• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

美罗培南与亚胺培南/西司他丁用于需要手术治疗的腹腔内感染。美罗培南研究组。

Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. Meropenem Study Group.

作者信息

Geroulanos S J

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36 Suppl A:191-205. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.191.

DOI:10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.191
PMID:8543495
Abstract

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. 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.

摘要

在一项多中心、开放、随机研究中,对232例中度至重度腹腔内感染的住院患者,比较了静脉注射美罗培南(每8小时1克,静脉滴注或推注)与静脉注射亚胺培南/西司他丁(每8小时1克,静脉滴注)的疗效和耐受性。治疗结束时,82例可评估的美罗培南患者中有79例(96%)、88例亚胺培南/西司他丁患者中有83例(94%)出现了满意的临床反应(治愈或改善);随访时仍可见此结果(分别为57/63;90%和58/66;88%)。治疗结束时,82例美罗培南患者中有69例(84%)、88例亚胺培南/西司他丁患者中有71例(81%)出现了满意的细菌学反应(清除或假定清除),随访时分别为52/62(84%)和55/70(79%)。在120例(每组60例)患有多种微生物感染的患者中,临床治愈或改善水平较高(两个治疗组均为95%)。每组中不良事件的发生率相似:美罗培南组116例患者中有45例(72起事件),亚胺培南/西司他丁组116例患者中有42例(65起事件);不良事件谱也相似,两组中最常见的是注射部位炎症和转氨酶升高。本研究结果表明,在治疗中度至重度腹腔内感染时,美罗培南单药治疗与亚胺培南/西司他丁联合治疗的疗效和耐受性相当。

相似文献

1
Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. Meropenem Study Group.美罗培南与亚胺培南/西司他丁用于需要手术治疗的腹腔内感染。美罗培南研究组。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36 Suppl A:191-205. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.191.
2
[Meropenem (Merrem) vs imipenem/cilastatin in hospital treatment of intra-abdominal infections. A multicenter study].[美罗培南(美平)与亚胺培南/西司他丁用于医院内腹腔感染治疗的多中心研究]
Minerva Chir. 1997 Mar;52(3):317-26.
3
Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.美罗培南与亚胺培南/西司他丁治疗腹腔内感染的比较
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jan;35(1):139-48. doi: 10.1093/jac/35.1.139.
4
Intravenous meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients. Meropenem Serious Infection Study Group.静脉注射美罗培南与亚胺培南/西司他丁治疗住院患者严重细菌感染的比较。美罗培南严重感染研究组。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Sep;38(3):523-37. doi: 10.1093/jac/38.3.523.
5
Imipenem/cilastatin (1.5 g daily) versus meropenem (3.0 g daily) in patients with intra-abdominal infections: results of a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial.亚胺培南/西司他丁(每日1.5克)与美罗培南(每日3.0克)治疗腹腔内感染患者的前瞻性、随机、多中心试验结果
Scand J Infect Dis. 1997;29(5):503-8. doi: 10.3109/00365549709011863.
6
Prospective, randomised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe nosocomial infections.美罗培南与亚胺培南/西司他丁作为经验性单药治疗严重医院感染的前瞻性、随机、多中心研究。
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997 Nov;16(11):789-96. doi: 10.1007/BF01700407.
7
Multicenter randomized trial comparing meropenem (1.5 g daily) and imipenem/cilastatin (2 g daily) in the hospital treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.多中心随机试验比较美罗培南(每日1.5克)与亚胺培南/西司他丁(每日2克)用于医院治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效。
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1999;25(6):243-52.
8
Treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections with meropenem: comparison with imipenem/cilastatin.
J Chemother. 1998 Apr;10(2):114-21. doi: 10.1179/joc.1998.10.2.114.
9
Meropenem (1.5 g/day) is as effective as imipenem/cilastatin (2 g/day) for the treatment of moderately severe intra-abdominal infections.美罗培南(1.5克/天)治疗中度严重腹腔内感染的效果与亚胺培南/西司他丁(2克/天)相当。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999 Feb;11(2):107-13. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(98)00104-6.
10
Treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalised patients--a comparison of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. COPD Study Group.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36 Suppl A:121-33. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.121.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of different antibiotic injection regimens on patients with severe infections: A meta-analysis.不同抗生素注射方案对重症感染患者的影响:一项荟萃分析。
Int Wound J. 2024 Jan;21(1):e14514. doi: 10.1111/iwj.14514.
2
The efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics in the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.与目前临床常用抗生素相比,依拉环素治疗成人复杂性腹腔内感染的疗效和安全性:一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Sep 16;9:935343. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.935343. eCollection 2022.
3
Carbapenems vs tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
碳青霉烯类药物与替加环素治疗复杂性腹腔内感染的比较:一项随机临床试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Oct;98(40):e17436. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017436.
4
Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.在沙特阿拉伯的一家三级保健医院中,对亚胺培南/西司他丁与美罗培南治疗中重度感染的成本-最小化分析。
Saudi Pharm J. 2015 Nov;23(6):626-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.016. Epub 2015 Feb 28.
5
T.E.A. Study: three-day ertapenem versus three-day Ampicillin-Sulbactam.T.E.A. 研究:3 天厄他培南与 3 天氨苄西林-舒巴坦。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr 30;13:76. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-76.
6
Imipenem and meropenem: Comparison of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials and adverse effects.亚胺培南和美罗培南:体外活性、药代动力学、临床试验及不良反应的比较
Can J Infect Dis. 1998 Jul;9(4):215-28. doi: 10.1155/1998/831425.
7
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).一项前瞻性、多中心、随机临床研究比较了 3 天厄他培南与 3 天氨苄西林/舒巴坦治疗局部获得性社区内腹腔感染的疗效和安全性。(T.E.A. 研究:3 天厄他培南对比 3 天氨苄西林/舒巴坦)
BMC Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr 18;11:42. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-42.
8
Tigecycline in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal and complicated skin and skin structure infections.替加环素治疗复杂性腹腔内感染和复杂性皮肤软组织感染。
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007 Dec;3(6):1059-70.
9
Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections.美罗培南:其在治疗严重细菌感染中的应用综述
Drugs. 2008;68(6):803-38. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200868060-00006.
10
Antibiotic regimens for secondary peritonitis of gastrointestinal origin in adults.成人胃肠道源性继发性腹膜炎的抗生素治疗方案
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;2005(2):CD004539. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004539.pub2.