Systematic review comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections.

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

Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Carbapenems have not been comprehensively compared in clinical trials with fourth-generation cephalosporins (4GC) and antipseudomonal penicillins (APP) in the treatment of severe infections (SI) and febrile neutropenia (FN). A systematic review of CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and JICST-EPlus for randomised controlled trials was conducted to establish the currently available evidence. Database searching was supplemented by hand searching and contacting conference organisers. Searching was completed in November 2006 and no restriction was placed on the language of publication. Data were extracted on clinical response, bacteriologic response, all-cause mortality and adverse events. Of the 265 papers identified, 12 were appropriate for meta-analysis (four 4GC and eight APP). The results showed that carbapenems are associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.95; p=0.03) compared to APP in the treatment of SI, and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96; p=0.03) are also less common. When compared in the treatment of FN, carbapenems are associated with a significant increase in clinical response during the initial 72 h of treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.74; p=0.008) and bacteriologic response (RR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.89; p=0.04). For all other outcomes, including all comparisons with 4GC, there were no significant differences between treatments. The use of carbapenems rather than APP could reduce mortality and, by simplifying treatment decisions, reduce the time before patients receive appropriate antibiotic treatment. The currently available evidence is insufficient for distinguishing between carbapenems and 4GC