Drugs

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 99–136 | Cite as

Imipenem/Cilastatin

An Update of its Antibacterial Activity, Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Efficacy in the Treatment of Serious Infections
  • Julia A. Balfour
  • Harriet M. Bryson
  • Rex N. Brogden
Drug Evaluation

Abstract

Synopsis

The prototype carbapenem antibacterial agent imipenem has a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity, encompassing most Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobes and anaerobes, including most β-lactamase-producing species. It is coadministered with a renal dehydropeptidase inhibitor, cilastatin, in order to prevent its renal metabolism in clinical use.

Extensive clinical experience gained with imipenem/cilastatin has shown it to provide effective monotherapy for septicaemia, neutropenic fever, and intraabdominal, lower respiratory tract, genitourinary, gynaecological, skin and soft tissue, and bone and joint infections. In these indications, imipenem/cilastatin generally exhibits similar efficacy to broad-spectrum cephalosporins and other carbapenems and is at least equivalent to standard aminoglycoside-based and other combination regimens.

Imipenem/cilastatin is generally well tolerated by adults and children, with local injection site events, gastrointestinal disturbances and dermatological re-actions being the most common adverse events. Seizures have also been reported, occurring mostly in patients with impaired renal function or CNS pathology, or with excessive dosage.

Although it is no longer a unique compound, as newer carbapenems such as meropenem are becoming available, imipenem/cilastatin nevertheless remains an important agent with established efficacy as monotherapy for moderate to severe bacterial infections. Its particular niche is in treating infections known or suspected to be caused by multiresistant pathogens.

Antibacterial Activity

Imipenem is a parenteral carbapenem agent which is coadministered with cilastatin, a renal dehydropeptidase inhibitor, in order to prevent its renal metabolism. It is a compact molecule which penetrates well through the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. Unlike many other β-lactam agents, imipenem has a postantibiotic effect against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

Imipenem has an excellent spectrum of in vitro activity which encompasses Enterobacteriaceae, including strains resistant to aminoglycosides and third generation cephalosporins (including ceftazidime), anaerobes and many Grampositive bacteria. Although imipenem has good activity against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae, its activity is more variable against methicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus, penicillin-intermediate and -resistant strains of S. pneumoniae, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Enterococcus faecalis. Depending on the country, resistance rates among Pseudomonas aeruginosa to imipenem vary from 2.5 to 20%. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is intrinsically resistant to imipenem. Comparative in vitro studies with newer carbapenem agents indicate that with the exception of meropenem, which has greater activity against Enterobacteriaceae, there is little to distinguish between imipenem and other agents. Imipenem showed synergy or partial synergy with amikacin against strains of P. aeruginosa resistant to imipenem and/or amikacin.

Alterations to outer membrane proteins leading to reduced permeability is the main mechanism of resistance to imipenem among Gram-negative bacteria. Imipenem is stable against hydrolysis by most chromosomal and plasmid-mediated β-lactamases, including extended-spectrum enzymes. β-Lactamases with carbapenemase activity are usually metalloenzymes. While these enzymes are common among certain species (S. maltophilia, Aeromonas spp. and Bacillus cereus), they remain rare among Enterobacteriaceae. Modification of the target site of imipenem (penicillin-binding proteins) is an important mechanism of resistance among Gram-positive bacteria.

Longitudinal epidemiological surveillance studies indicate that the sensitivity to imipenem among Enterobacteriaceae remains stable in most areas. Sensitivity of P. aeruginosa varies according to the country and hospital unit. Imipenem resistance among Bacteroides spp. is increasing in Japan, but apparently remains stable in other countries.

Pharmacokinetic Properties

Following administration of 0.5 and lg doses by intravenous infusion, peak plasma imipenem concentrations of 30 to 42 and 60 to 72 mg/L, respectively, are reached. Intramuscular administration produces lower peak concentrations (7.4 to 10.4 mg/L after a 0.5g dose).

