Evidence Hub

Treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalised patients--a comparison of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. COPD Study Group

Hamacher J, Vogel F, Lichey J, Kohl FV, Diwok K, Wendel H, Lode H

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 1995

61 participants

Abstract

Meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were compared in an open, randomised prospective multicentre study in the treatment of acute exacerbations of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalised patients. One-hundred-and-seventy-three patients were enrolled; 164 were evaluable for clinical efficacy and 98 for bacteriological efficacy, with 144 pathogens isolated. The predominant pathogens were Haemophilus influenzae (n = 30), Streptococcus pneumoniae (18), Staphylococcus aureus (12), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11), Moraxella catarrhalis (8), other Gram-negative bacteria (Neisseria, Klebsiella, Proteus, and Enterobacter spp.) (53) and other Gram-positive bacteria (12). A single bacterial pathogen was identified in 61 patients, whereas two bacterial pathogens were isolated in 31 patients and three in six patients. The clinical response at the end of treatment was very high in both groups with a satisfactory outcome (cured or improved) in 97.6% of the meropenem patients and in 96.3% of the imipenem/cilastatin patients; at follow-up the rates were 89.1% and 89.8%, respectively. The bacterial success (eradication or presumed eradication) was 88.2% in the meropenem group and 89.4% in the comparator group. Nausea or vomiting were reported more frequently in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin, whereas in the meropenem group an increase in aminotransferases was reported. One patient treated with imipenem/cilastatin was withdrawn from the study due to seizures. Meropenem…

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: 61 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