Meropenem Versus Imipenem-Cilastatin for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparative Study
Background: Meropenem, a broad-spectrum carbapenem with potent in vitro activity, is postulated to be an effective monotherapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). Methods: This multicenter, international, double-blind, randomized, prospective study of hospita...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical infections 2005-09, Vol.6 (3), p.269-282 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background:
Meropenem, a broad-spectrum carbapenem with potent in vitro activity, is postulated
to be an effective monotherapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure
infections (cSSSI).
Methods:
This multicenter, international, double-blind, randomized, prospective study of
hospitalized patients with cSSSI evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of meropenem
(500 mg IV q8h) versus imipenem-cilastatin (500 mg IV q8h). The primary efficacy endpoint
was clinical outcome at follow-up in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat
populations (MITT; patients who met eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of
study drug). The study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority (delta of 10%, 95% confidence
intervals) in clinical response in the CE population. Clinical responses for all pathogens at
follow-up were assessed in the fully evaluable population (CE population with baseline
pathogen and follow-up cultures).
Results:
In total, 1,076 patients were enrolled. Of these, 692 patients comprised the MITT
population (334 and 358 patients randomized to meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin, respectively)
and 548 the CE population (261 and 287 patients randomized to meropenem and
imipenem-cilastatin, respectively). Cure rates were 86.2% (meropenem) and 82.9% (imipenemcilastatin;
95% CI, -2.8, 9.3) in the CE population and 73.1% (meropenem) and 74.9%
(imipenem-cilastatin; 95% CI, -8.4, 4.7) in the MITT population. The frequencies of adverse
events and drug-related adverse events were similar between treatment groups.
Conclusion:
In one of the largest studies conducted to date of hospitalized patients with
cSSSI, meropenem, 500 mg IV q8h had comparable safety and efficacy to imipenem-cilastatin,
500 mg IV q8h. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1096-2964 1557-8674 |
DOI: | 10.1089/sur.2005.6.269 |