Treatment of Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections with Meropenem: Comparison with Imipenem/Cilastatin

References

• Edwards JR. Meropenem: a microbiological overview. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 1-17.
   Google Scholar
• ToneIli F. Meropenem (Merrem(D) us imipenem/cilastati-na nel trattamento ospedaliero delle infezioni intra-addominali. Studio multicentrico. Minerva Chir 1997; 52: 317–326.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geroulanos SJ and the Meropenem Study Group. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 191-205.
   Google Scholar
• Condon RE, Walker AP, Sirinek KR et al. Meropenem versus tobramycin plus clindamycin for treatment of intraab-dominal infections: results of a prospective, randomized, dou-ble-blind clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21: 544–550.
   Google Scholar
• Huizinga WKJ, Warren BL, Baker LW et al. Antibiotic monotherapy with meropenem in the surgical management of intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 179-189.
   Google Scholar
• Colardyn F, Faulkner KL (Meropenem Serious Infection Study Group). Intravenous meropenem versus imipenem/cilas-tatin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospital-ized patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 523-527.
   Google Scholar
• Romanelli G, Cravarezza P and the Italian Intramuscular Meropenem Study Group. Intramuscular meropenem in the treatment of bacterial infections of the urinary and lower respi-ratory tracts. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 109-119.
   Google Scholar
• Mouton YJ, Beuscart C and the Meropenem Study Group. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bacterial infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 145-156.
   Google Scholar
• Hamacher J, Vogel F, Lichey J et al. Treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary dis-ease in hospitalised patients - a comparison of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 121-133.
   Google Scholar
• Cox CE, Holloway WJ, Gekler RW. A multicenter com-parative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospital-ized patients. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21: 86–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols RL, Smith JW, Geckler RW, Wilson SE. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections. South Med J 1995; 88: 397–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemsell D, Martens M. A multicenter study comparing intravenous meropenem with clindamycin plus gentamicin for the treatment of acute gynecologic and obstetric pelvic infec-tions in hospitalized women. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24 (suppl 2): S222-S230.
   Google Scholar
• Schmutzhard E, Williams KJ, Vukmirovits G et al. A randomised comparison of meropenem with cefotaxime or ceftriaxone for the treatment of bacterial meningitis in adults. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 (suppl. A): 85-97.
   Google Scholar
• Klugman KP, Dagan R and the Meropenem Meningitis Study Group. Randomized comparison of meropenem with cefotaxime for treatment of bacterial meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1140–1146.
   Google Scholar
• Solberg CO, Sjursen H. Safety and efficacy of meropenem in patients with septicaemia: a randomised com-parison with ceftazidime, alone or combined with amikacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 157-166.
   Google Scholar
• Cometta A, Calandra T, Gaya H et al. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 1108–1115.
   Google Scholar
• Boogaerts MA, Demuynck H, Mestdagh N et al. Equivalent efficacies of meropenem and ceftazidime as empiri-cal monotherapy of febrile neutropenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36: 185–200.
   Google Scholar
• Schito GC, Sanna A, Chezzi C et al. In-vitro activity of meropenem against clinical isolates in a multicentre study in Italy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 ( Suppl A): 57-72.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards JR, Turner PJ. Laboratory data which differen-tiate meropenem and imipenem. Scand J Infect Dis 1995; (suppl 96): 5-10.
   Google Scholar
• Jones RN, Barry AL, Thornsberry C. In-vitro studies of meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 ( Suppl A): 9-29.
   Google Scholar
• Wiseman LR, Wagstaff AJ, Brogden RN, Bryson HM. Meropenem. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacoki-netic properties and clinical efficacy. Drugs 1995; 50: 73–101.
   Google Scholar
• Cho N, Araki H, Kimura T et al. Basic and clinical stud-ies of meropenem in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992; 40 (suppl 1): 657-668.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda S. Clinical study of SM-7338 in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992; 40: 133.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda S. Pharmacokinetics and clinical studies of meropenem in the field of obstetrics and gynaecological infec-tions. 8th Mediterranean Congress of Chemotherapy 1992; 24-29 May. J Chemother 1993; 5 (suppl 1): 143-146.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg GM, Smyth ETM, Barr JG. Total prescribing costs of a new carbapenem, meropenem, in comparison with imipenem/cilastatin and ceftazidime/metronidazole. 1” European Congress of Chemotherapy, Glasgow, 14-17 May 1996, Abs F139.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth ETM, Barr JG, Hogg GM. An assessment of hidden costs on total prescribing costs of courses of meropen-em and imipenem/cilastatin. Br J Med Econ 1996; 10: 325–340.
   Google Scholar
• Norrby SR, Newell PA, Faulkner KL, Lesky W. Safety profile of meropenem: international clinical experience based on the first 3125 patients treated with meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 ( Suppl A): 207-223.
   Google Scholar