Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in the treatment of hospitalised patients with infection: a mixed treatment comparison

References

• Department of Health. Winning ways: working together to reduce healthcare associated infection in England. Department of Health, London, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Bhat S, Fujitani S, Potoski BA, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Intensive Care Unit: can the adequacy of empirical β-lactam antibiotic therapy be improved? Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007;30:458-62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards SJ, Clarke MJ, Wordsworth S, et al. Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;27:531-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards SJ, Emmas CE, Campbell HE. Systematic review comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:785-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• About NICE. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ (last accessed January 2008)
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897-900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA 2003;289:2534-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multiparameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med 2003;22:2995-3016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, 2005
   Google Scholar
• WinBUGS with DoodleBUGS. Imperial College and the Medical Research Council 2007. Available at: www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/ contents.shtml (last accessed January 2008)
   Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Statist Soc B 2002;64:583-639
   Google Scholar
• Dempster AP. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comp 1997;7:247-52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham DR, Lucasti C, Málafaia O, et al. Ertapenem once daily versus piperacillin-tazobactam 4 times per day for treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections in adults: results of a prospective randomized, double-blind multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1460-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy S, Higareda I, Angel-Muller E, et al. Ertapenem once a day versus piperacillin-tazobactam every 6 hours for treatment of acute pelvic infections: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2003;11:27-37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dela Pena AS, Asperger W, Kökerling S, et al. Efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections requiring surgical intervention. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:567-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namias N, Solomkin JS, Jensen EH, et al. Randomized, multicenter, double-blind study of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intravenous ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults. Surg Infect 2007;8:15-28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zanetti G, Bally F, Greub G, et al. Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a multicentre, evaluator-blind, prospective randomised study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:3442-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara K, Kono S, Koga H, et al. Dose finding study on meropenem in bacterial pneumonia. Chemotherapy (Suppl1) 1992;29:447-63
   Google Scholar
• Hara K, Kono S, Koga H, et al. A comparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin sodium in chronic respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 1992;40:1426-50
   Google Scholar
• Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T, Tanaka M, et al. Dose finding study of meropenem in complicated urinary tract infection. Chemotherapy 1992;40(Suppl 1):631-45
   Google Scholar
• Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T, Tanaka M, et al. Clinical evaluation of meropenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections – a double-blind controlled study using imipenem/cilastatin. Nishinihon J Urol 1992;54:954-69
   Google Scholar
• Sartoretti C, Attinger B, Largiader F, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem in the treatment of abdominal infections. Abstract N 1583, 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, American Society for Microbiology, Washington DC, 1992
   Google Scholar
• Kanellakopoulou K, Giamarellou H, Papadothomakos P, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intraabdominal infections requiring surgery. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993;12:449-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brismar B, Malmborg AS, Tunevall G, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;35:139-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox C, Holloway WJ, Geckler RW. A multicenter comparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalised patients. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:86-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geroulanos SJ. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36(Suppl A):191-205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamacher J, Vogel F, Lichey J, et al. Treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalised patients – a comparison of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36(Suppl A):121-33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morandini GC. Clinical efficacy, tolerance and antibacterial activity of intramuscular meropenem in non-nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections. A comparative multicentre hospital study. Minerva Pneumol 1995;34:45-54
   Google Scholar
• Nord CE, Brismar B, Ekland A-E. Immune response in patients with intra-abdominal infections treated with imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem. Can J Infect Dis 1995;6(Suppl C):426C
   Google Scholar
• Tallarigo C, Comunale L, Baldassarre R, et al. Studio multicentrico comparativo su meropenem vs imipenem nel trattamento intramuscolare delle infezioni urinary ospedaliere. Minerva Urol Nefrol 1995;4:147-56
   Google Scholar
• Colardyn F, Faulkner KL. Intravenous meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalised patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996;38:523-37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garau J, Blanquer J, Cobo L, et al. Prospective, randomised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe nosocomial infections. Eur J Clin Microbial Infect Dis 1997;16:789-96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartenauer U, Kljucar S, Bender H-J, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of serious bacterial infections at ICU. Antiinfect Drugs Chemother 1997;15:65-70
   Google Scholar
• Tonelli F. Meropenem (Merrem®) vs imipenem/cilastatin for the hospital treatment of intrabdominal infections. A multicenter study. Minerva Chir 1997;52:317-26
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pozzi A, Cravarezza P, Sleiman L. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in elderly patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 1999;5:157
   Google Scholar
• Kuo B I-T, Fung C-P, Liu C-Y. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of sepsis in Chinese patients. Chin Med J (Taipei) 2000;63:361-7
   Google Scholar
• Mészáros J, Michalak G, Kosieradzki M. Carbapenems in the treatment of septic surgical complications. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000;6(Suppl 1):138-9
   Google Scholar
• Verwaest C. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empirical monotherapy for serious bacterial infections in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000;6:294-302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou F, Wu G, Zheng B. A randomised, controlled clinical trial of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of acute bacterial infections. Chin J Intern Med 2001;40:589-93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Song Y-M, Zhao J-J, Sun L. Clinical study on meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in treatment of respiratory tract infections. Chin Pharm J 2001;36:128-9
   Google Scholar
• Hou F, Li J, Wu G, et al. A randomised, controlled clinical trial on meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of bacterial infections. Chin Med J 2002;115:1849-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romanelli G, Cravarezza P, Pozzi A, et al. Carbapenems in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalised elderly patients: a comparative study against standard therapy. J Chemother 2002;4:609-17
   Google Scholar
• Fabian TC, FileTM Jr, Embil JM, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results of multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparative study. Surg Infect 2005;6:269-82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Niinikoski J, Havia T, Alhava E, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:255-61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klein SR, Clark K, Speth J, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of piperacillin-tazobactam (4g/500mg) and imipenem/cilastatin (1g/1g) administered intravenously every eight hours to treat intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized patients. Presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the IDSA, November 18-21, 1999
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt DV, Leitner E, Welte T, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam vs imipenem/cilastatin (IPM) in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia – a double blind prospective multicentre study. Infection 2006;34:127-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodmann KF. Current guidelines for the treatment of severe pneumonia and sepsis. Chemotherapy 2005;51:227-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell DM, Gibb DM, Ades AE. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;369:270
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating GM, Perry CM. Ertapenem: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections. Drugs 2005;65:2151-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter R, Ray GT, Fireman BH. Case-control study of antibiotic use and subsequent clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:44-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar