Meropenem versus tobramycin plus clindamycin for treatment of intraabdominal infections: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Development and validation of a UHPLC diode array detector method for meropenem quantification in human plasma

OBJECTIVES

Meropenem is a β-lactam antibiotic frequently used to treat serious infections in intensive care unit patients. The main objective was to develop and validate a sensitive and specific ultra high performance liquid chromatography method with photodiode array detection for the quantitation of meropenem in human plasma. The applicability of the method for meropenem monitoring was also examined.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The validation of the method was performed following the FDA's guidelines for bioanalytical methods. In parallel, the method was applied for monitoring meropenem in forty plasma samples from ten critically ill patients treated intravenously at a total dose of 1 g. Drug levels were measured in each patient at 0 h, 2 h, 4 h and 8 h after meropenem infusion.

RESULTS

With this method, intraday and day-to-day variation was below 10%; intraday and day-to-day accuracy was between 94% and 114%; the limit of quantification was 0.5 μg/mL and recovery was above 70%. The method was successfully applied to quantitate meropenem concentrations and the results showed significant pharmacokinetic interindividual variability. Of special interest is that 50% of treated patients had meropenem plasma levels below the minimum inhibitory concentration at 8h after the start of infusion, which was strongly related to creatinine clearance >60 mL/min.

CONCLUSIONS

The method meets the requirements to be applied for meropenem concentration measurements in pharmacokinetics studies and clinical routine. The results suggest the need for therapeutic drug monitoring of meropenem in treated critically-ill patients.

Imipenem and meropenem: Comparison of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials and adverse effects

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast imipenem and meropenem in terms of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and adverse effects.

DATA SELECTION

MEDLINE search from 1975 to 1997 and follow-up of references.

DATA EXTRACTION

Clinical trials comparing imipenem with meropenem, or either imipenem or meropenem with standard therapy in the treatment of serious infections were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Imipenem, the first carbapenem, was first marketed in 1987; meropenem was introduced to the market in 1996. In general, imipenem is more active against Gram-positive cocci while meropenem is more active against Gram-negative bacilli. The agents display similar pharmacokinetics. Clinical studies in patients with serious infections (intra-abdominal infection, respiratory infection, septicemia, febrile neutropenia) report similar bacteriological and clinical cure rates with imipenem and meropenem. Meropenem is approved for the treatment of bacterial meningitis, whereas imipenem is not. Adverse effects are similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports the use of imipenem at a dose of 500 mg every 6 h and meropenem at 1 g every 8 h for the treatment of severe infections. For the treatment of serious infections, imipenem (500 mg every 6 h or 2 g/day [$98/day]) is more economical than meropenem (1 g every 8 h or 3 g/day [$142/day]) based on acquisition cost.

Antimicrobial therapy of sepsis and septic shock--when are two drugs better than one?

In clinical practice, physicians frequently use combination therapy despite the conflicting evidence for its effectiveness. The results of recent studies have contributed to our understanding of this important issue. In this article, we examine the evidence for, or against, the use of combination drug therapy compared with monotherapy in the management of serious infections, sepsis, and septic shock.

Oral infections and antibiotic therapy

Oral infections commonly originate from an odontogenic source in adults and from tonsil and lymphatic sources in children. Odontogenic infections arise from advanced dental caries or periodontal disease. Oral trauma, radiation injury, chemotherapy mucositis, salivary gland infection, lymph node abscess, and postoperative infection are potential nonodontogenic sources of infections that could potentially be life threatening. This article reviews the serious nature and potential danger that exists from oral infection and the antibiotics available to treat them are reviewed. Successful treatment requires an understanding of the microflora, the regional anatomy, the disease process, the treatment methods available, and interdisciplinary team collaboration.

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.

Meta-analysis: randomized controlled trials of clindamycin/aminoglycoside vs. beta-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections

AIM

To compare the effectiveness and safety of clindamycin/aminoglycoside with broad-spectrum beta-lactam monotherapy in patients with intra-abdominal infections by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The relevant 28 RCTS were retrieved from PubMed searches and reviewed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

beta-lactam monotherapy was more effective regarding cure of the infection than clindamycin/aminoglycoside (3177 clinically evaluable patients, fixed effects model, OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81). The same result was found in several subset analyses. There was no difference in all-cause mortality and attributable-to-infection mortality [2382 intention-to-treat (ITT) patients, fixed effects model, OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.74-2.11 and 1976 ITT patients, OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.59-2.41, respectively]. There was no difference regarding overall adverse events and ototoxicity (1460 ITT patients, OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80-1.37, and 1404 ITT patients, OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 0.72-14.45, respectively). However, treatment with clindamycin/aminoglycoside was more likely to be associated with nephrotoxicity compared to beta-lactam (3065 ITT patients, OR = 3.7, 95% CI: 2.09-6.57). Clindamycin/aminoglycoside was less likely to be associated with antibiotic-associated diarrhoea compared to beta-lactam (3050 ITT patients, OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that beta-lactams are more effective in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections compared with clindamycin/aminoglycoside.

