The Annals Take our Readership Survey!
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 1360-1365. DOI 10.1345/aph.10219
© 2002 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow PDF
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, W.
Right arrow Articles by Giller, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, W.
Right arrow Articles by Giller, R.


Research Articles

Empiric carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients

WK Nelson, PA Rayback, R Quinones, and RH Giller

OBJECTIVE: To determine which carbapenem (imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem) was the preferable empiric antibiotic monotherapy in pre-engrafted pediatric bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in terms of patient tolerance, therapeutic efficacy, and cost. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 16 pediatric BMT patients who received meropenem, and retrospectively analyzed 16 matched patients who had received imipenem/cilastatin for BMT procedures during the prior 2-year period. We evaluated the patients for evidence of bacterial infection, necessity for concurrent antibiotics, vomiting episodes, duration of concurrent total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and cost of therapy. RESULTS: We found no differences in the number of culture proven or clinically suspected breakthrough bacterial infections or the need for concurrent additional antibiotics between the groups. Our analysis found that patients who received meropenem experienced significantly less vomiting than those in the imipenem/cilastatin cohort. Our data showed both direct and indirect cost savings for the meropenem group. The statistical and clinical differences in the number of vomiting episodes between these groups impacted other aspects of patient care, antiemetic use, and TPN duration. CONCLUSIONS: By switching to meropenem, we reduced the cost of antiemetic therapy per patient treatment course, and also showed a trend toward reduced duration of TPN. We found that meropenem provided both clinical and fiscal advantages over imipenem/cilastatin as empiric antibiotic monotherapy in neutropenic pediatric BMT patients.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 2002 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.