Carbapenems: Myths and Reality | CMAC

Carbapenems: Myths and Reality

Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2003; 5(2):126-143

​ Bereznyakov I.G.
carbapenems imipenem meropenem clinical trials pharmacoeconomics
Section
Antimicrobials
Type
Journal article
Publication
Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2003; 5(2):126-143

Abstract

This paper presents analysis of microbiological, clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies of carbapenems. Use of carbapenems during the last two decades was not associated with emergence of resistance to these agents among clinically significant human pathogens, except for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clinical efficacy of carbapenems in patients with different infections is similar to and often higher than those of other comparative antimicrobials and their combinations. In spite of expensiveness of carbapenems, pharmacoeconomic studies have demonstrated advantages of these drugs over the number of cheaper conventional antibiotics. Taking into consideration that inadequate empirical antimicrobial treatment is associated with significant increase in mortality, particularly in patients with serious infections, carbapenems are no longer considered as second line antimicrobials. The main ways to improve use of carbapenems are de-escalation therapy and optimal dosing of these antimicrobials.

  • 1. Ожегов С.И. Словарь русского языка. 22-е изд. М.:Рус. яз; 1990. с. 357.
  • 2. Norrby S.R., Eriksson M., Ottosson E. Imipenem/cilas-tatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin: a cost-effective-ness study. Scand J Infect Dis 1986;18:371-4.
  • 3. Kreter B. Cost-analysis of imipenem–cilastatinmonotherapy compared with clindamycin + aminoglyco-side combination therapy for treatment of serious lowerrespiratory, intra-abdominal, gynecologic, and urinarytract infections. Clin Ther 1992;14:110-21.
  • 4. Levy E., Levy P. [Contribution of imipenem/cilastatin inthe treatment of peritonitis: a comparative economicanalysis in the case of France]. J Chir (Paris)1993;130:200-9.
  • 5. de Lissovoy G., Elixhauser A., Luce B.R., et al. Costanalysis of imipenem–cilastatin versus clindamycin withtobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominalinfection. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:203-14.
  • 6. Jhee S.S., Gill M.A., Yellin A.E., et al. Pharmaco-economics of piperacillin/tazobactam and imipe-nem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Clin Ther 1995;17:126-35.
  • 7. Group Study. Comparative study of the cost/effective-ness relationship of initial therapy with imipenem/cilas-tatin in nosocomial pneumonia. Anasthesiol IntensivmedNotfallmed Schmerzther 1996;31:172-80.
  • 8. McKinnon P.S., Paladino J.A., Grayson M.L., Gib-bons G.W., Karchmer A.W. Cost-effectiveness of ampi-cillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treat-ment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabeticpatients. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:57-63.
  • 9. Marra F., Reynolds R., Stiver G., et al. Piperacil-lin/tazobactam versus imipenem: a double-blind, ran-domized formulary feasibility study at a major teachinghospital. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;31:355-68.
  • 10. Rodolff A., Kujath P., Lunstedt Gaus W. [Comparativestudy of the cost-effectiveness of initial therapy withimipenem/cilastatin in secondary peritonitis]. Chirurg1998;69:1093-100.
  • 11. Marra F.O., Frighetto L.O., Marra C.A., et al. Cost-mini-mization analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versusimipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of serious infec-tions: a Canadian hospital perspective. AnnPharmacother 1999;33:156-62.
  • 12. Walters D.J., Solomkin J.S., Paladino J.A. Cost effective-ness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipe-nem–cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infec-tions. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;16(5 Pt 2):551-61.
  • 13. Badia X., Brosa M., Tellado J.M. [Evidence-based medi-cine, health costs and treatment of intra-abdominal in-fection]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1999;17 (Sup-pl 2):86-94.
  • 14. Воробьев П.А., Авксентьева М.В. Сравнительнаяфармакоэкономическая оценка применения цефепима(максипима) и имипенема/циластатина (тиенама).Инфекции и антимикроб тер 2000;2:139-53.
  • 15. Dietrich E.S., Schubert B., Ebner W., Daschner F. Costefficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipe-nem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infec-tion. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:79-94.
