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: A randomized, controlled clinical trial on meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of bacterial infections.
    Author: Hou F, Li J, Wu G, Zheng B, Chen Y, Gu J, Wang H, Huo L, Xue X, Jia C, Yin Y, Tian X, Ren S.
    Journal: Chin Med J (Engl); 2002 Dec; 115(12):1849-54. PubMed ID: 12622937.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of meropenem in Chinese patients, we conducted a study for the treatment of patients with lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and other infections. METHODS: A total of 182 hospitalized patients were enrolled in the study. 90 patients received 500 mg meropenem every 12 hours (or 1 g every 12 hours if necessary) and 92 patients received imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg/500 mg every 12 hours (or 1 g every 12 hours if necessary) by intravenous infusion. The duration of treatment was 7 - 14 days for both groups. RESULTS: Seventy of 90 cases receiving meropenem and 70 of 92 cases receiving imipenem/cilastatin were assessable for clinical efficacy. The overall efficacy rates were 90% for the meropenem group and 87% for the imipenem/cilastatin group, and the bacterial eradication rates were 86% in both groups. 93 (76%) of 123 strains isolated from patients produced beta-lactamases. Adverse drug reactions were evaluated in 72 cases in the meropenem group and 70 cases in the imipenem/cilastatin group. The adverse drug reaction rates were 9.7% and 8.6%, respectively. The results showed that there were no statistical differences between these two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Meropenem is effective and safe for the treatment of bacterial infections caused mainly by beta-lactamase-producing strains.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]