Imipenem penetrates well into body tissues and fluids; concentrations >4 mg/L were measured in colonic, lung, pancreatic, peritoneal, prostatic or gynaecological tissue, bile, synovial, ascitic and skin window fluid, renal cortex and medulla following intravenous or intramuscular administration of imipenem/cilastatin 0.5 or lg. Lower concentrations were found in tonsillar tissue, sputum, prostatic fluid and CSF in the presence of inflamed meninges. The drug also crossed the placenta when administered to pregnant women and has been detected in breast milk in animals.

Imipenem has a relatively low volume of distribution at steady-state (14.4L) and protein binding of imipenem and cilastatin is low (<10 to 20% and 35%, respectively). Both compounds have relatively short elimination half-lives (approximately 1 hour in healthy individuals).

In patients with renal dysfunction, the elimination half-lives of imipenem and, particularly, cilastatin are prolonged in proportion to the degree of renal impair-ment, with values of 3 hours and 7 to 16 hours, respectively, in patients with end-stage renal failure. Thus, imipenem/cilastatin dosages must be adjusted ac-cording to renal function.

Therapeutic Efficacy

In clinical trials, imipenem/cilastatin was usually given intravenously, at a dosage of 0.5 to lg every 6 to 12 hours, but the intramuscular and intraperitoneal routes (the latter in patients undergoing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CAPD) have also been used.

In the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, imipenem/cilastatin produced clinical cure in 69 to 97% of patients. Similar cure rates were achieved with imipenem/cilastatin in elderly patients with peritonitis and those with peritonitis associated with CAPD. In comparative studies, imipenem/cilastatin was generally at least as effective as standard aminoglycoside/antianaerobic combinations and was similar to meropenem monotherapy, but tended to be less effective than piperacillin/tazobactam. Imipenem/cilastatin was generally at least as effective as standard aminoglycoside-based, or other, combination regimens in patients with febrile neutropenia. It was also significantly more effective than ceftazidime monotherapy, cefuroxime plus tobramycin, cefalothin or cefuroxime plus gentamicin, or ceftazidime plus vancomycin, in this setting.

In the treatment of severe and/or nosocomial respiratory tract infections, imipenem/cilastatin achieved clinical cure or improvement in 67 to 90% of patients and was at least as effective as a combination of cefotaxime and amikacin (in infections not caused by P. aeruginosa) or ceftazidime monotherapy, but tended to be less effective than ciprofloxacin or pefloxacin monotherapy. As with other monotherapies, emergence of resistance and treatment failure were relatively common in patients with R aeruginosa infections treated with imipenem/cilastatin. In Japanese patients with less severe respiratory tract infections, imipenem/cilastatin exhibited similar efficacy to meropenem or panipenem/ betamipron.

Imipenem/cilastatin achieved clinical cure in approximately 80% or more of patients with septicaemia and showed similar efficacy to ceftazidime or a combination of cefotaxime and amikacin. Preliminary data from small numbers of patients suggest that imipenem/cilastatin is also effective in the treatment of endocarditis.

In the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, mostly in Japanese patients, the clinical efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin was approximately 75 to 80% and was similar to that of meropenem and panipenem/betamipron. In patients with serious nosocomial urinary tract infections, imipenem/cilastatin 0.5g 6-hourly was as effective as ceftazidime 2g 12-hourly. Over 80% of patients with various obstetric or gynaecological infections were clinically cured or improved following treatment with imipenem/cilastatin, which was at least as effective as a combination of netilmicin and chloramphenicol.

Imipenem/cilastatin produced clinical cure or improvement in approximately 80% or more of patients with skin and soft tissue infections and was comparable to sulbactam/ampicillin in patients with limb-threatening diabetic foot infections. In the treatment of bone and joint infections, imipenem/cilastatin achieved clinical cure or improvement in 74 to 96% of patients.