  • 16. Niinikoski J., Havia T., Alhava E., et al. Piperacil-lin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treat-ment of intra-abdominal infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet1993;176:255-61.
  • 17. Solomkin J.S., Reinhart H.H., Dellinger E.P., et al. Re-sults of a randomized trial comparing sequential intra-venous/oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metro-nidazole to imipenem/cilastatin for intra-abdominalinfections. The Intra-Abdominal Infection Study Group.Ann Surg 1996;223:303-15.
  • 18. Gonzenbach H.R., Simmen H.P., Amgwerd R. Imipenem(N-F-thienamycin) versus netilmicin plus clindamycin.A controlled and randomized comparison in intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 1987;205:271-5.
  • 19. Solomkin J.S., Dellinger E.P., Christou N.V., Busut-til R.W. Results of a multicenter trial comparing imipe-nem/cilastatin to tobramycin/clindamycin for intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 1990;212:581-91.
  • 20. Eckhauser F.E., Knol J.A., Raper S.E., Mulholland M.W.,Helzerman P. Efficacy of two comparative antibioticregimens in the treatment of serious intra-abdominalinfections: results of a multicenter study. Clin Ther1992;14:97-109.
  • 21. Uhari M., Seppanen J., Heikkinen E. Imipenem–cila-statin vs. tobramycin and metronidazole for appendici-tis-related infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992;11:445-50.
  • 22. De Groot H.G., Hustinx P.A., Lampe A.S., Ooster-wijk W.M. Comparison of imipenem/cilastatin with thecombination of aztreonam and clindamycin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. J AntimicrobChemother 1993;32:491-500.
  • 23. Angeras M.H., Darle N., Hamnstrom K., et al. A compa-rison of imipenem/cilastatin with the combination ofcefuroxime and metronidazole in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Scand J Infect Dis 1996;28:513-8.
  • 24. Barie P.S., Vogel S.B., Dellinger E.P., et al. A randomi-zed, double-blind clinical trial comparing cefepime plusmetronidazole with imipenem–cilastatin in the treat-ment of complicated intra-abdominal infections.Cefepime Intra-abdominal Infection Study Group. ArchSurg 1997;132:1294-302.
  • 25. Brismar B., Malmborg A.S., Tunevall G., et al.Piperacillin–tazobactam versus imipenem–cilastatin fortreatment of intra-abdominal infections. AntimicrobAgents Chemother 1992;36:2766-73.
  • 26. Jaccard C., Troillet N., Harbarth S., et al. Prospectiverandomized comparison of imipenem–cilastatin andpiperacillin–tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia orperitonitis.AntimicrobAgentsChemother1998;42:2966-72.
  • 27. Allo M.D., Bennion R.S., Kathir K., et al.Ticarcillin/clavulanate versus imipenem/cilastatin forthe treatment of infections associated with gangrenousand perforated appendicitis. Am Surg 1999;65:99-104.
  • 28. Donahue P.E., Smith D.L., Yellin A.E., et al.Trovafloxacin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infec-tions: results of a double-blind, multicenter comparisonwith imipenem/cilastatin. Trovafloxacin Surgical Group.Am J Surg 1998;176(Suppl 6A):53S-61S.
  • 29. Solomkin J.S., Wilson S.E., Christou N.V., et al. Resultsof a clinical trial of clinafloxacin versus imipenem/cilas-tatin for intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg2001;233:79-87.
  • 30. Brismar B., Akerlund J.E., Sjostedt S., et al. Biapenemversus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of compli-cated intra-abdominal infections: report from a SwedishStudy Group. Scand J Infect Dis 1996;28:507-12.
  • 31. Holzheimer R.G., Dralle H. Antibiotic therapy in intra-abdominal infections – a review on randomised clinicaltrials. Eur J Med Res 2001;6:277-91.
  • 32. Liang R., Yung R., Chiu E., et al. Ceftazidime versusimipenem–cilastatin as initial monotherapy for febrileneutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1990;34:1336-41.
  • 33. Rolston K.V., Berkey P., Bodey G.P., et al. A comparisonof imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin asempiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. ArchIntern Med 1992;152:283-91.
