Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bacterial infections

Abstract

A multicentre, open, randomised, parallel group study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of meropenem monotherapy versus the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. Adult, hospitalised patients (n = 237) were included if they had infections at one or more of the following sites: lower respiratory tract (89 community-acquired; 84 hospital-acquired), urinary tract (59 complicated; 3 uncomplicated), skin and skin structures (n = 8), or septicaemia (n = 29). Patients were randomised to receive either iv meropenem (1 g every 8 h) as monotherapy or iv ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) plus iv amikacin (15 mg/kg/day in two or three divided doses). Meropenem had comparable clinical efficacy to ceftazidime plus amikacin in: community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) (40/43, 93% vs 31/39, 79% cured or improved); hospital-acquired LRTI (30/37, 81% vs 23/32, 72%); septicaemia (10/12, 83% vs 16/17, 94%) and complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) (13/15, 87% vs 25/25, 100%). A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group experienced adverse events, the most frequent being transient elevations in serum transaminases. Seven patients in the meropenem group and eight patients in the ceftazidime plus amikacin group died during the study period from reasons unrelated to study medication, and seven patients (five meropenem, two ceftazidime plus amikacin) were withdrawn due to adverse events. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem is as well tolerated and as effective as the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of serious infections.