{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020345252774352653, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007398273736128237, 'mean_word_length': 5.492, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of meropenem with ceftazidime as monotherapy of cancer patients with chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND
Ceftazidime is commonly used as monotherapy of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. Concern, however, has been raised regarding potential for drug resistance due to its widespread use. Meropenem is a new carbapenem with more extended antibacterial spectrum including anaerobes. It provides better coverage against gram positives. Hence, it may offer an advantage over ceftazidime.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
We prospectively treated 49 patients hospitalized for fever (> 38 degrees C) and neutropenia (ANC < or = 500/cmm) with meropenem. We compared their outcome with 50 patients who consecutively received ceftazidime in the immediate past for the same indication.


RESULTS
Comparison of demographic features between the 2 groups revealed no differences in age, gender, type of neoplasm, number of patients with prior antibiotic use, number of days since chemotherapy, absolute neutrophil count and number of patients previously or already hospitalized. Duration of fever, duration of neutropenia and number of patients with pyrexia of undetermined origin were also similar. Therapeutic outcome was same between the two groups. Eighty four percent of patients receiving meropenem and 79% receiving ceftazidime required no modification of the initially assigned therapeutic regimen. Two patients receiving meropenem died. Toxicity was minimal.


CONCLUSION
We conclude that meropenem offers no significant advantage over ceftazidime in the management of neutropenic febrile patients.