  • 34. Freifeld A.G., Walsh T., Marshall D., et al. Monotherapyfor fever and neutropenia in cancer patients: a rando-mized comparison of ceftazidime versus imipenem. J ClinOncol 1995;13:165-76.
  • 35. Aparicio J., Oltra A., Llorca C., et al. Randomised com-parison of ceftazidime and imipenem as initial monothe-rapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients.Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:1739-43.
  • 36. Bucaneve G., Menichetti F., Minotti V., et al. Ceftri-axone versus imipenem/cilastatin as empirical monothe-rapy for infections in cancer patients. Chemotherapy1989;35(Suppl 2):10-5.
  • 37. Biron P., Fuhrmann C., Cure H., et al. Cefepime versusimipenem–cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in 400febrile patients with short duration neutropenia. CEMIC(Study Group of Infectious Diseases in Cancer). JAntimicrob Chemother 1998;42:511-8.
  • 38. Mortimer J., Miller S., Black D., Kwok K., Kirby W.M.Comparison of cefoperazone and mezlocillin with imipe-nem as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic cancerpatients. Am J Med 1988;85(1A):17-20.
  • 39. Winston D.J., Ho W.G., Bruckner D.A., Gale R.P.,Champlin R.E. Controlled trials of double beta-lactamtherapy with cefoperazone plus piperacillin in febrilegranulocytopenic patients. Am J Med 1988;85(1A):21-30.
  • 40. Winston D.J., Ho W.G., Bruckner D.A., Champlin R.E.Beta-lactam antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocy-topenic patients. A randomized trial comparing cefopera-zone plus piperacillin, ceftazidime plus piperacillin, andimipenem alone. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:849-59.
  • 41. Bohme A., Just-Nubling G., Bergmann L., et al. A ran-domized study of imipenem compared to cefotaxime pluspiperacillin as initial therapy of infections in granulocy-topenic patients. Infection 1995;23:349-55.
  • 42. Norrby S.R., Vandercam B., Louie T., et al.Imipenem/cilastatin versus amikacin plus piperacillin inthe treatment of infections in neutropenic patients: aprospective, randomized multi-clinic study. Scand JInfect Dis Suppl 1987;52:65-78.
  • 43. Vandercam B., Ezzeddine H., Agaliotis D., et al.Imipenem/cilastatin versus piperacillin plus amikacin asempiric therapy in the treatment of febrile episodes inneutropenic patients with haematologic malignancies.Acta Clin Belg 1989;44:99-109.
  • 44. Matsui K., Masuda N., Takada M., Kusunoki Y., FukuokaM. A randomized trial comparing imipenem/cilastatinealone with latamoxef plus tobramycin in febrile neu-tropenic patients with lung cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol1991;21:428-34.
  • 45. Cornelissen J.J., de Graeff A., Verdonck L.F., et al.Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with eithercefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrileneutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1992;36:801-7.
  • 46. Leyland M.J., Bayston K.F., Cohen J., et al. A compara-tive study of imipenem versus piperacillin plus genta-micin in the initial management of febrile neutropenicpatients with haematological malignancies. J AntimicrobChemother 1992;30:843-54.
  • 47. Miller J.A., Butler T., Beveridge R.A., et al. Efficacy andtolerability of imipenem–cilastatin versus ceftazidimeplus tobramycin as empiric therapy of presumed bacteri-al infection in neutropenic cancer patients. Clin Ther1993;15:486-99.
  • 48. Erjavec Z., de Vries-Hospers H.G., van Kamp H., et al.Comparison of imipenem versus cefuroxime plustobramycin as empirical therapy for febrile granulocy-topenic patients and efficacy of vancomycin and aztreonam in case of failure. Scand J Infect Dis 1994;26:585-95.
  • 49. Au F., Tow A., Allen D., Ang P. Randomised study com-paring imipenem/cilastatin to ceftriaxone plus genta-micin in cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenicfever. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994;23:819-22.
