A prospective, multi centre, randomized clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin - Sulbactam 3 days in the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infection. (T.E.A. Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-sulbactam)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The recommendations outlined in the latest guidelines published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) regarding the proper duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with intra-abdominal infections are limited and non-specific. This ambiguity is due mainly to the lack of clinical trials on the topic of optimal duration of therapy. It is well known that the overuse of antibiotics has several important consequences such as increased treatment costs, reduced clinical efficacy, and above all, the increased emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Ampicillin-Sulbactam is a commonly used "first line" antibiotic for intra-abdominal infections. Ertapenem and Ampicillin-sulbactam are recommended as primary treatment agents for localized peritonitis by both the SIS and IDSA guidelines.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a prospective multi-center randomized investigation. The study will be performed in the Departments of General, Emergency, and Transplant Surgery of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy, in the General Surgery Department of the Ospedali Riuniti of Bergamo, Italy, and in the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Department of Maggiore Hospital in Bologna, Italy, and will be conducted by all surgeons willing to participate in the study. The inclusion period of the study will take approximately two years before the planned number of 142 enrolled patients is reached.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Ertapenem and Ampicillin-sulbactam are recommended both as primary treatment agents for localized peritonitis by both the SIS and IDSA guidelines. As one of the discussed topic is the optimal duration of the antibiotic therapy and this ambiguity is due mainly to the lack of clinical trials on the topic, the present study aims for obtain precise data.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00630513">NCT00630513</a></p

Meropenem versus imipenem-cilastatin in intraabdominal infections requiring surgery

In a multicentre, open, randomised study, the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 h, infusion or bolus) was compared with that of intravenous imipenem/cilastatin (1 g every 8 h, infusion) in 232 hospitalised patients with moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections. At the end of therapy, a satisfactory clinical response (cure or improvement) was seen in 79/82 (96%) evaluable meropenem patients and 83/88 (94%) imipenem/cilastatin patients; this was still seen at follow-up (57/63; 90% and 58/66; 88%, respectively). A satisfactory bacteriological response (elimination or presumed elimination) was seen in 69/82 (84%) meropenem patients and 71/88 (81%) imipenem/cilastatin patients at the end of therapy and in 52/62 (84%) and 55/70 (79%), respectively, at follow-up, There was a high level of clinical cure or improvement(95% for both treatment groups) in the 120 patients (60 in each group) who had polymicrobial infections. &lt;p&gt;A similar incidence of adverse events was seen in each group: 45/116 patients in the meropenem group (72 events) and 42/116 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin group (65 events); the adverse event profiles were also similar, with injection site inflammation and elevated transaminases the most frequent in both groups. The results of this study indicate that monotherapy with meropenem was as effective and as well tolerated as the combination of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections