Evidence Hub

A Phase II, Randomized, Active Comparator-Controlled Clinical Trial to Study the Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of MK-7655 + Imipenem/Cilastatin Versus Imipenem/Cilastatin Alone in Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection (cUTI)

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2015

302 participants

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of adding 125 mg or 250 mg doses of MK-7655 (relebactam) to imipenem/cilastatin in adults 18 years or older with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). The primary hypothesis is that the relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin treatment regimen is non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin with respect to the proportion of participants with a favorable microbiological response at completion of intravenous (IV) study therapy.

Conditions: Urinary Tract Infections, Pyelonephritis.

Primary outcome: Percentage of Participants With a Favorable Microbiological Response at Completion of IV Study Therapy; Percentage of Participants With an Elevated Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) or Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) Laboratory Value That Was Greater Than or Equal to 5 Times the Upper Limit of Normal (ULN); Percentage of Participants With Elevated AST or ALT Laboratory Values ≥ 3 Times the ULN, as Well as Elevated Total Bilirubin ≥ 2 Times the ULN, and Alkaline Phosphatase Values That Were = 4 Participants in One Treatment Group.

Enrollment: 302 participants.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 302 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free