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
- 1 September 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Mary Ann Liebert Inc in Surgical Infections
- Vol. 6 (3), 269-282
- https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2005.6.269
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bacteraemia in Europe—antimicrobial susceptibility data from the MYSTIC surveillance programmeInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2004
- Newer Treatment Options for Skin and Soft Tissue InfectionsDrugs, 2004
- Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision pointsJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2003
- Susceptibility of multi-drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care units: results from the European MYSTIC study groupClinical Microbiology & Infection, 2003
- Pharmacokinetic Profile of Meropenem, Administered at 500 Milligrams Every 8 Hours, in Plasma and Cantharidin-Induced Skin Blister FluidAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2003
- A Practical Guide to the Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue InfectionsDrugs, 2003
- National Survey on the Susceptibility ofBacteroides fragilisGroup: Report and Analysis of Trends for 1997–2000Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2002
- MeropenemDrugs, 2000
- Innovative strategies for prevention and treatment of septic shock (Joint symposium with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine)Clinical Microbiology & Infection, 1997
- Meropenem Versus Imipenem/Cilastatin in the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With Skin and Soft Tissue InfectionsSouthern Medical Journal, 1995