The Surgical Infection Society guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: an executive summary

The Surgical Infection Society last published guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections in 1992 (Bohnen JMA, et al., Arch Surg 1992;127:83-89). Since then, an appreciable body of literature has been published on this subject. Therefore, the Therapeutics Agents Committee of the Society undertook an effort to update the previous guidelines, primarily using data published over the past decade. An additional goal of the Committee was to characterize its recommendations according to contemporary principles of evidence-based medicine. To develop these guidelines, the Committee carried out a systematic search for all English language articles published between 1990 and 2000 related to antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections. This literature was reviewed individually and collectively by the Committee, and categorized according to the type of study and its quality. Additional articles published prior to 1990 were also utilized when necessary. By a process of iterative consensus, the Committee developed provisional guidelines for antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections based on this evidence. Following extensive review by members of the Society, these guidelines were approved for publication in final form by the Council of the Surgical Infection Society. This executive summary delineates the Society's current recommendations for antimicrobial therapy of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Topics discussed include the selection of patients needing therapeutic antimicrobials, duration of antimicrobial therapy, acceptable antimicrobial regimens, and identification and treatment of higher-risk patients. Guidelines for patient selection and specific antimicrobial regimens were based on relatively good evidence, but those regarding optimal duration of therapy and treatment of higher-risk patients relied mostly on expert opinion, since there was a paucity of high-quality studies on those issues. Relevant areas for future investigation include the safety, convenience, and cost-effectiveness of available antimicrobial regimens for lower-risk patients, and better means for identifying and treating higher-risk patients with intra-abdominal infections.

The Surgical Infection Society guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: evidence for the recommendations

Revised guidelines for the use of antimicrobial therapy in patients with intra-abdominal infections were recently developed by the Therapeutic Agents Committee of the Surgical Infection Society (Mazuski et al., Surg Infect 2002;3:161-173). These were based, insofar as possible, on evidence published over the past decade. The objective of this document is to describe the process by which the Committee identified and reviewed the published literature utilized to develop the recommendations and to summarize the results of those reviews. English-language articles published between 1990 and 2000 related to antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections were identified by a systematic MEDLINE search and an examination of references included in recent review articles. If current literature with regard to a specific issue was lacking, relevant articles published prior to 1990 were identified. All prospective randomized controlled trials, as well as other articles selected by the Committee, were evaluated individually and collectively. Data with regard to patient numbers, types of infections, and results of interventions were abstracted. Studies were categorized according to their design, and all included trials were graded according to quality. On the basis of this evidence, the Committee formulated recommendations for antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections and graded those recommendations. After receiving comments from invited reviewers and the general membership of the Society, the guidelines were finalized and submitted to the Council of the Surgical Infection Society for approval. The final recommendations related to the selection of patients needing therapeutic antimicrobials, acceptable antimicrobial regimens, duration of antimicrobial use, and the identification and treatment of higher-risk patients. Although numerous publications pertaining to these topics were identified, but nearly all of the prospective randomized controlled trials represented comparisons of different antimicrobial regimens for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. A few prospective trials evaluated the need for therapeutic antimicrobial therapy in patients with peritoneal contamination following abdominal trauma. The quality of these prospective trials was highly variable. Many did not limit enrollment to patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, lacked blinding of treatment assignment, did not provide a complete description of the criteria used to determine therapeutic success or failure, failed to identify the reasons why patients were excluded from analysis, or did not include an intention-to-treat analysis. For many issues, no prospective randomized controlled trials were encountered, and guidelines had to be formulated using evidence from studies with historical controls or uncontrolled data, or on the basis of expert opinion

[Therapeutic management of peritonitis]

Antibiotherapy is a fundamental for the treatment of peritonitis. It may be used before surgery or as a complementary treatment after. Experimental models have demonstrated that infections are both aerobic and anaerobic. During the first stage, septicemic with a high death rate, the infection is due to enterobacteria, mostly Escherichia coli. Between D5 and D7 in surviving animals, there is a second stage with abscesses due to anaerobic bacteria, mostly Bacteroides fragilis. The antibiotic treatment must include these two types of bacteria in its spectrum. The role of Enterococcus faecalis is not clearly defined, but this bacterium must be taken into account in case of organ failure or associated septic shock. Treatment options for secondary peritonitis may be, according to severity, cefoxitin, an Augmentin + gentamycin combination, Tazocillin, or ertapenem. The reference treatment for nosocomial or tertiary peritonitis is the imipenem + amikacin combination. An antifungal treatment (fluconazole) is usually necessary, at least until the results of peritoneal fluid culture are available. The duration of treatment is quite variable, ranging from 48 h in less severe forms to 14 days.

Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Intra-Abdominal Infections: A Focus on the Carbapenems

BACKGROUND

Serious nosocomial intra-abdominal infections are associated with high morbidity and mortality and represent a substantial drain on healthcare resources. Effective management of this type of infection requires the early use of appropriate, broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobial therapy. The consequences of delayed or inappropriate antimicrobial treatment can be severe-leading to an increased risk of death, re-operation, or prolonged hospitalization. Therefore, it is necessary to begin treatment as soon as possible with the most appropriate regimen, in terms of spectrum, timing, and duration.

METHODS

Review of pertinent English-language literature.

RESULTS

Serious nosocomial intra-abdominal infections require broad-spectrum coverage because of the wide range of possible pathogens, which include difficult-to-treat organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacteroides spp., and resistant strains of Klebsiella spp., Escherichia coli, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquired from the hospital flora. The early use of appropriate, broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobial therapy for treating high-risk patients with intra-abdominal infections is considered, and appropriate use of the carbapenems, meropenem, and imipenem/cilastatin, is described.

CONCLUSION

The carbapenems meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin have a spectrum of antimicrobial activity that covers the majority of expected pathogens, including anaerobes, as well as difficult-to-treat and resistant gram-negative strains. Early and appropriate use can reduce mortality and morbidity. Data from published clinical trials support the clinical effectiveness of these two carbapenems in intra-abdominal infections.

