1995•Clinical Infectious DiseasesRequires access

A Multicenter Comparative Study of Meropenem and Imipenem/Cilastatin in the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in Hospitalized Patients

Clair E. Cox, William J. Holloway, Ronald W. Geckler

Open publisher page 54 citations

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were compared in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in a prospective, multicenter, open, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive 500-mg intravenous doses of either meropenem every 8 hours (n = 116) or imipenem/cilastatin every 6 hours (n = 119). Data from 95 patients given meropenem and 82 patients given imipenem/cilastatin were included in the evaluation of efficacy. Meropenem produced satisfactory clinical and bacteriologic responses in 99% and 90% of cases, respectively. These results were similar to those obtained with imipenem/cilastatin, which produced clinical improvement in 99% of cases and bacteriologic improvement in 81%. Two patients given meropenem and five patients given imipenem/cilastatin developed superinfections. The rate of relapse was similar in the two groups. Patients who received meropenem had fewer drug-related adverse reactions than did recipients of imipenem/cilastatin (8% vs. 19%). The results of this study demonstrate that meropenem is a safe and effective alternative to imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated UTIs.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The safety and efficacy of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were compared in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in a prospective, multicenter, open, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive 500-mg intravenous doses of either meropenem every 8 hours (n = 116) or imipenem/cilastatin every 6 hours (n = 119). Data from 95 patients given meropenem and 82 patients given imipenem/cilastatin were included in the evaluation of efficacy. Meropenem produced satisfactory clinical and bacteriologic responses in 99% and 90% of cases, respectively. These results were similar to those obtained with imipenem/cilastatin, which produced clinical improvement in 99% of cases and bacteriologic improvement in 81%. Two patients given meropenem and five patients given imipenem/cilastatin developed superinfections. The rate of relapse was similar in the two groups. Patients who received meropenem had fewer drug-related adverse reactions than did recipients of imipenem/cilastatin (8% vs. 19%). The results of this study demonstrate that meropenem is a safe and effective alternative to imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated UTIs.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 54 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The safety and efficacy of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were compared in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in a prospective, multicenter, open, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive 500-mg intravenous doses of either meropenem every 8 hours (n = 116) or imipenem/cilastatin every 6 hours (n = 119). Data from 95 patients given meropenem and 82 patients given imipenem/cilastatin were included in the evaluation of efficacy. Meropenem produced satisfactory clinical and bacteriologic responses in 99% and 90% of cases, respectively. These results were similar to those obtained with imipenem/cilastatin, which produced clinical improvement in 99% of cases and bacteriologic improvement in 81%. Two patients given meropenem and five patients given imipenem/cilastatin developed superinfections. The rate of relapse was similar in the two groups. Patients who received meropenem had fewer drug-related adverse reactions than did recipients of imipenem/cilastatin (8% vs. 19%). The results of this study demonstrate that meropenem is a safe and effective alternative to imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated UTIs.

Key concepts: Meropenem, Cilastatin, Imipenem/cilastatin, Imipenem, Medicine, Internal medicine, Urinary system, Clinical trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Multicenter Comparative Study of Meropenem and Imipenem/Cilastatin in the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in Hospitalized Patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens