These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of sepsis in Chinese patients.
    Author: Kuo BI, Fung CP, Liu CY.
    Journal: Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei); 2000 May; 63(5):361-7. PubMed ID: 10862445.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Meropenem and imipenem are beta-lactam antibiotics of the carbapenem group. Carbapenems have bactericidal activity against a broad spectrum of bacteria, including most gram-positive cocci, gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes. Experience in using meropenem in Chinese patients has not been previously reported. METHODS: Meropenem (2 g daily) and imipenem/cilastatin (2 g daily) were compared in an open, randomized, prospective study on the treatment of hospitalized Chinese septic patients. All participants (male or female) were hospitalized with a diagnosis of sepsis. All patients were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups: the meropenem group or the imipenem/cilastatin group. Clinical status was evaluated daily during treatment and at the end of therapy or when treatment was withdrawn. Patients were checked every day for potential side-effects, according to subjective and objective symptoms. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled in the study; 50 were evaluated for clinical efficacy and 27 patients were evaluated for bacteriologic efficacy. The most frequent clinical diagnoses were pneumonia and urinary tract infection. The predominant pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae. There were 31 pathogens isolated from 27 patients. A single pathogen was identified in 23 patients, and two pathogens were isolated from four patients. Satisfactory clinical outcome (excellent and good) was 84% in the meropenem group and 76% in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Satisfactory bacteriologic response was 80% in the meropenem group and 75% in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Transiently elevated liver enzymes were the most common side-effect. One patient treated with imipenem/cilastatin experienced a seizure during the study, while another patient treated with meropenem withdrew due to urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety data presented in this report indicate that meropenem was well tolerated and appeared to be as effective as standard monotherapy with imipenem in bacteremic patients. Meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were highly effective for the treatment of bacteremia in Chinese patients and only mild or negligible side-effects were noted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]