Antibiotic regimens for secondary peritonitis of gastrointestinal origin in adults

BACKGROUND

Secondary peritonitis is associated with a high mortality rate and if not treated successfully leads to development of abscesses, severe sepsis and multi-organ failure. Source control and adjunctive antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment. However, no conclusive evidence suggest that one antibiotic regimen is better than any other but at the same time have a lower toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the efficacy and adverse effects of different antibiotic regimens in treating intra-abdominal infections in adults. Outcomes were divided into primary (clinical success and effectiveness in reducing mortality) and secondary (microbiological success, preventing wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, clinical sepsis, remote infection, superinfection, adverse reactions, duration of treatment required, effectiveness in reducing hospitalised stay, and time to defervescence).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (from 1966 to November 2004), EMBASE (from 1980 to November 2004) and Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register SR-COLOCA. Bibliographies of identified studies were screened for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different antibiotic regimens in the treatment of secondary peritonitis in adults were selected. Trials reporting gynaecological or traumatic peritonitis were excluded from this review. Ambiguity regarding suitability of trials were discussed among the review team.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data collection was standardised using data collection form to ensure uniformity among reviewers. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes, or weight mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourty studies with 5094 patients met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen different comparative antibiotic regimens were reported. All antibiotics showed equivocal comparability in terms of clinical success. Mortality did not differ between the regimens. Despite the potential high toxicity profile of regimens using aminoglycosides, this was not demonstrated in this review. The reason for this could be the inherent bias within clinical trials in the form of patient selection and stringency in monitoring drug levels.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No specific recommendations can be made for the first line treatment of secondary peritonitis in adults with antibiotics, as all regimens showed equivocal efficacy. Other factors such as local guidelines and preferences, ease of administration, costs and availability must therefore be taken into consideration in deciding the antibiotic regimen of choice. Future trials should attempt to stratify patients and perform intention-to-treat analysis to allow better external validity.

Aminoglycosides for intra-abdominal infection: equal to the challenge?

BACKGROUND

Aminoglycosides, combined with antianaerobic agents, have been used widely for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. However, some prospective randomized controlled trials and other data suggested that aminoglycosides were less efficacious than newer comparators for the treatment of these infections. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of all prospective randomized controlled trials utilizing aminoglycosides to reevaluate the efficacy of these agents for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

METHODS

Published English-language prospective randomized controlled trials comparing aminoglycosides with other agents for treatment of intra-abdominal infection were identified by MEDLINE search. For each study, data were collected regarding the number of patients enrolled and evaluated, their basic demographic characteristics, the sources of the intra-abdominal infections, the number of failures as determined by the study investigators, quality score, and the use of serum drug concentrations to monitor aminoglycoside therapy. These data were combined to calculate odds ratios for risk of therapeutic failure, which were assessed for significance using Chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven prospective randomized controlled trials comparing aminoglycosides to other agents were identified. These were published between 1981 and 2000, and included a total of 5,182 evaluable patients. Analysis of all studies combined revealed an odds ratio that slightly, but significantly, favored the comparators. After excluding six trials using comparators that lacked accepted antianaerobic efficacy, the odds ratio more strongly favored comparators. Trials published since 1990 also notably favored comparators. Analyzing results by quality score or the use of aminoglycoside monitoring did not alter these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, aminoglycosides were less efficacious than newer comparators for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. Given the well-known toxicities of these agents, we conclude that they should not be used as first-line therapy for these infections.

Recent developments in carbapenems

Carbapenems are beta-lactam antibiotics characterised by the presence of a beta-lactam ring with a carbon instead of sulfone in the 4-position of the thyazolidinic moiety. The first carbapenem to be utilised in therapy was imipenem, the N-formimidoyl derivative of thienamycin. Imipenem is coadministered with cilastatin, an inhibitor of human renal dehydropeptidase I, as imipenem is hydrolysed by this enzyme. Meropenem was the first carbapenem with a 1-beta-methyl group and 2-thio pyrrolidinyl moiety, which renders this antibiotic stable to renal dehydropeptidase I. Other carbapenems for parenteral administration later discovered include biapenem, panipenem, ertapenem, lenapenem, E-1010, S-4661 and BMS-181139. Carbapenems which are orally administered include sanfetrinem, DZ-2640, CS-834 and GV-129606. Carbapenems have an ultra-broad spectrum of antibacterial activity and stability to almost all clinically relevant beta-lactamases. This differentiates them from all other currently available classes of beta-lactam antibiotics. However, Class B beta-lactamases, along with some rare Class A and D enzymes, are able to hydrolyse these antibiotics. Although Class B enzymes are generally chromosomally-encoded (isolated from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Aeromonas spp., Bacillus cereus, Bacteroides fragilis, Flavobacterium spp. and Legionella gormanii), plasmid-metallo-beta-lactamases now are appearing in B. fragilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and members of Enterobacteriaceae such as Serratia marcescens and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The number of these enzymes compared to the number of other beta-lactamase types is still low, however, it is likely that they will spread due to the increased selective pressure of carbapenem use. The very broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity associated with a good clinical efficacy and a favourable safety profile makes the carbapenems valuable as 'first-line' antibiotics in initial empirical therapy for the treatment of severe infections.

Convalescent phase outpatient parenteral antiinfective therapy for children with complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Children with a perforated or gangrenous appendix become clinically stable after medical and/or surgical therapy but often remain in the hospital solely to complete parenteral antibiotic therapy. This prospective study investigates the outcomes when children who meet specified criteria are discharged to complete parenteral antibiotic therapy at home.