  • 50. Perez C., Sirham M., Labarca J., et al. [Imipenem/cilas-tatin versus ceftazidime–amikacin in the treatment offebrile neutropenic patients]. Rev Med Chil1995;123:312-20.
  • 51. Riikonen P. Imipenem compared with ceftazidime plusvancomycin as initial therapy for fever in neutropenicchildren with cancer. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991;10:918-23.
  • 52. Bosseray A., Nicolini F., Brion J.P., et al. [Evaluation ofthree types of empirical antibiotherapy in patients withfebrile neutropenia: imipenem–cilastatin versus cef-tazidime–vancomycin versus ticarcillin–amikacin–van-comycin]. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1992;40:797-804.
  • 53. Winston D.J., Bartoni K., Bruckner D.A., Schiller G.J.,Territo M.C. Randomized comparison of sulbactam/ce-foperazone with imipenem as empirical monotherapy forfebrile granulocytopenic patients. Clin Infect Dis1998;26:576-83.
  • 54. Winston D.J., Lazarus H.M., Beveridge R.A., et al.Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparingclinafloxacin with imipenem as empirical monotherapyfor febrile granulocytopenic patients. Clin Infect Dis2001;32:381-90.
  • 55. Deaney N.B., Tate H. A meta-analysis of clinical studiesof imipenem–cilastatin for empirically treating febrileneutropenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother1996;37:975-86.
  • 56. Kojima A., Shinkai T., Soejima Y., et al. A randomizedprospective study of imipenem–cilastatin with or with-out amikacin as an empirical antibiotic treatment forfebrile neutropenic patients. Am J Clin Oncol1994;17:400-4.
  • 57. Raad I.I., Whimbey E.E., Rolston K.V., et al. A compa-rison of aztreonam plus vancomycin and imipenem plusvancomycin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic can-cer patients. Cancer 1996;77:1386-94.
  • 58. Laszlo D., Bacci S., Bosi A., et al. Randomized trial com-paring netilmicin plus imipenem–cilastatin versusnetilmicin plus ceftazidime as empiric therapy for febrileneutropenic bone marrow transplant recipients. JChemother 1997;9:95-101.
  • 59. Ho A., Leung R., Lai C.K., Chan T.H., Chan C.H.Hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneu-monia in Hong Kong: a randomized study comparingimipenem/cilastatin and ceftazidime. Respiration1997;64:224-8.
  • 60. Giamarellou H., Mandragos K., Bechrakis P., et al.Pefloxacin versus imipenem in the therapy of nosocomiallung infections of intensive care unit patients. JAntimicrob Chemother 1990;26(Suppl B):117-27.
  • 61. Fink M.P., Snydman D.R., Niederman M.S., et al.Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients:results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trialcomparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipe-nem–cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994;38:547-57.
  • 62. Torres A., Bauer T.T., Leon-Gil C., et al. Treatment ofsevere nosocomial pneumonia: a prospective randomisedcomparison of intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipe-nem/cilastatin. Thorax 2000;55:1033-9.
  • 63. Marier R.L., McCloskey R.V., Dickenson G., et al.Comparative clinical trial of imipenem–cilastatin(N-formimidoyl-thienamycin-dehydropeptidase inhi-bitor) and cefazolin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1983;12(Suppl D):133-9.
  • 64. Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin fortreatment of serious bacterial infections. Report from aScandinavian Study Group. Lancet 1984;1(8382):868-71.
  • 65. Calandra G.B., Hesney M., Grad C. A multiclinic ran-domized study of the comparative efficacy, safety and to-lerance of imipenem/cilastatin and moxalactam. Eur JClin Microbiol 1984;3:478-87.
  • 66. Solomkin J.S., Fant W.K., Rivera J.O., Alexander J.W.Randomized trial of imipenem/cilastatin versus genta-micin and clindamycin in mixed flora infections. Am JMed 1985;78(6A):85-91.
  • 67. Imipenem/cilastatin as monotherapy in severe infections:comparison with cefotaxime in combination withmetronidazole and cloxacillin. Report from a NorwegianStudy Group. Scand J Infect Dis 1987;19:667-75.