Pharmacoeconomic Considerations

Although the acquisition cost of imipenem/cilastatin generally exceeds those of standard aminoglycoside combination regimens, this difference appears to be at least offset by the additional costs of multiple intravenous administration and monitoring (of plasma aminoglycoside concentrations and for renal and auditory toxicity) associated with the latter type of regimen. Pharmacoeconomic studies have shown a trend towards lower overall treatment costs for intra-abdominal infections with imipenem/cilastatin monotherapy compared with gentamicin plus clindamycin. Moreover, imipenem/cilastatin may reduce hospitalisation costs by shortening hospital stay. Although imipenem/cilastatin generally tended to be less effective than piperacillin/tazobactam in treating intra-abdominal infections, use of imipenem/cilastatin 0.5g 6-hourly in this setting was reported to result in a shorter hospital stay and lower hospitalisation costs than piperacillin/tazobactam 4g/0.5g 8-hourly.

In patients with neutropenic fever, imipenem/cilastatin was reported to be superior in terms of cost benefit, cost effectiveness and cost utility to a combination of amikacin and ceftazidime, although no actual costs were stated.

There are few published pharmacoeconomic data comparing imipenem/ cilastatin with other combination regimens or monotherapies such as broadspectrum cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones.

Tolerability

The most common clinical adverse events during treatment with imipenem/ cilastatin are local injection site events (2.7% of patients), gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea) and dermatological reactions. The most common laboratory adverse events are transient elevation of liver enzymes and eosinophilia. As with other β-lactam agents, imipenem/cilastatin has been reported to induce seizures: risk factors are excessive dosage, impaired renal function, head trauma or cerebrovascular accident and CNS pathology. Careful adjustment of imipenem/cilastatin dosage with regard to bodyweight and renal function is important, in order to minimise the risk of seizures.

Dosage and Administration

Imipenem/cilastatin is indicated for the treatment of septicaemia, neutropenic fever, endocarditis and intra-abdominal, lower respiratory tract, genitourinary, gynaecological, skin and soft tissue, and bone and joint infections. It is given by intravenous infusion over 20 to 30 minutes (doses ≤0.5g) or 40 to 60 minutes (larger doses), or a longer period if nausea develops. Alternatively, it may be administered by deep intramuscular injection, depending on the type of infection.

The recommended dosage of imipenem/cilastatin varies according to route of administration, type and severity of infection, pathogen susceptibility, renal function and bodyweight. The usual recommended intravenous adult dosage (based on bodyweight of 70kg) is 1 to 2 g/day in 3 to 4 daily doses, or a maximum of 50 mg/kg/day (not more than 4 g/day) in infections caused by less susceptible organisms. Dosage should be reduced in patients with lower bodyweight and/or impaired renal function. Dosage adjustment on the basis of advanced age is not necessary, although the age-related decline in renal function should be borne in mind. A dosage of 60 mg/kg/day, in 4 divided doses, is recommended for children aged ≥3 months and weighing <40kg, provided that total daily dose does not exceed 2g; those weighing ≥40kg may receive adult dosages. For surgical prophylaxis in adults, an intravenous dosage of lg at induction of anaesthesia and 3 hours later, followed by a further 0.5g at 8 and 16 hours in high-risk surgery, is recommended.

The intramuscular preparation is given at a dosage of 1 to 1.5 g/day, on a twice-daily basis, for treatment of mild to moderate infections. A single 0.5g dose may be used to treat gonococcal urethritis or cervicitis.

