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: Systematic review comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections.
    Author: Edwards SJ, Emmas CE, Campbell HE.
    Journal: Curr Med Res Opin; 2005 May; 21(5):785-94. PubMed ID: 15969878.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for abstracts and papers. All searching was completed in March 2004. No restriction was placed on language. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of adult patients with severe infections treated with meropenem or imipenem plus cilastatin at an equal dose, on a gram-for-gram basis, and with the same dosing regimen. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed papers against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and for methodological quality with differences in opinion adjudicated by a third party. Data were extracted on clinical response, bacteriologic response, mortality and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 27 trials met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were carried out using a Fixed Effects model. Results demonstrated that when compared to imipenem plus cilastatin, meropenem is associated with a significantly greater clinical response (Relative Risk 1.04; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.01-1.06), a significantly greater bacteriologic response (RR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01-1.08), a non-significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.71-1.35), and a significantly lower adverse event rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that meropenem compared to imipenem plus cilastatin has a significantly greater clinical and bacteriologic response with a significant reduction in adverse events. There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias and the analyses were robust to changes in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and use of a Random Effects model.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]