-
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Oct 2019: The epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is increasingly worldwide. Production of carbapenemases is the most common and efficient mechanism of... (Review)
Review
: The epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is increasingly worldwide. Production of carbapenemases is the most common and efficient mechanism of carbapenem resistance, and could theoretically be overcome by optimizing the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) behavior of meropenem. : This article overviews the available literature concerning the potential role that meropenem may still have in the treatment carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Clinical studies published in English language until June 2019 were searched on PubMed database. : High-dose continuous infusion meropenem-based combination regimens could still represent a valuable option for treating CRE infections in specific circumstances. Knowledge of the local prevalent mechanisms of carbapenem resistance, of patient clinical severity, of the site of infection, of an accurate minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value, coupled with the possibility of carrying-out a real-time therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based PK/PD optimization of drug exposure must all be considered as fundamental for properly pursuing this goal.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Monitoring; Enterobacteriaceae Infections; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 31559876
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2019.1673731 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Jun 2021Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is...
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is the percentage of time that the levels remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration. Inadequate levels of meropenem can lead to therapeutic failure and increase the possibility of microbial resistance. The employment of strategies involving dose regimens and drug pharmacodynamics has become increasingly important to optimize therapies. In the present study, we conducted a review with the purpose of assembling information about the clinical use of meropenem and therapeutic drug monitoring.
METHODS
A literature review emphasizing the application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of meropenem in clinical practice has been done. To identify articles related to the topic, we performed a standardized search from January 21, 2020 to December 21, 2020, using specific descriptors in PubMed, Lilacs and Embase.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In total, 35 studies were included in the review. The daily dose of meropenem commonly ranged from 3 to 6 g/day. Critically ill patients and those with impaired renal function appear to be the most suitable patients for the application of meropenem TDM, in order to guide therapy. We observed that most of the studies recommend TDM and that, in nine locations, the TDM of meropenem and of other beta-lactams is a routine practice. TDM data can help to maximize the clinical outcomes of the treatment with meropenem. It can also improve the patient care by providing suitable levels of meropenem, guiding the most appropriate dose regimens, which is the main parameter associated with therapeutic success.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
The findings from this review suggest that the therapeutic monitoring of meropenem can be beneficial, since it adjusts the treatment and aids clinical outcomes. It does so by indicating the appropriate dosage and preventing failure, toxicity and possible antimicrobial resistance. The multidisciplinary effort, basic knowledge and communication among the medical team are also essential.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33533509
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13369 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Dec 2019Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia.
METHODS
We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (<65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane-tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths.
INTERPRETATION
High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population.
FUNDING
Merck & Co.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Cross Infection; Female; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Tazobactam; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31563344
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30403-7 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Mar 2018Nosocomial pneumonia is commonly associated with antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia is commonly associated with antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia, compared with meropenem in a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE).
METHODS
Adults with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia), enrolled at 136 centres in 23 countries, were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2000 mg ceftazidime and 500 mg avibactam (by 2 h intravenous infusion every 8 h) or 1000 mg meropenem (by 30-min intravenous infusion every 8 h) for 7-14 days; regimens were adjusted for renal function. Computer-generated randomisation codes were stratified by infection type and geographical region with a block size of four. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (21-25 days after randomisation). Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -12·5% in the coprimary clinically modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01808092) and EudraCT (2012-004006-96).
FINDINGS
Between April 13, 2013, and Dec 11, 2015, 879 patients were randomly assigned. 808 patients were included in the safety population, 726 were included in the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, and 527 were included in the clinically evaluable population. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat population (n=355) were Klebsiella pneumoniae (37%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30%); 28% were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. In the clinically modified intention-to-treat population, 245 (68·8%) of 356 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group were clinically cured, compared with 270 (73·0%) of 370 patients in the meropenem group (difference -4·2% [95% CI -10·8 to 2·5]). In the clinically evaluable population, 199 (77·4%) of 257 participants were clinically cured in the ceftazidime-avibactam group, compared with 211 (78·1%) of 270 in the meropenem group (difference -0·7% [95% CI -7·9 to 6·4]). Adverse events occurred in 302 (75%) of 405 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group versus 299 (74%) of 403 in the meropenem group (safety population), and were mostly mild or moderate in intensity and unrelated to study treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (19%) patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group and 54 (13%) patients in the meropenem group. Four serious adverse events (all in the ceftazidime-avibactam group) were judged to be treatment related.