Imipenem/cilastatin is not recommended for the treatment of children aged <3 months or those with meningitis, and should be used with caution, with strict attention to correct dosage, in patients with CNS disorders and/or impaired renal function. If its use is deemed essential in a breastfeeding mother, breastfeeding should be discontinued. Because of apparent cross-reactivity between imipenem and other β-lactams, it should be ascertained whether previous hypersensitivity reactions have occurred with other β-lactams before initiating imipenem/ cilastatin therapy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Birnbaum J, Kahan FM, Kropp H, et al. Carbapenems, a new class of beta-lactam antibiotics. Discovery and development of imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6a: 3–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clissold SP, Todd PA, Campoli-Richards DM. Imipenem/cilastatin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1987; 33: 183–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckley MM, Brogden RN, Barradell LB, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin: a reappraisal of its antibacterial activity, pharma-cokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy [published erratum appears in Drugs 1992 Dec;44(6):1012]. Drugs 1992 Sep; 44: 408–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang Y, Bhachech N, Bush K. Biochemical comparison of imipenem, meropenem and biapenem: permeability, binding to penicillin-binding proteins, and stability to hydrolysis by β-lactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995 Jan; 35: 75–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spivey JM. The postantibiotic effect [see comments]. Clin Pharm 1992 Oct; 11:865–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; fourth informational supplement. NCCLS, Villanova, USA:, 1994Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kessler RE, Fung-Tomc J, Kolek B, et al. In vitro activity of BMS-181139, a new carbapenem with potent antipseudomonal activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 Feb; 39: 380–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakagawa S, Hashizume T, Matsuda K, et al. In vitro activity of a new carbapenem antibiotic, BO-2727, with potent anti-pseudomonal activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Dec; 37: 2756–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoban DJ, Jones RN, Yamane N, et al. In vitro activity of three carbapenem antibiotics. Comparative studies with biapenem (L-627), imipenem, and meropenem against aerobic pathogens isolated worldwide. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 Nov-Dec; 17: 299–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sader HS, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of the new carbapenem biapenem compared to imipenem, meropenem and other broad-spectrum beta-lactam drugs. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 May; 12: 384–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verbist L. Epidemiology and sensitivity of 8625 ICU and hematology/oncology bacterial isolates in Europe. Scand J Infect Dis 1993: 14-24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malanoski GJ, Collins L, Wennersten C, et al. In vitro activity of biapenem against clinical isolates of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Sep; 37: 2009–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall SA, Aldridge KE, Allen SD, et al. Comparative antimicrobial activity of piperacillin-tazobactam tested against more than 5000 recent clinical isolates from five medical centers; a reevaluation after five years. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 21: 153–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vartivarian S, Anaissie E, Bodey G, et al. A changing pattern of susceptibility of Xanthomonas maltophilia to antimicrobial agents: implications for therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Mar; 38: 624–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smit WJ, Boquest AL, Geddes JE, et al. The antibiotic susceptibilities of Xanthomonas maltophilia and their relation to clinical management. Pathology 1994 Jul; 26: 321–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okpara AU, Maswoswe JJ. Emergence of multidrug-resistant isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Am J Hosp Pharm 1994 Nov 1; 51: 2671–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seifert H, Baginski R, Schulze A, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Acinetobacter species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Apr; 37: 750–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerner-Smidt P, Frederiksen W. Acinetobacter in Denmark. I. Taxonomy, antibiotic susceptibility, and pathogenicity of 112 clinical strains. APMIS 1993 Nov; 101: 815–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vila J, Marcos A, Marco F, et al. In vitro antimicrobial production of β-lactamases, aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes, and chloramphenicol acetyltransferase by and susceptibility of clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Jan; 37: 138–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aldridge KE, Jones RN, Barry AL, et al. In vitro activity of various antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus isolates including fluoroquinolone- and oxacillin-resistant strains. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Aug; 15: 517–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aldridge KE, Gelfand MS, Schiro DD, et al. The rapid emergence of fluoroquinolone-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in a community hospital. An in vitro look at alternative antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Sep–Oct; 15: 601–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flournoy DJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of 605 consecutively occurring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Med Sci Res 1992; 20: 557–9Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanifah YA, Hiramatsu K, Yokota T. Characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with nosocomial infections in the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur. J Hosp Infect 1992; 21: 15–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Husain H, Manzor O, Markowitz N, et al. In vitro activity of 5 quinolones, cotrimoxazole, imipenem, and rifampicin against recent isolates of S. aureus [abstract]. Drugs 1993; 45 Suppl. 