METHODS

Children age 1 to 17 years with appendicitis complicated by generalized peritonitis or intraabdominal abscess were eligible to participate. Subjects whose fever was decreasing, who were able to tolerate oral liquids and for whom further parenteral antibiotic therapy was deemed necessary were discharged from the hospital to receive outpatient parenteral antiinfective therapy (OPAT) with meropenem. Therapy was administered by a family member and supervised by home care nurses. Study personnel visited the home daily to collect data on adverse events, compliance and resource utilization. Pa tients served as their own controls in models of reduced hospitalization and net cost savings.

RESULTS

Discharged on average on the fourth postoperative day, 87 children received 4.5 +/- 2.1 days of OPAT. Six (7%) children were subsequently readmitted for complications including bowel obstruction (4 children), intraabdominal abscess (1 child) and pleural effusion (1 child). Another child developed a viral syndrome during OPAT. All other patients recovered uneventfully. Six (7%) children discontinued meropenem prematurely because of rash (4 patients) or diarrhea (2 patients). According to models in which each day of OPAT replaced a day of inpatient care, discharge to OPAT reduced hospitalization by 42 +/- 15% and saved a median of $2908 (10th to 90th percentile range, $1,077 to $4,707) per patient.

CONCLUSION

Convalescent phase OPAT is a cost-effective alternative to continued hospitalization for children with complicated appendicitis who are clinically stable yet require further parenteral antibiotic therapy.

Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost, efficacy and cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

DESIGN

The analysis was retrospective and based on a decision tree. Effectiveness data were obtained from 19 published clinical trials. Direct costs were quantified per patient from the time the decision was made to administer the antibacterial to the end of the first course of treatment or the end of a subsequent course of treatment, if required. The primary end-point was the cost per successfully treated patient. The cost per life saved was also analysed. Various follow-up times were taken into account.

PERSPECTIVE

German National Health Insurance funds.

STUDY POPULATION

1744 patients with intra-abdominal infection.

INTERVENTIONS

Tazobactam/piperacillin (total daily dosage of 13.5 g/day) and imipenem/cilastatin (total daily dosage of 1.5 to 4 g/day). The mean duration of treatment varied from 5.5 to 8.2 days for tazobactam/piperacillin and 5 to 9.4 days for imipenem/cilastatin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS

Compared with imipenem/cilastatin, treatment with tazobactam/piperacillin was more effective and the overall treatment costs were lower. In the base-case analysis, the cost-efficacy ratio (cost per successfully treated patient) was 7881 German deutschmarks (DM) for tazobactam/piperacillin and DM11,390 for imipenem/cilastatin. The incremental cost-efficacy ratio (per life saved) varied between -DM72,567 and -DM350,738 for tazobactam/piperacillin. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were robust against various assumptions on cost parameters, clinical outcomes and length of treatment. All costs reflect 1998 values; $US1 = DM1.85.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tazobactam/piperacillin is more cost efficacious in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections and that it offers a cost advantage through fewer relapses and lower daily therapeutic costs.

Meropenem: an updated review of its use in the management of intra-abdominal infections

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of activity which encompasses gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. Like other carbapenems, meropenem is stable against chromosomal and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. In patients with moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections, empirical monotherapy with meropenem achieved clinical response rates ranging from 91 to 100% in 7 randomised comparative trials. Efficacy rates were similar to those of imipenem/cilastatin (94 to 97%), clindamycin plus tobramycin (93%) and, overall, to cefotaxime plus metronidazole (75 to 100%), although there were differences between trials versus this combination regimen. According to limited data, meropenem also achieved clinical response rates of over 80% in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. Meropenem is well tolerated, the most common adverse events being diarrhoea, rash, nausea/vomiting and inflammation at the injection site which are reported in <2.5% of patients each. Meropenem also has an improved CNS tolerability profile compared with imipenem/cilastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive comparative clinical data demonstrate that meropenem can be used effectively as empirical monotherapy in moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections. It also shows potential in the most severe forms of infection, although experience in this infection type remains limited. Compared with standard combination regimens, meropenem offers the benefits of ease of administration without the need for monitoring. It also offers improved CNS tolerability compared with imipenem/cilastatin with the option of a higher maximum dosage, which may be a particular advantage in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections.

Comparison of intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) ciprofloxacin plus IV metronidazole (CIP+MET) with that of IV piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) in adults with complicated intraabdominal infections, and to compare the efficacy of sequential IV-to-oral CIP+MET therapy with that of the IV CIP-only regimen.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Treatment of intraabdominal infections remains a challenge, mainly because of their polymicrobial etiology and attendant death and complications. Antimicrobial regimens using sequential IV-to-oral therapy may reduce the length of hospital stay.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving 459 patients, clinically improved IV-treated patients were switched to oral therapy after 48 hours. Overall clinical response was the primary efficacy measurement.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients (151 CIP+MET, 131 PIP/TAZO) were valid for efficacy. Of these patients, 64% CIP+MET and 57% PIP/TAZO patients were considered candidates for oral therapy. Patients had a mean APACHE II score of 9.6. The most common diagnoses were appendicitis (33%), other intraabdominal infection (29%), and abscess (25%). Overall clinical resolution rates were statistically superior for CIP+MET (74%) compared with PIP/TAZO (63%). Corresponding rates in the subgroup suitable for oral therapy were 85% for CIP+MET and 70% for PIP/TAZO. Postsurgical wound infection rates were significantly lower in CIP+MET (11%) versus PIP/TAZO patients (19%). Mean length of stay was 14 days for CIP+MET and 17 days for PIP/TAZO patients.

CONCLUSION

CIP+MET, initially administered IV and followed by CIP+MET oral therapy, was clinically more effective than IV PIP/TAZO for the treatment of patients with complicated intraabdominal infections.

Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empirical monotherapy for serious bacterial infections in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin as empirical monotherapy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with serious bacterial infections.

METHODS

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial was conducted in Belgium, evaluating empirical monotherapy with meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin (both 1 g/8 h intravenously) in ICU patients with one or more of the following infections caused by sensitive pathogens: lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in ventilated patients, intra-abdominal infection or sepsis.

RESULTS

The overall satisfactory clinical response rate at the end of randomized treatment was 77.0% (67/87) with meropenem and 68.1% (62/91) with imipenem/cilastatin (difference 8.9%; 95% confidence interval -4.2% to 21.9%; P = 0.185). The two drugs produced similar satisfactory clinical response rates against LRTIs: 68.3% (41/60) with meropenem versus 68.6% (35/51) with imipenem/cilastatin. Meropenem appeared to be slightly more effective against intra-abdominal infections: 95.5% (21/22) versus 76.7% (23/30), respectively. All five meropenem recipients with sepsis had a satisfactory clinical response, compared to 40.0% (4/10) of those who received imipenem/cilastatin. The overall satisfactory bacteriologic response rate was 67.1% (49/73) with meropenem and 60.3% (44/73) with imipenem/cilastatin (difference 6.9%; 95% confidence interval -8.7% to 22.4%; P = 0.389). The predominant pathogens were Escherichia coli, Enterobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. No incidences of drug-related nausea and vomiting were reported, but one probable drug-related seizure occurred in the imipenem/cilastatin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Meropenem is at least as efficacious (clinically and bacteriologically) as imipenem/cilastatin for the empirical monotherapy of serious bacterial infections in ICU patients, and it can therefore be considered a useful option in this setting. Moreover, meropenem is well tolerated and offers several potential advantages, including greater in vitro activity against Gram-negative pathogens and the option of bolus administration.

Meropenem: clinical response in relation to in vitro susceptibility

OBJECTIVE

To collate the clinical response and pathogen eradication rates for meropenem monotherapy with in vitro susceptibility of the causative pathogens.

METHODS

Data were compiled from 17 randomized clinical studies that compared meropenem monotherapy with standard treatment options, often combinations. A total of 4906 pathogens from lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal, obstetric/gynecological, skin/soft tissue, meningitis, or pediatric infections were assessed. Of these, 3713 pathogens (1963 meropenem, 1750 comparators) were evaluable.

RESULTS

The overall rates of satisfactory clinical response (cure or improvement) and pathogen eradication (eradication or presumed eradication) at the end of therapy were similar with meropenem (93% for both responses) and the comparators (92%), as were the rates in each infection type. For each pathogen, the clinical response and eradication rates with meropenem were similar across the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) range of < or = 0.25 to 4 mg/L. Overall, a satisfactory clinical response occurred in 93% (1580 of 1708) of infections caused by nonfastidious pathogens with MICs < or = 4 mg/L and in 84% (16 of 19) of those with an MIC of 8 mg/L. Pathogen eradication rates were similar (93 and 79%, respectively). A similar profile was observed for fastidious pathogens. The high rates of satisfactory clinical response and pathogen eradication produced by meropenem in each type of infection were generally independent of the causative pathogen, whether Gram-positive or -negative aerobe or anaerobe or when occurring as mono- or polymicrobial infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The attractive in vitro profile of meropenem translates into good clinical efficacy. The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards has now defined meropenem MIC breakpoints for nonfastidious aerobes or anaerobes as < or = 4 (susceptible), 8 (intermediate) and > or = 16 mg/L (resistant), respectively. The susceptibility breakpoint for Streptococcus spp. (excluding Streptococcus pneumoniae) is < or = 0.5 mg/L and, since meropenem is indicated for the treatment of meningitis, the susceptibility breakpoint for S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae is < or = 0.25 and < or = 0.5 mg/L, respectively. Meropenem monotherapy is therefore a valid option for the initial empirical treatment of a range of serious infections caused by single or multiple bacterial pathogens.

New advances in the use of antimicrobial agents in surgery: intra-abdominal infections

Advances in both technical methods and antimicrobial therapy have significantly reduced morbidity and mortality for secondary (enterogenous) or community-acquired intra-abdominal infections. Presumptive antimicrobial therapy for most community-acquired intra-abdominal infection can be safely initiated with a single broad-spectrum antimicrobial effective against the expected Enterobacteriaceae and anaerobic flora. Beta-lactams and carbapenems are effective against gram-negative rods and anaerobes, achieve therapeutic levels rapidly, and have low toxicity in the absence of penicillin allergy. Second generation cephalosporins (e.g. cefoxitin and cefotetan) remain useful in surgical prophylaxis and treatment of mild community-acquired pneumonia, but limitations in their spectra and antimicrobial resistance restrict their utility in more serious infections. The fourth generation cephalosporins are also effective, but should be combined with other antimicrobials such as metronidazole for adequate anaerobic coverage. Preliminary data on new fluoroquinolones are scant, but promising results were obtained in one clinical trial. We predict the current trend toward the use of broad-spectrum single agent antimicrobials for therapy of intra-abdominal infection will continue.

