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

Abstract

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.

Update on the Efficacy and Tolerability of Meropenem in the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Infections

“…In a pivotal trial of the use of meropenem in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections, its efficacy was shown to be similar to that of imipenem/cilastatin [14]. This large, double-blind, multicenter, international trial included patients (у13 years of age;…”

“…In these populations, cure rates with meropenem were 86.2% and 73.1%, respectively, and cure rates with imipenem/cilastatin were 82.9% and 74.9%, respectively; thus, meropenem was established as statistically noninferior to imipenem/cilastatin. The meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin treatment groups also were similar with regard to clinical response at the end-of-treatment assessment (93.5% and 92.3%, respectively, of the clinically evaluable population and 91.0% and 91.1%, respectively, of the eligible patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug); mean duration of therapy (5.8 and 6.0 days, respectively); proportion of patients who were switched to oral antibiotic therapy (48% and 51%, respectively); and requirement for surgical intervention (27% and 25%, respectively) [14].…”

“…The results of all these trials support the conclusion that the efficacy of meropenem is similar to that of imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, empirical therapy with Same as [14] Same as [14] Cure rate (at follow- [18,19]. However, even though both treatments showed activity in a subpopulation of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, too few patients were included in the trial for comparisons to be made between groups [18,19].…”

Comparison of probability of target attainment calculated by Monte Carlo simulation with meropenem clinical and microbiological response for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections

“…The bacteriology data and subsequent CR and MR used in this analysis were extrapolated from a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, comparative study of meropenem 500 mg every 8 h (q8h) and imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg q8h for the treatment of hospitalised patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections [7]. Briefly, this clinical trial included hospitalised patients aged >13 years with evidence of complicated skin and skin structure bacterial infections (including complicated cellulitis, complex abscesses, perirectal abscesses, surgical and traumatic wound infections, infected diabetic and ischaemic ulcers, and other significant bacterial skin infections that required hospitalisation, surgical intervention and parenteral antibiotic therapy).…”

Linezolid for the treatment of diabetic foot infections

“…Newer generation fluoroquinolones, such as moxifloxacin, are active against S. aureus; however, the use of some of these newer fluoroquinolones are not reliable against MRSA and can even select for MRSA. Newer carbapenems, such as meropenem and ertapenem, have a broad spectrum of activity against antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms that produce β-lactamases, as well as Gram-positive, Gram-negative and anaerobic microorganisms; however, they have no activity against MRSA [17,18].…”