3: 204–5Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sakamoto T. Control of respiratory infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a geriatric hospital. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1993 Feb; 41: 239–49Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goto M, Kaji Y, Oka S, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of teicoplanin against Gram-positive aerobic cocci [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1993 Aug; 41 Suppl. 2: 25–31Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deguchi K, Yokota N, Koguchi M, et al. Antibacterial activities of arbekacin against recently isolated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (I) [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1993 Mar; 46: 234–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gordon S, Swenson JM, Hill BC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of common and unusual species of enterococci causing infections in the United States. Enterococcal Study Group. J Clin Microbiol 1992 Sep; 30: 2373–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Louie M, Simor AE, Szeto S, et al. Susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30: 41–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venditti M, Tarasi A, Gelfusa V, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of enterococci isolated from hospitalized patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 May; 37: 1190–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eng RHK, Ng K, Smith SM. Susceptibility of resistant Enterococcus faecium to unusual antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31: 609–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yee YC, Thornsberry C, Brown SD, et al. A comparative study of the in-vitro activity of cefepime and other antimicrobial agents against penicillin-susceptible and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Nov; 32 Suppl. B: 13–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Linares J, Alonso T, Pérez JL, et al. Decreased susceptibility of penicillin-resistant pneumococci to twenty-four β-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Sep; 30: 279–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mason Jr EO, Kaplan SL, Lamberth LB, et al. Increased rate of isolation of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in a children’s hospital and in vitro susceptibilities to antibiotics of potential therapeutic use [see comments]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Aug; 36: 1703–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spangler SK, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Susceptibilities of 177 penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci to FK-037, cefpirome, cefepime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ceftazi-dime, imipenem, biapenem, meropenem, and vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Apr; 38: 898–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doit CP, Bonacorsi SP, Fremaux AJ, et al. In vitro killing activities of antibiotics at clinically achievable concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid against penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from children with meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Nov; 38: 2655–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cullmann W, Schlunegger H. Sensitivity of penicillin-resistance pneumococci [in German]. Immun Infekt 1993 Feb; 21: 9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McWhinney PH, Patel S, Whiley RA, et al. Activities of potential therapeutic and prophylactic antibiotics against blood culture isolates of viridans group streptococci from neutropenic patients receiving ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Nov; 37: 2493–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Potgieter E, Carmichael M, Koornhof HJ, et al. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of viridans streptococci isolated from blood cultures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Jun; 11: 543–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eliopoulos GM, Klimm K, Eliopoulos CT. In vitro activity of CP-99,219, a new fluoroquinolone, against clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Feb; 37: 366–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nord CE, Hagelback A. Susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to PD 131628. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Jan; 11: 68–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fukushima R, Motomiya M, Kobayashi H. Clinical investigation of intramuscular imipenem/cilastatin sodium in respiratory tract infections [in Japanese] [abstract]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Jul; 40: 933Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nord CE, Lindmark A, Persson I. In vitro activity of the new quinolone BAY y 3118 against anaerobic bacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 Aug; 12: 640–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wexler HM, Molitoris E, Reeves D. In-vitro activity of clinafloxacin (CI-960) and PD 131628-2 against anaerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 Oct; 34: 579–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wexler HM, Molitoris E, Finegold SM. In vitro activity of Bay Y3118 against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Nov; 37: 2509–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Catchpole CR, Wise R, Thornber D, et al. In vitro activity of L-627, a new carbapenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Sep; 36: 1928–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen HY, Livermore DM. Comparative in-vitro activity of biapenem against enterobacteria with β-lactamase-mediated antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 Mar; 33: 453–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    MacGowan AP, Bowker KE, Bedford KA, et al. The comparative inhibitory and bactericidal activities of meropenem and imipenem against Acinetobacter spp. and Enterobacteriaceae resistant to second generation cephalosporins. