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: Treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections with meropenem: comparison with imipenem/cilastatin.
    Author: Maggioni P, Di Stefano F, Facchini V, Irato S, Mancuso S, Colombo M, Massobrio M, Melis GB, Crosignani P.
    Journal: J Chemother; 1998 Apr; 10(2):114-21. PubMed ID: 9603636.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and bacteriologic efficacy of meropenem with imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections. This was a controlled, multicenter, randomized study with two parallel groups and a follow-up period of up to 4 weeks. A total of 105 hospital in-patients requiring antibacterial parenteral therapy were enrolled, 52 in the meropenem group and 53 in the imipenem/cilastatin group. Both drugs were administered at 0.5 g every 8 hours, by slow intravenous infusion over 20-30 minutes; for meropenem the administration by intravenous bolus injection (over approximately 5 minutes) was allowed. The mean duration of therapy was 5 days for both treatments. At the end of treatment, all 46 evaluable patients in the meropenem treatment group had a satisfactory clinical response, while in the imipenem/cilastatin group 5/49 patients were clinical failures. The difference between the treatment groups in clinical response was statistically significant (100% vs 89.8%; p=.026). A similar result was seen in the intention-to-treat analysis (98% vs 84.6%; p=0.017). Both treatments were well tolerated, but fewer meropenem patients experienced treatment-related adverse events in comparison with imipenem/cilastatin (11.5% vs 15.1%).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]