Namias Nicholas, Solomkin Joseph S, Jensen Erin H, Tomassini Joanne E, Abramson Murray A
Department of Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33101, USA.
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007 Feb;8(1):15-28. doi: 10.1089/sur.2006.030.
Complicated intra-abdominal infections are a common problem in surgical practice. This study compared the effectiveness of ertapenem (1 g qd) and piperacillin/tazobactam (3.375 g q6h) in the treatment of these infections.
This was a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized study conducted in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Of the 535 patients screened, 500 were stratified on the basis of disease severity (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score < or =10 or >10), then randomized (1:1) to 4-14 days of treatment with one of the regimens and six weeks of followup. Nearly all patients (N = 494) were treated. The primary endpoint was the proportion of microbiologically evaluable patients with a favorable clinical response (cure) at two weeks. Non-inferiority of ertapenem was based on a difference in response rate of <15 percentage points compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (lower bound of the 95% CI > -15).
Of the 494 treated patients, 231 were microbiologically evaluable, with 123 and 108 patients in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively. Statistically similar cure rates were observed in the ertapenem (82.1%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (81.7%) groups (difference 0.3 [95% CI: -9.6, 10.5]). The pathogens isolated most frequently were Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, and Bacteroides thetaiotamicron, typical isolates associated with intra-abdominal infections. There were no statistical differences between the groups in serious drug-related clinical adverse events, drug-related clinical adverse experiences leading to study discontinuation, or mortality.
Ertapenem was non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in the cure of intra-abdominal infections caused by susceptible pathogens. Both study drugs generally were well tolerated.
复杂性腹腔内感染是外科实践中的常见问题。本研究比较了厄他培南(1克,每日一次)和哌拉西林/他唑巴坦(3.375克,每6小时一次)治疗这些感染的有效性。
这是一项针对复杂性腹腔内感染患者的多中心、双盲、随机研究。在535例筛查患者中,500例根据疾病严重程度(急性生理与慢性健康状况评分[APACHE]II评分≤10或>10)进行分层,然后随机(1:1)接受其中一种方案治疗4 - 14天,并进行六周的随访。几乎所有患者(N = 494)均接受了治疗。主要终点是在两周时微生物学可评估且临床反应良好(治愈)的患者比例。厄他培南的非劣效性基于与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦相比反应率差异<15个百分点(95%CI下限>-15)。
在494例接受治疗的患者中,231例微生物学可评估,厄他培南组和哌拉西林/他唑巴坦组分别有123例和108例患者。厄他培南组(82.1%)和哌拉西林/他唑巴坦组(81.7%)的治愈率在统计学上相似(差异0.3[95%CI:-9.6, 10.5])。最常分离出的病原体是大肠埃希菌、脆弱拟杆菌和多形拟杆菌,这些是与腹腔内感染相关的典型分离株。两组在严重药物相关临床不良事件、导致研究中断的药物相关临床不良经历或死亡率方面无统计学差异。
在治疗由易感病原体引起的腹腔内感染方面,厄他培南不劣于哌拉西林/他唑巴坦。两种研究药物总体耐受性良好。