Carbapenems and monobactams: imipenem, meropenem, and aztreonam

Imipenem and meropenem, members of the carbapenem class of beta-lactam antibiotics, are among the most broadly active antibiotics available for systemic use in humans. They are active against streptococci, methicillin-sensitive staphylococci, Neisseria, Haemophilus, anaerobes, and the common aerobic gram-negative nosocomial pathogens including Pseudomonas. Resistance to imipenem and meropenem may emerge during treatment of P. aeruginosa infections, as has occurred with other beta-lactam agents; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is typically resistant to both imipenem and meropenem. Like the penicillins, the carbapenems have inhibitory activity against enterococci. In general, the in vitro activity of imipenem against aerobic gram-positive cocci is somewhat greater than that of meropenem, whereas the in vitro activity of meropenem against aerobic gram-negative bacilli is somewhat greater than that of imipenem. Daily dosages may range from 0.5 to 1 g every 6 to 8 hours in patients with normal renal function; the daily dose of meropenem, however, can be safely increased to 6 g. Infusion-related nausea and vomiting, as well as seizures, which have been the main toxic effects of imipenem, occur no more frequently during treatment with meropenem than during treatment with other beta-lactam antibiotics. The carbapenems should be considered for treatment of mixed bacterial infections and aerobic gram-negative bacteria that are not susceptible to other beta-lactam agents. Indiscriminate use of these drugs will promote resistance to them. Aztreonam, the first marketed monobactam, has activity against most aerobic gram-negative bacilli including P. aeruginosa. The drug is not nephrotoxic, is weakly immunogenic, and has not been associated with disorders of coagulation. Aztreonam may be administered intramuscularly or intravenously; the primary route of elimination is urinary excretion. In patients with normal renal function, the recommended dosing interval is every 8 hours. Patients with renal impairment require dosage adjustment. Aztreonam is used primarily as an alternative to aminoglycosides and for the treatment of aerobic gram-negative infections. It is often used in combination therapy for mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections. Approved indications for its use include infections of the urinary tract or lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal and gynecologic infections, septicemia, and cutaneous infections caused by susceptible organisms. Concurrent initial therapy with other antimicrobial agents is recommended before the causative organism has been determined in patients who are seriously ill or at risk for gram-positive or anaerobic infection.

Monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections

During the last decade improved clinical and microbiological methods have resulted in the realization that most intraabdominal infections involve both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Papers on the use of different antimicrobial agents directed against the polymicrobial flora of the infected site have been published. In this paper the use of monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections is reviewed. The review is based on data published since 1990. Three hundred forty-four patients participated in three trials where aztreonam combined with clindamycin was compared with other antimicrobial agents for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-six percent of the patients receiving aztreonam plus clindamycin were cured/improved, while 83% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs had favorable outcomes. Eleven trials compared imipenem/cilastatin versus other antimicrobial combinations for therapy of intraabdominal infections. One thousand three hundred seventy-five patients were evaluated in the trials. Eighty percent of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin had favorable outcomes, while 81% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs were cured/improved. Nine studies including 1,205 patients for evaluation of meropenem versus other antimicrobial agents in the treatment of intraabdominal infections have been published. Cure/improvement was seen in 96% of the patients treated with meropenem and in 91% receiving the comparative drugs. One trial has been published comparing biapenem with imipenem/cilastatin for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-three patients participated, 65% of the patients in the biapenem group were cured/improved and 68% in the imipenem/cilastatin group.

Carbapenems in clinical practice: a guide to their use in serious infection

Meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin, currently the only available carbapenem agents in Europe and the United States, are characterised by a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity and stability to beta-lactamase-mediated resistance mechanisms. A guide to the use of carbapenems in clinical practice is presented; the role of carbapenems in the treatment of several types of serious bacterial infection and an up-to-date account of their clinical efficacy and safety profiles are discussed. The good clinical efficacy and favourable safety profiles of the carbapenems make them valuable as initial empirical therapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis of unknown origin, post-operative peritonitis, paediatric meningitis, and febrile neutropenia. However, to maintain superior efficacy, the carbapenems should be used appropriately for definitive therapy.

Meropenem (1.5 g/day) is as effective as imipenem/cilastatin (2 g/day) for the treatment of moderately severe intra-abdominal infections

This multicentre, open-label, randomised trial compared meropenem (0.5 g/8 h) and imipenem/cilastatin (at the commonly used dosage of 0.5 g/6 h) in monotherapy in patients with moderately severe intra-abdominal infections (IAIs). In total, 161 patients were randomised (82 meropenem, 79 imipenem/cilastatin). The mean APACHE II scores in the two groups were 5.8 and 6.4, respectively. At the end of therapy, 65/71 (91.6%) evaluable meropenem recipients were clinically cured or improved, compared to 60/64 (93.8%) imipenem/cilastatin recipients. This difference and that in an intention-to-treat analysis (82.1 vs 86.1%, respectively), were not statistically significant. Both drugs were generally well tolerated. Thus, meropenem 0.5 g/8 h is as clinically effective and well tolerated as imipenem/cilastatin 0.5 g/6 h in moderately severe IAIs.

Operative and nonoperative therapy of intraabdominal infections

The basic principles for treating intraabdominal infections are fourfold: (1) to obliterate the infectious source; (2) to purge bacteria and toxins; (3) to maintain organ system function and (4) to tame the inflammatory process. Operative and nonoperative treatment options are available. Operative therapy includes different strategies: (1) the standard operation; (2) advanced procedures to decompress the abdominal compartment syndrome and (3) percutaneous drainage of abscesses. Nonoperative management includes: (1) antibiotic therapy; (2) hemodynamic and pulmonary support; (3) nutrition and metabolic support; (4) detoxification support (including support of renal and hepatic function) and (5) inflammation modulating therapy. Standard operative management addresses the first two principles and has been shown to reduce mortality by more than 50%. A recent extensive series of studies reports mortality rates around 20%. Patients with an abdominal compartment syndrome (intraabdominal pressure over 25 torr) and patients with advanced disease and compounding risk factors best documented by high APACHE-II scores are candidates for more advanced operations. The mortality rate following abdominostomy (leaving the abdomen open) in 869 patients participating in 37 studies was 42%, when the abdomen was simply left open for decompression (open abdominostomy). When a mesh was used to cover the abdominal wound (mesh abdominostomy) 39% of 439 patients enrolled in 12 studies died. Patients who underwent staged abdominal repair (STAR abdominostomy) faired better. Of 385 patients in 11 studies 28% died. Data from antibiotic studies as well as from immunomodulating therapy are nonconclusive at this point with respect to reducing mortality in intraabdominal infection.

Primary and secondary peritonitis: an update

Intraabdominal infections are commonly encountered in clinical practice and represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The most common etiology is contamination of the peritoneal space by endogenous microflora secondary to loss of integrity of the gastrointestinal tract which results in secondary peritonitis. Primary peritonitis or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is less common and usually occurs in the presence of ascites without an evident source of infection. Peritonitis associated with chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis is not discussed in this review. This review summarizes the significant progress which has been made with regard to primary and secondary peritonitis in the last two decades. The review emphasizes the issues of etiology, pathogenesis, microbiology, diagnosis, medical treatment and prevention.

Meropenem in elderly and renally impaired patients

The safety profile of meropenem in the elderly (aged > 65 years, n=843) and/or renally impaired (creatinine clearance < 51 ml/min, n=436) was assessed by evaluating data from 26 phase III studies which compared the use of meropenem (0.5 or 1.0 g, i.v. every 8 h) with other antimicrobial agents in patients with bacterial infections. The overall pattern and frequency of adverse events following meropenem therapy in the elderly and/or renally impaired were similar to those in younger and/or non-renally impaired cohorts and to imipenem/cilastatin and injectable third generation cephalosporins. Both dosages of meropenem (0.5 and 1.0 g, i.v. every 8 h) were generally well tolerated. There was no clinically significant mean change in indicators of renal flux between baseline and the end of treatment in any patient sub-group. Importantly, meropenem-related seizures were rare (0.1%), even in patients with renal impairment. In summary, meropenem has an excellent safety profile and is therefore suitable for use in elderly and/or renally impaired patients.

Meropenem versus cefuroxime plus gentamicin for treatment of serious infections in elderly patients

In this multicenter study, the efficacy of and tolerability for meropenem were compared with those for the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (+/- metronidazole) for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in patients > or = 65 years of age. A total of 79 patients were randomized; thirty-nine received meropenem (1 g/8 h), and 40 received cefuroxime (1.5 g/8 h) plus gentamicin (4 mg/kg of body weight daily) for 5 to 10 days. Metronidazole (500 mg/6 h) could be added to the cefuroxime-gentamicin regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (n = 10). Seventy patients were evaluable for clinical efficacy; the primary diagnoses were as follows: pneumonia in 41 patients (20 treated with meropenem, 21 treated with cefuroxime-gentamicin), intra-abdominal infection in 10 patients (7 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin-metronidazole), urinary tract infection (UTI) in 11 patients (6 meropenem, 5 cefuroxime-gentamicin), sepsis syndrome in 7 patients (4 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin), and "other" in 1 patient (cefuroxime-gentamicin). The pathogens isolated from 18 patients with bacteremia were as follows: Staphylococcus spp. (n = 2), Streptococcus spp. (n = 2), members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (n = 11), and Bacteroides spp. (n = 3). A satisfactory clinical response at the end of therapy was achieved in 26 of 37 (70%) and 24 of 33 (73%) evaluable patients treated with meropenem and combination therapy, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 23 of 31 (74%) and 21 of 28 (75%) evaluable patients with infections other than UTIs, respectively. A satisfactory microbiological response occurred in 15 of 22 (68%) patients in the meropenem group compared with 12 of 19 (63%) treated with combination therapy. Renal failure occurred during therapy in 2 of 39 (5%) meropenem recipients compared with 5 of 40 (13%) of those treated with combination therapy. The findings in this small study indicate that meropenem is as efficacious for and as well tolerated by elderly patients as the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (+/- metronidazole).

Imipenem/cilastatin (1.5 g daily) versus meropenem (3.0 g daily) in patients with intra-abdominal infections: results of a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial

An open-label prospective, randomized, parallel multicentre study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of 1.5 g/day intravenous imipenem/cilastatin with 3 g/day intravenous meropenem in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. A total of 287 patients were enrolled: 201 patients, divided between the 2 treatment groups, were evaluable. Clinical outcome, bacteriological outcome, untoward microbiological effects, and clinical and laboratory adverse experiences were evaluated. 98% of patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin therapy were cured, with 96% showing eradication of infection. 95% of those on meropenem were cured, with 98% showing eradication. These differences in clinical and bacteriological outcome between the 2 treatments were not statistically significant. Two patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin and 5 receiving meropenem had untoward microbiological effects. There was a 0.7% frequency (1/139 patients) of possibly or probably drug-related clinical or laboratory adverse experiences with imipenem/cilastatin and a 2.7% frequency (4/148) with meropenem. The mean time to defervescence was significantly less for patients in the imipenem/cilastatin treatment group than for those receiving meropenem. This study shows that 1.5 g/day of imipenem/cilastatin is equivalent to 3.0 g/day meropenem in clinical and bacteriological outcome, as well as in incidence of side effects.

Antibiotics for the acute abdomen

Antibiotics are only an adjunct to proper surgical therapy for the treatment of the acute abdomen associated with bacterial secondary peritonitis. Upon presentation, all patients require a preoperative dose of antibiotics for prophylaxis against infection of remaining sterile tissues. Patients found intraoperatively to have an established peritoneal infection benefit from an immediate postoperative course of therapeutic antibiotics. A regimen that adequately covers facultative and aerobic gram-negative bacilli and anaerobic organisms is essential. The duration of therapeutic antibiotics is probably best decided on an individual patient basis. The goal of antibiotics is to reduce the concentration of bacteria invading tissues. The pathogens of bacterial peritonitis are influenced by such factors as the patient's pre-existing chronic diseases, state of acute physiologic debilitation, immunocompetence, recent antibiotic use, recent hospitalization, and neutralization of gastric acidity. Intraoperative peritoneal cultures are most useful in patients suspected of having impaired local host defenses. In these patients, all identified organisms, such as Enterococcus or Candida, may be potential pathogens. The common practice of administering empiric and prolonged courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients who manifest persistent signs of inflammation may be more harmful than beneficial. These patients warrant an exhaustive search for extra-abdominal and intraperitoneal sources of new infection. Otherwise, such use of antibiotics may continue to promote the selection of bacteria that are highly resistant to conventional antibiotics and permit the overgrowth of organisms commonly seen with tertiary peritonitis. The best chance of resolving bacterial peritonitis is through early, aggressive surgical management complemented by short courses of potent antibiotics and appropriate physiologic support. Through these efforts, the clinician tries to help the systemic inflammatory response to benefit the host and not become unregulated, result in MOFS, and produce a high mortality.

Prospective, randomised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe nosocomial infections

The clinical and bacteriological efficacy and the tolerability of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin (both 1 g t.i.d.) in severe nosocomial infections were compared in a multicentre, randomised, nonblinded study. A total of 151 patients were recruited; 133 (66 meropenem, 67 imipenem/cilastatin) were clinically evaluable and 84 (42 meropenem, 42 imipenem/cilastatin) bacteriologically evaluable. Most clinically evaluable patients (90%) were in intensive care units, required mechanical ventilation (72%), and had received previous antibiotic therapy (62%). The mean (+/- SD) APACHE II score was 15.2 (+/- 6.6) in the meropenem group and 17.8 (+/- 6.8) in the imipenem/cilastatin group. The primary infections were nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (56% of patients), intra-abdominal infections (15%), septicaemia (21%), skin/skin structure infections (5%), and complicated urinary tract infections (3%); 35% of the patients had two or more infections. There was no significant difference between the meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin groups in the rates of satisfactory clinical (weighted percentage 87% vs. 74%) or bacteriological (weighted percentage 79% vs. 71%) response. There was a slightly higher rate of clinical success with meropenem against primary or secondary lower respiratory tract infection (89% vs. 76%). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 17% and 15% of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin patients, respectively. Meropenem (1 g t.i.d.) was as efficacious as the same dose of imipenem/cilastatin in this setting, and both drugs were well tolerated.

Meta-analysis of the clinical outcome of carbapenem monotherapy in the adjunctive treatment of intra-abdominal infections

BACKGROUND

The carbapenems, a class of beta-lactam antimicrobials with efficacy against both aerobic and anaerobic organisms, have demonstrated potential as monotherapeutic regimens in the treatment of serious intra-abdominal infections. Clinical trials have been conducted in the past decade to compare carbapenem monotherapy versus combinations of antibiotic therapy. We report here a meta-analysis of 10 such trials.

DATA SOURCES

An 11-year Medline search (from 1985 through 1996) of the English-language literature identified clinical trials that compared the outcomes of carbapenem monotherapy, either imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem, versus another antibiotic regimen in intra-abdominal infections in human subjects. Ten randomized, prospective trials were found, with a total of 1,227 clinically evaluable patients. A meta-analysis of these clinical trials was performed to determine the difference in clinical outcomes between carbapenem monotherapy versus other antibiotic regimens. We found a difference in response rates of -1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] -5.7% to 2.5%) and a response ratio of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.09), indicating no statistical significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

A meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials from 1985 through 1996 has revealed no statistical significant difference in clinical response between carbapenem monotherapy and combinations of antibiotic therapy in intra-abdominal infections. We noted, however, that the earlier studies reported more favorable response ratios for carbapenems than later publications. This may have been due to the selection of less effective comparators in earlier studies. We conclude that carbapenem monotherapy is as effective as combinations of antimicrobials for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

Antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection

Timely and appropriate antimicrobial therapy is an essential component of the management of intraabdominal infection. Over the past three decades, our ability to treat these infections optimally has been enhanced by an increased understanding of the underlying microbial pathogens, by the development of new antimicrobial agents, and by the completion of several well-controlled clinical trials that guide treatment. This article provides an overview of the approach to antimicrobial therapy in patients with intraabdominal infection. A literature review was performed to collect the information used in this article. Data were derived from experimental and clinical studies evaluating the microbiology and treatment of intraabdominal infections. Evidence from both animal studies and clinical trials supports the initiation of empiric antimicrobial therapy directed against Escherichia coli and other common members of the family Enterobacteriaceae, as well as the anaerobe Bacteroides fragilis. Based on this premise, the clinician is faced with a broad selection of possible single agents, as well as combinations of agents that fulfill these criteria. The factors involved in selecting a specific regimen include consideration of the antimicrobial spectrum of various agents, experimental animal studies evaluating their efficacy, and, importantly, efficacy in well-designed clinical trials. In addition, consideration of safety profiles, pharmacokinetics, and cost of specific pharmaceutical agents should be made when selecting a regimen. Antimicrobial therapy is an important component of the management of intraabdominal infection. The results of well-designed clinical trials evaluating various aspects of therapy should serve to guide treatment.