Literature DB >> 8889726

Intravenous meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients. Meropenem Serious Infection Study Group.

F Colardyn1, K L Faulkner.   

Abstract

Meropenem was compared with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in a randomized, prospective multicentre study. Both study drugs were given intravenously 1 g every 8 h and no other antimicrobial agents were permitted concomitantly. Of the 204 patients enrolled, the treatment of 177 was evaluable for clinical efficacy and 115 for bacteriological efficacy. In the clinically evaluable treatment population, 75 (83%) of the 90 patients in the meropenem group and 78 (90%) of the 87 in the imipenem/cilastatin group had a single site of infection whereas the remainder had two or more sites of infection. Infections of the lower respiratory tract and peritoneal cavity predominated accounting for 95 and 75 cases respectively. Other infections included skin and soft tissue infections, complicated urinary tract infections, bacteraemia and a case of meningitis treated with meropenem and one of mediastinitis treated with imipenem/cilastatin. One hundred and nineteen (67%) patients were in an intensive care unit, 105 (59%) were receiving assisted ventilation and 93 (53%) of the patients had failed previous antibiotic therapy. One hundred and ten organisms were identified as pathogens in the meropenem group and 109 in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Overall, treatment with meropenem was clinically successful in 68 (76%) of 90 cases and imipenem/cilastatin in 67 (77%) of 87 cases and the corresponding eradication rates of bacteria were 85 of 110 (77%) and 90 of 109 (83%) respectively. Superinfections due to resistant bacteria occurred in two patients treated with meropenem and three cases given imipenem/cilastatin. No statistically significant differences in the clinical or bacteriological outcome were observed between the treatment groups for any of the infection sites analysed. Both drugs were well tolerated with adverse events considered to be related to therapy being recorded for 10 (9%) of 106 patients treated with meropenem and 12 (12%) of 98 of those who had been given imipenem/cilastatin. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem was therefore as effective and as well tolerated as that with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of serious bacterial infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8889726     DOI: 10.1093/jac/38.3.523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  20 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of antimicrobial treatment effect estimation in complicated urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Krishan P Singh; Gang Li; Fanny S Mitrani-Gold; Milena Kurtinecz; Jeffrey Wetherington; John F Tomayko; Linda M Mundy
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  High-intensity meropenem combinations with polymyxin B: new strategies to overcome carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii.

Authors:  Justin R Lenhard; Jürgen B Bulitta; Terry D Connell; Natalie King-Lyons; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Soon-Ee Cheah; Visanu Thamlikitkul; Beom Soo Shin; Gauri Rao; Patricia N Holden; Thomas J Walsh; Alan Forrest; Roger L Nation; Jian Li; Brian T Tsuji
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 5.790

Review 3.  Meropenem: a review of its use in patients in intensive care.

Authors:  M Hurst; H M Lamb
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

Authors:  E S Dietrich; B Schubert; W Ebner; F Daschner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Monotherapy with a broad-spectrum beta-lactam is as effective as its combination with an aminoglycoside in treatment of severe generalized peritonitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The Severe Generalized Peritonitis Study Group.

Authors:  H Dupont; C Carbon; J Carlet
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Meropenem. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious infections.

Authors:  S M Holliday; P Benfield
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Prospective, randomised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe nosocomial infections.

Authors:  J Garau; J Blanquer; L Cobo; S Corcia; M Daguerre; F J de Latorre; C León; F Del Nogal; A Net; J Rello
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Clinical pharmacodynamics of meropenem in patients with lower respiratory tract infections.

Authors:  Chonghua Li; Xiaoli Du; Joseph L Kuti; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 9.  Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections.

Authors:  Claudine M Baldwin; Katherine A Lyseng-Williamson; Susan J Keam
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 10.  Safety of imipenem/cilastatin in neurocritical care patients.

Authors:  Jason Hoffman; Jason Trimble; Gretchen M Brophy
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2008-12-31       Impact factor: 3.210

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.