INTERPRETATION
Ceftazidime-avibactam was non-inferior to meropenem in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. These results support a role for ceftazidime-avibactam as a potential alternative to carbapenems in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia) caused by Gram-negative pathogens.
FUNDING
AstraZeneca.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated
PubMed: 29254862
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30747-8 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for adults with nosocomial pneumonia.
METHODS
We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 76 centres in 17 countries in Asia, Europe, and the USA (APEKS-NP). We enrolled adults aged 18 years and older with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated Gram-negative pneumonia, and randomly assigned them (1:1 by interactive response technology) to 3-h intravenous infusions of either cefiderocol 2 g or meropenem 2 g every 8 h for 7-14 days. All patients also received open-label intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for at least 5 days. An unmasked pharmacist prepared the assigned treatments; investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Only the unmasked pharmacist was aware of the study drug assignment for the infusion bags, which were administered in generic infusion bags labelled with patient and study site identification numbers. Participants were stratified at randomisation by infection type and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (≤15 and ≥16). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug, excluding patients with Gram-positive monomicrobial infections). The analysis was done for all patients with known vital status. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference between cefiderocol and meropenem groups was less than 12·5%. Safety was investigated to the end of the study in the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03032380, and EudraCT, 2016-003020-23.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 23, 2017, and April 14, 2019, we randomly assigned 148 participants to cefiderocol and 152 to meropenem. Of 292 patients in the modified ITT population, 251 (86%) had a qualifying baseline Gram-negative pathogen, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (92 [32%]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (48 [16%]), Acinetobacter baumannii (47 [16%]), and Escherichia coli (41 [14%]). 142 (49%) patients had an APACHE II score of 16 or more, 175 (60%) were mechanically ventilated, and 199 (68%) were in intensive care units at the time of randomisation. All-cause mortality at day 14 was 12·4% with cefiderocol (18 patients of 145) and 11·6% with meropenem (17 patients of 146; adjusted treatment difference 0·8%, 95% CI -6·6 to 8·2; p=0·002 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 130 (88%) of 148 participants in the cefiderocol group and 129 (86%) of 150 in the meropenem group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was urinary tract infection in the cefiderocol group (23 patients [16%] of 148) and hypokalaemia in the meropenem group (23 patients [15%] of 150). Two participants (1%) of 148 in the cefiderocol group and two (1%) of 150 in the meropenem group discontinued the study because of drug-related adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Cefiderocol was non-inferior to high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality on day 14 in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, with similar tolerability. The results suggest that cefiderocol is a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.
FUNDING
Shionogi.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Male; Meropenem; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Cefiderocol
PubMed: 33058798
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30731-3 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2021Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding.
METHODS
ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors.
RESULTS
Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Female; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Logistic Models; Male; Meropenem; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Retrospective Studies; Tazobactam
PubMed: 34380538
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03694-3 -
PloS One 2018Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Meropenem exhibits time-dependent antimicrobial activity and prolonged infusion (PI) (extended infusion or continuous infusion, EI or CI) of meropenem can better achieve pharmacodynamics target when comparing with intermittent bolus (IB). However, the clinical outcomes between two groups remain inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate current published literatures by meta-analysis to ascertain whether PI of meropenem can improve clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane database and EMBASE were searched. Randomized control trails (RCT) and observational studies which compared the clinical outcomes of PI and IB groups were included and evaluated for quality. The data of studies were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 4 observation studies with relatively high quality were included in this analysis. Compared to IB group, PI group had a higher clinical success rate (odd ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.31-3.38) and a lower mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.88). The sensitivity analysis showed the results were stable.
CONCLUSION
PI of meropenem was associated with a higher clinical improvement rate and a lower mortality. It is recommended for patients with severe infection or infected by less sensitive microbial.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infections; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30059536
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201667 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Dec 2021This study aims to assess the association of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and beta-lactam resistance genes with mortality... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
Association Between Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, Beta-lactamase Genes and Mortality for Patients Treated With Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Meropenem From the MERINO Study.
INTRODUCTION
This study aims to assess the association of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and beta-lactam resistance genes with mortality in the MERINO trial.
METHODS
Blood culture isolates from enrolled patients were tested by broth microdilution and whole genome sequencing at a central laboratory. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to account for confounders. Absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality between treatment groups was calculated for the primary analysis (PA) and the microbiologic assessable (MA) populations.
RESULTS
In total, 320 isolates from 379 enrolled patients were available with susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam 94% and meropenem 100%. The piperacillin/tazobactam nonsusceptible breakpoint (MIC >16 mg/L) best predicted 30-day mortality after accounting for confounders (odds ratio 14.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-87.2). The absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam compared with meropenem was 9% (95% CI 3%-15%) and 8% (95% CI 2%-15%) for the original PA population and the post hoc MA populations, which reduced to 5% (95% CI -1% to 10%) after excluding strains with piperacillin/tazobactam MIC values >16 mg/L. Isolates coharboring extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and OXA-1 genes were associated with elevated piperacillin/tazobactam MICs and the highest risk increase in 30-day mortality of 14% (95% CI 2%-28%).
CONCLUSIONS
After excluding nonsusceptible strains, the 30-day mortality difference from the MERINO trial was less pronounced for piperacillin/tazobactam. Poor reliability in susceptibility testing performance for piperacillin/tazobactam and the high prevalence of OXA coharboring ESBLs suggests that meropenem remains the preferred choice for definitive treatment of ceftriaxone nonsusceptible Escherichia coli and Klebsiella.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mortality; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Reproducibility of Results; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 33106863
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1479 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Sep 2022In the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP studies, cefiderocol treatment was effective against gram-negative bacteria producing metallo-B-lactamases; rates of clinical cure (70.8%... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
In the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP studies, cefiderocol treatment was effective against gram-negative bacteria producing metallo-B-lactamases; rates of clinical cure (70.8% [17/24]), microbiological eradication (58.3% [14/24]), and day 28 all-cause mortality (12.5% [3/24]) compared favorably with comparators of best-available therapy and high-dose meropenem (40.0% [4/10], 30.0% [3/10], and 50.0% [5/10], respectively).
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Humans; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; beta-Lactamases; Cefiderocol
PubMed: 35148378
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac078 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2020The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous compared to intermittent meropenem infusion for the treatment of sepsis. Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were researched to collect clinical trials comparing continuous and intermittent infusion of meropenem in patients with sepsis. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, Stata v. 12.0 software (Stata Corporation LLC, College Station, USA) was used for a meta-analysis of mortality, clinical cure, microbiological eradication, and safety. Seven studies with a total of 1,191 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that continuous meropenem infusion was superior to intermittent infusion in terms of mortality (combined risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.46-0.98, p = 0.03), clinical cure rate (combined RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.30, p = 0.026) and microbiological eradication (combined RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01-1.42, p = 0.04), although it may increase the incidence of some adverse events (AEs). Compared with intermittent dosing, administration of meropenem antibiotics through continuous infusion in patients with sepsis is associated with decreased hospital mortality, increased clinical cure rates and greater microbiological eradication. Further high-quality studies should be conducted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; China; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Sepsis
PubMed: 32783408
DOI: 10.17219/acem/121934