  • 68. Lode H., Wiley R., Hoffken G., Wagner J., Borner K.Prospective randomized controlled study ofciprofloxacin versus imipenem–cilastatin in severe clini-cal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1987;31:1491-6.
  • 69. Hackford A.W., Tally F.P., Reinhold R.B., Barza M.,Gorbach S.L. Prospective study comparingimipenem–cilastatin with clindamycin and gentamicinfor the treatment of serious surgical infections. Arch Surg1988;123:322-6.
  • 70. Mouton Y., Deboscker Y., Bazin C., et al. [Prospective,randomized, controlled study of imipenem–cilastatinversus cefotaxime-amikacin in the treatment of lower res-piratory tract infection and septicemia at intensive careunits]. Presse Med 1990;19:607-12.
  • 71. Larsen J.W., Gabel-Hughes K., Kreter B. Efficacy andtolerability of imipenem–cilastatin versus clindamycin +gentamicin for serious pelvic infections. Clin Ther1992;14:90-6.
  • 72. Randomized multicenter clinical trial with imipe-nem/cilastatin versus cefotaxime/gentamicin in thetreatment of patients with non-life-threatening infec-tions. German and Austrian Imipenem/Cilastatin StudyGroup. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992;11:683-92.
  • 73. Sakata Y., Sawada Y., Kuroe K., et al. [A randomized con-trolled study on imipenem/cilastatin sodium in compari-son to aztreonam + lincomycin in treating severe infec-tions in patients with malignant tumors or hematologicaldiseases]. Jpn J Antibiot 1992;45:1009-15.
  • 74. Cakmakci M., Stern A., Schilling J., et al. Randomizedcomparative trial of imipenem/cilastatin versus aminoglycoside plus amoxicillin plus clindamycin in the treat-ment of severe intra- and post-operative infections.Drugs Exp Clin Res 1993;19:223-7.
  • 75. Norrby S.R., Finch R.G., Glauser M. Monotherapy inserious hospital-acquired infections: a clinical trial of cef-tazidime versus imipenem/cilastatin. European StudyGroup. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993;31:927-37.
  • 76. Grayson M.L., Gibbons G.W., Habershaw G.M., et al.Use of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatinin the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections indiabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18:683-93.
  • 77. Cometta A., Baumgartner J.D., Lew D., et al. Prospectiverandomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy withimipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infec-tions in nonneutropenic patients. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 1994;38:1309-13.
  • 78. Geddes A., Thaler M., Schonwald S., et al. Levofloxacinin the empirical treatment of patients with suspectedbacteraemia/sepsis: comparison with imipenem/cilas-tatin in an open, randomized trial. J AntimicrobChemother 1999;44:799-810.
  • 79. Naber K.G., Savov O., Salmen H.C. Piperacillin2g/tazobactam 0,5 g is as effective as imipenem 0,5 g / cilas-tatin 0,5 g for the treatment of acute uncomplicatedpyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections.Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002;19:95-103.
  • 80. Bassi C., Falconi M., Talamini G., et al. Controlled cli-nical trial of pefloxacin versus imipenem in severe acutepancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1513-7.
  • 81. Страчунский Л.С. Профиль чувствительности про-блемных микроорганизмов в отделениях реанимациии интенсивной терапии. Consilium Medicum (экстра-выпуск) 2002;6-9.
  • 82. Haley R.W., Bregman D.A. The role of understaffing andovercrowding in recurrent outbreaks of staphylococcalinfection in a neonatal special-care unit. J Infect Dis1982;145:875-85.
  • 83. McGowan J.E. Jr., Tenover F.C. Control of antimicrobialresistance in the health care system. Infect Dis ClinNorth Am 1997;11:297-311.
  • 84. Pittet D., Mourouga P., Perneger T.V. Compliance withhand washing in a teaching hospital: infection controlprogram. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:126-30.
  • 85. Richards M.J., Edwards J.R., Culver D.H., Gaynes R.P.Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units inthe United States. National Nosocomial InfectionsSurveillance System. Crit Care Med 1999;27:887-92.
  • 86. Kollef M.H. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment: animportant determinant of outcome for hospitalizedpatients. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31(Suppl 4):S131-8.
  • 87. Garcia-Rodriguez J.-A., Jones R.N., and the MYSTICprogramme study group. Antimicrobial resistance ingram-negative isolates from European intensive careunits: data from the meropenem yearly susceptibility testinformation collection (MYSTIC) programme. JChemother 2002;14:25-32.
  • 88. Jones R.N., Pfaller M.A., and the MYSTIC Study Group.Antimicrobial activity of selected agents against strainsofEscherichia coli,Klebsiellaspp. andProteus mirabiliswith resistance phenotypes consistent with an extendedspectrum beta-lactamase: report from the MYSTIC pro-gramme in Europe (1997–2000). Clin Microbiol Infect2001;7(Suppl 1):P438.
  • 89. Pfaller M.A., Jones R.N., and the MYSTIC Study Group.Antimicrobial susceptibility of inducible AmpC beta-lac-tamase producing Gram-negative bacilli from theEuropean Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility TestInformation Collection (MYSTIC) programme,1997–2000. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7 (Suppl1):P439.
  • 90. Fluit A.C., Verhoef J., Schmitz F.-J., and the EuropeanSENTRY Participants. Antimicrobial Resistance inEuropean Isolates ofPseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur J ClinMicrobiol Infect Dis 2000;19:370-4.
  • 91. Kollef M.H., Sherman G., Ward S., Frazer V.J.Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections: a riskfactor for hospital mortality among critically ill patients.Chest 1999;115:462-74.
  • 92. Alvarez-Lerma F. Modification of empiric antibiotictreatment in patients with pneumonia acquired in theintensive care unit. ICU-Acquired Pneumonia StudyGroup. Intensive Care Med 1996;22:387-94.
  • 93. Luna C.M., Vujacich P., Niederman M.S., et al. Impact ofBAL data on the therapy and outcome of ventilator-asso-ciated pneumonia. Chest 1997;111:676-85.
  • 94. Rello J., Gallego M., Mariscal D., Sonora R., Valles J. Thevalue of routine microbial investigation in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997;156:196-200.
  • 95. Kollef M.H., Ward S. The influence of mini-BAL cultureson patient outcomes: implications for the antibiotic ma-nagement of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest1998;113:412-20.
  • 96. Leibovici L., Shraga I., Drucker M., et al. The benefit ofappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patientswith bloodstream infection. J Intern Med 1998;244:379-86.
  • 97. Ibrahim E.H., Sherman G., Ward S., Frazer V.J., Kol-lef M.H. The influence of inadequate antimicrobial treat-ment of bloodstream infections on patient outcomes inthe ICU setting. Chest 2000;118:146-55.
  • 98. Pfaller M.A., Jones R.N. A review of thein vitroactivityof meropenem and comparative antimicrobial agentstested against 30 254 aerobic and anaerobic pathogensisolated worldwide. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis1997;28:157-63.
  • 99. Drusano G.L. Strategies for maximising power, minimi-sing resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7(Sup-pl 1):S89.
  • 100. Birnbaum J., Kahan F.M., Kropp H., MacDonald J.S.Carbapenems, a new class of beta-lactam antibiotics.Discovery and development of imipenem/cilastatin. AmJ Med 1985;78:3-21.
  • 101. Gruss E., Tomas J.F., Bernis C., et al. Nephroprotectiveeffect of cilastatin in allogeneic bone marrow transplan-tation. Results from a retrospective analysis. BoneMarrow Transplant 1996;18:761-5.
  • 102. Norrby S.R. Neurotoxicity of carbapenem antibiotics: consequences for their use in bacterial meningitis. JAntimicrob Chemother 2000;45:5-7.
  • 103. Карпов О.И., Зайцев А.А., Ушкалова Е.А. Примене-ние антиинфекционных препаратов при беременнос-ти и кормлении грудью. В кн.: Страчунский Л.С., Бе-лоусов Ю.Б., Козлов С.Н. Практическое руководствопо антиинфекционной химиотерапии. Москва: Бор-гес; 2002. С.340-53.
  • 104. Kanellakopoulou K., Giamarellou H., Papadothoma-kos P., et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin inthe treatment of intraabdominal infections requiringsurgery. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993;12:449-53.
