Fund Research Project of Science and Technology of Hebei Colleges and Universities [QN2018147] and Doctoral Fund of Hebei University of Engineering.

Our goal is to publish this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. Since there are no issues about participant privacy, the review will not require ethical approval.

The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • [1].Yao JC, Lombard-Bohas C, Baudin E, et al. Daily oral everolimus activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:69–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Chawla SP, Blay J, Ray-Coquard IL, et al. Results of the phase III, placebo-controlled trial (SUCCEED) evaluating the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus (R) as maintenance therapy in advanced sarcoma patients (pts) following clinical benefit from prior standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT [ASCO Meeting Abstracts]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29S. [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Patel K, West HJ. Febrile neutropenia. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:1751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Serefhanoglu K, Ersoy Y, Serefhanoglu S, et al. Clinical experience with three combination regimens for the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2006;35:11–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer 2006;106:2258–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Perucca E. Pharmacologic advantages of antiepileptic drug monotherapy. Epilepsia 1997;38:S6–8. [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Anolik R. Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray with Loratadine Study G.Clinical benefits of combination treatment with mometasone furoate nasal spray and loratadine vs monotherapy with mometasone furoate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008;100:264–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Faught E. Monotherapy in adults and elderly persons. Neurology 2007;69:S3–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Raad II, Escalante C, Hachem RY, et al. Treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer who require hospitalization: a prospective randomized study comparing imipenem and cefepime. Cancer 2003;98:1039–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Paul M, Yahav D, Fraser A, et al. Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:176–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Yildirim I, Aytac S, Ceyhan M, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin versus carbapenem monotherapy as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood hematological malignancies. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2008;25:291–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Feld R, DePauw B, Berman S, et al. Meropenem versus ceftazidime in the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3690–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Owens RC, Owens CA, Holloway W, et al. Reduction in vancomycin (VANC) consumption in patients with fever and neutropenia. Clin Infectious Dis 2000;31:291. [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Kebudi R, Gorgun O, Ayan I, et al. Randomized comparison of cefepime versus ceftazidime monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in children with solid tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol 2001;36:434–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Edwards JR. Meropenem: a microbiological overview. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36: Suppl A: 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010;8:18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:820–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Thompson SG. The merits of matching in community intervention trials: a cautionary tale. Stat Med 1998;17:2149–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Mantel NHW. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;1:533–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Kobayashi S, Ito M, Sano H, et al. Clinical analysis of combination therapy for febrile neutropenic patients in childhood cancer. Pediatr Int 2013;55:65–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Aksoylar S, Cetingul N, Kantar M, et al. Meropenem plus amikacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus netilmicin as empiric therapy for high-risk febrile neutropenia in children. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2004;21:115–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Erbey F, Bayram I, Yilmaz S, et al. Meropenem monotherapy as an empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010;11:123–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Muller J, Garami M, Constantin T, et al. Meropenem in the treatment of febrile neutropenic children. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2005;22:277–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Pancharoen C, Mekmullica J, Buranachonapa J, et al. Efficacy and safety of meropenem as an empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer. J Med Assoc Thai 2003;86: Suppl 2: S174–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Fleischhack G, Hartmann C, Simon A, et al. Meropenem versus ceftazidime as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenia of paediatric patients with cancer. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001;47:841–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Oguz A, Karadeniz C, Citak EC, et al. Experience with cefepime versus meropenem as empiric monotherapy for neutropenia and fever in pediatric patients with solid tumors. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006;23:245–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Solberg CO, Sjursen H. Safety and efficacy of meropenem in patients with septicaemia: a randomised comparison with ceftazidime, alone or combined with amikacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36: Suppl A: 157–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Agaoglu L, Devecioglu O, Anak S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cefepime + netilmicin or ceftazidime + amikacin or meropenem monotherapy in febrile neutropenic children with malignancy in Turkey. J Chemother 2001;13:281–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Akova M, Akan H, Korten V, et al. Comparison of meropenem with amikacin plus ceftazidime in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia: a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients without previous prophylactic antibiotics. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999;13:15–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Behre G, Link H, Maschmeyer G, et al. Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Ann Hematol 1998;76:73–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Cometta A, Calandra T, Gaya H, et al. 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 1996;40:1108–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].de la Camara R, Figuera A, Sureda A, et al. Meropenem versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients: a randomized study. Haematologica 1997;82:668–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Hung KC, Chiu HH, Tseng YC, et al. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empirical therapy for neutropenic fever in children with malignancy. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2003;36:254–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:8–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. 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 2011;52:e56–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].de Naurois J, Novitzky-Basso I, Gill MJ, et al. Management of febrile neutropenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol 2010;21: Suppl 5: 252–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Furno P, Bucaneve G, Del Favero AD. Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical antibiotic treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2002;2:231–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Sipsas NV, Bodey GP, Kontoyiannis DP. Perspectives for the management of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer in the 21st century. Cancer 2005;103:1103–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES