Evidence Hub

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of doripenem for treating bacterial infections

Qu XY, Hu TT, Zhou W

The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, 2015

12 citations

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this article is to compare the efficacy and safety of doripenem for bacterial infections.

Methods: We included six randomized clinical trials identified from PubMed and Embase up to July 31, 2014. The included trials compared efficacy and safety of doripenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated urinary tract infection, nosocomial pneumonia, and acute biliary tract infection. The meta-analysis was carried on by the statistical software of Review Manager, version 5.2.

Results: Compared with empirical antimicrobial agents on overall treatment efficacy, doripenem was associated with similar clinical and microbiological treatment success rates (for the clinical evaluable population, odds ratio [OR]=1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.69, p=0.13; for clinical modified intent-to-treatment population, OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.55-1.41, p=0.60; for microbiology evaluable population, OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.90-1.50, p=0.26; for microbiological modified intent-to-treatment (m-mITT), OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.20, p=0.87). We compared incidence of adverse events and all-cause mortality to analyze treatment safety. The outcomes suggested that doripenem was similar to comparators in terms of incidence of adverse events and all-cause mortality on modified intent-to-treatment population (for incidence of AEs, OR=1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35, p=0.33; for all-cause mortality, OR=1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.51, p=0.67). In nosocomial pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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