  • 105. Brismar B., Malmborg A.S., Tunevall G., et al. Mero-penem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment ofintra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother1995;35:139-48.
  • 106. Geroulanos S.J., Meropenem Study Group. Meropenemversus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdomonal infec-tions requiring surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother1995;36(Suppl A):191-205.
  • 107. Tonelli F. [Meropenem (Merrem) vs imipenem/cilas-tatin in hospital treatment of intra-abdominal infections.A multicenter study]. Minerva Chir 1997;52:317-26.
  • 108. Basoli A., Meli E.Z., Mazzocchi P., Speranza V. Imi-penem/cilastatin (1,5 g daily) versus meropenem (3,0 gdaily) in patients with intra-abdominal infections:results of a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial.Scand J Infect Dis 1997;29:503-8.
  • 109. Zanetti G., Harbarth S.J., Trampuz A., et al. Meropenem(1,5 g/day) is as effective as imipenem/cilastatin(2 g/day) for the treatment of moderately severe intra-abdominal infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999;11:107-13.
  • 110. Shah P.M., Heller A., Fuhr H.G., et al. Empiricalmonotherapy with meropenem versus imipenem/cilas-tatin for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.Infection 1996;24:480-4.
  • 111. Hamacher J., Vogel F., Lichey J., et al. Treatment ofacute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pul-monary disease in hospitalised patients – a comparisonof meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. COPD StudyGroup. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36(Suppl A):121-33.
  • 112. Bartoloni A., Strohmeyer M., Corti G., et al. Multi-center randomized trial comparing meropenem (1,5 gdaily) and imipenem/cilastatin (2 g daily) in the hospi-tal treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. DrugsExp Clin Res 1999;25:243-52.
  • 113. Hou F., Wu G., Zheng B. [A randomized, controlledclinical trial of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin inthe treatment of acute bacterial infections]. ZhonghuaNei Ke Za Zhi 2001;40:589-93.
  • 114. Nichols R.L., Smith J.W., Geckler R.W., Wilson S.E.Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treat-ment of hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissueinfections. South Med J 1995;88:397-404.
  • 115. Cox C.E., Holloway W.J., Geckler R.W. A multicentercomparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilas-tatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infec-tions in hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:86-92.
  • 116. Colardyn F., Faulkner K.L., Meropenem SeriousInfection Study Group. Intravenous meropenem versusimipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of serious bacteri-al infections in hospitalized patients. J AntimicrobChemother 1996;38:523-37.
  • 117. Hartenauer U., Kljucar S., Bender H.-J., et al.Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treat-ment of serious bacterial infections at ICU. AntiinfectDrugs Chemother 1997;15:65-70.
  • 118. Garau J., Blanquer J., Cobo L., et al. Prospective, ran-domised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipe-nem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe noso-comial infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis1997;16:789-96.
  • 119. Maggioni P., Di Stefano F., Facchini V., et al. Treatmentof obstetric and gynecologic infections with meropenem:comparison with imipenem/cilastatin. J Chemother1998;10:114-21.
  • 120. Verwaest C., Belgian Multicenter Study Group.Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiricalmonotherapy for serious bacterial infections in theintensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000;6:294-302.
  • 121. Marquina M.C., Giráldez J., Idoate A. [The pharma-coeconomics of meropenem versus imipenem/cilas-tatin]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1997;15(Sup-pl 1):45-50.
  • 122. Plumridge R.J. Cost analysis of infusion versus injectiondelivery of imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem. ClinDrug Invest 1997;14:132-6.
  • 123. Smyth E.T.M., Barr J.G., Hogg G.M. An assessment ofhidden costs on total prescribing cost of courses ofmeropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. Br J Med Econ1996;10:325-40.
  • 124. Attanasio E., Russo P., Carunchio G., Basoli A., Carpi-no L. Cost-effectiveness study of imipenem/cilastatinversus meropenem in intra-abdominal infections. DigSurg 2000;17:164-72.
Views
0 Abstract
0 PDF
0 Crossref citations
Shared