Evidence Hub

A phase III randomized controlled non-inferiority trial to study the efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) versus piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) in patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP)

Jun-Jie Li, Feng Wei, Peng Xiang, Zhengang Tang, Lianshu Ding, L. Chen, M. Losada, Zlatka Iamboliyska et al.

International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2024

270 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination effective against gram-negative pathogens. Efficacy and safety of IMI/REL were studied in critically ill adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP).

METHODS

In this phase III, double-blind, multinational, randomized trial (NCT03583333), adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous IMI/REL (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ; 4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 h for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM). Secondary endpoints were clinical response (CR), microbiological response (MR), and adverse event (AE) incidence.

RESULTS

In the modified intention-to-treat population (N = 270 [IMI/REL: n = 134; PIP/TAZ: n = 136]), demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Most patients were from China. IMI/REL was non-inferior to PIP/TAZ for 28-day ACM (11.2% vs 5.9%; adjusted difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.2% [-1.5 to 12.4]). Secondary outcomes were comparable between treatment groups, including favorable CR and MR. AEs resulting in death were generally consistent with pre-existing or underlying illness.

CONCLUSIONS

IMI/REL met non-inferiority criteria versus PIP/TAZ for 28-day ACM, and safety profiles were comparable. This trial could support the use of IMI/REL to treat adults with HABP/VABP, including regional use in…

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: 270 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