Literature DB >> 12697078

Ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam for treatment of mixed anaerobic complicated intra-abdominal, complicated skin and skin structure, and acute pelvic infections.

Jose Tellado1, Gail L Woods, Richard Gesser, Kathleen McCarroll, Hedy Teppler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anaerobes are an important component of many serious, deep tissue infections, especially complicated intra-abdominal (IAI), complicated skin and skin structure (SSSI), and acute pelvic (PI) infections. This study compares the efficacy of ertapenem, 1 g once a day, in the treatment of adults with anaerobic IAI, SSSI, and PI to piperacillin-tazobactam, 3.375 g every 6 hours.
METHODS: Three randomized, double-blind trials comparing ertapenem to piperacillin-tazobactam for treatment of IAI, SSSI, and PI were conducted. This subgroup analysis included 623 patients, whose baseline culture grew one or more anaerobic pathogens, from these three studies.
RESULTS: Anaerobes most commonly isolated were Bacteroides fragilis group (IAI) and peptostreptococci (SSSI and PI). The median duration of ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam therapy, respectively, in these subgroups was 6 and 7 days for IAI, 7 and 8 days for SSSI, and 4 and 5 days for PI. Cure rates for all evaluable patients with anaerobic infection were 89.3% (242/271) for ertapenem and 85.9% (220/256) for piperacillin-tazobactam (95% CI for the difference, adjusting for infection, -2.6% to 9.3%), indicating that the two treatments were equivalent. Cure rates by infection, for ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam, respectively, were as follows: IAI, 86.4% (133/154) and 82.4% (117/142); SSSI, 84.4% (27/32) and 82.4% (28/34); PI, 96.5% (82/85) and 93.8% (75/80). The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse experiences were comparable in both treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis, ertapenem was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam for treatment of adults with moderate to severe anaerobic IAI, SSSI, and PI, was generally well tolerated, and had a similar safety profile.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12697078     DOI: 10.1089/109629602762539535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1096-2964            Impact factor:   2.150


  6 in total

Review 1.  Ertapenem: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections.

Authors:  Gillian M Keating; Caroline M Perry
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

2.  Ertapenem pharmacokinetics and impact on intestinal microflora, in comparison to those of ceftriaxone, after multiple dosing in male and female volunteers.

Authors:  Mathias W R Pletz; Mareike Rau; Juergen Bulitta; Andres De Roux; Olaf Burkhardt; Guido Kruse; Michael Kurowski; Carl E Nord; Hartmut Lode
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 3.  Ertapenem: a review of its use in the management of bacterial infections.

Authors:  Monique Curran; Dene Simpson; Caroline Perry
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease.

Authors:  Ricardo F Savaris; Daniele G Fuhrich; Jackson Maissiat; Rui V Duarte; Jonathan Ross
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-20

5.  The efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics in the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rui Meng; Xin Guan; Lei Sun; Zhengyang Fei; Yuxin Li; Mengjie Luo; Aixia Ma; Hongchao Li
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-09-16

6.  Comparative antimicrobial susceptibility of aerobic and facultative bacteria from community-acquired bacteremia to ertapenem in Taiwan.

Authors:  Sai-Cheong Lee; Shie-Shian Huang; Chao-Wei Lee; Chang-Phone Fung; Ning Lee; Wen-Bin Shieh; L K Siu
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 3.090

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.