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995 Feb; 35: 333–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hamilton-Miller JMT, Smith C. Cefotaxime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in a university hospital: occurrence, identity, source and sensitivity patterns. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 195–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tzelepi E, Tzouvelekis LS, Vatopoulos AC, et al. High prevalence of stably derepressed class-I β-lactamase expression in multiresistant clinical isolates of Enterobacter cloacae from Greek hospitals. J Med Microbiol 1992; 37: 91–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ritter E, Bauernfeind A, Becker-Boost E, et al. Outbreak of a nosocomial infection of SHV2-beta-lactamase-containing Klebsiella pneumonia strains in an operative intensive care unit [in German]. Immun Infekt 1992 Feb; 20: 3–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Giir D, Pitt TL, Hall LMC, et al. Diversity of klebsiellae with extended-spectrum β-lactamases at a Turkish university hospital. J Hosp Infect 1992; 22: 163–78Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Levett PN, Holt HA, McGowan AP. Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins in Barbados. West Indian Med J 1993 Jun; 42: 69–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Toye BW, Scriver SR, Low DE. Canadian survey of antimicrobial resistance in Klebsiella spp. and Enterobacter spp. The Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Nov; 32 Suppl B: 81–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cherubin CE, Stratton CW. In vitro activity of biapenem versus ceftazidime-resistant strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli [abstract]. 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 286.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zemelman R, Bello H, Dominguez M, et al. Activity of imipenem, third-generation cephalosporins, aztreonam and ciprofloxacin against multi-resistant Gram-negative bacilli isolated from Chilean hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Sep; 32: 413–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Spencer RC. Cross-susceptibility of cefpirome and four other beta-lactams against isolates from haematology/oncology and intensive care units. Scand J Infect Dis 1993 Suppl. 91: 25–32Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sarubbi F, Franzus B, Verghese A. Comparative activity of meropenem (SM-7338) against major respiratory pathogens and amikacin-resistant nosocomial isolates. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Jan; 11: 65–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jones RN, Marshall SA. Antimicrobial activity of cefepime tested against Bush group I β-lactamase-producing strains resistant to ceftazidime: a multilaboratory national and international clinical isolate study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994 May; 19: 33–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bonfiglio G, Stefani S, Nicoletti G. In vitro activity of cefpirome against beta-lactamase-inducible and stably derepressed Enterobacteriaceae. Chemotherapy (Basel) 1994 Sep-Oct; 40: 311-6Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stille W, Shah PM, Ullmann U, et al. Randomized multicenter clinical trial with imipenem/cilastatin versus cefotaxime/gentamicin in the treatment of patients with non-life-threatening infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Aug; 11: 683–92Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chamberland S, L’Ecuyer J, Lessard C, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of 941 Gram-negative bacteria isolated from septicemic patients throughout Canada. The Canadian Study Group. Clin Infect Dis 1992 Oct; 15: 615–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fujita J, Negayama K, Takigawa K, et al. Activity of antibiotics against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 May; 29: 539–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fujita J, Negayama K, Takigawa K, et al. In-vitro activity of imipenem and amikacin combinations against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31: 1007–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fukuda H, Hosaka M, Iyobe S, et al. nfxC-Type quinolone resistance in a clinical isolate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 Mar; 39: 790–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Aubert G, Pozzetto B, Dorche G. Emergence of quinolone-imipenem cross-resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa after fluoroquinolone therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Mar; 29:307–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Turano A, Ravizzola G, Peroni L, et al. A multicentre study: staphylococcus and enterococcus susceptibility to antibiotics. Eur J Epidemiol 1994 Oct; 10: 567–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Uete T, Matsuo K. Synergistic enhancement of in vitro antimicrobial activity of imipenem and cefazolin, cephalothin, cefotiam, cefamandole or cefoperazone in combination against methicillin-sensitive and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Jpn J Antibiot 1995 Mar; 48: 402–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JM, Shah S. In-vitro activity of RP 59500, a new semisynthetic streptogramin antibiotic, against Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Jul; 30 Suppl A:29–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nordmann P, Ronco E. In-vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Rhodococcus equi. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Apr; 29: 383–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rodriguez JC, Canizares A, Mendaza P, et al. Evaluation of Nocardia sp. susceptibility to 21 antibiotics: comparison of two techniques [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Quimioter1992 Mar; 5:48–51Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Scopetti F, Iona E, Fattorini L, et al. Activity of antimicrobial drugs evaluated by agar dilution and radiometric methods against strains of Nocardia asteroides isolated in Italy from immunocompromised patients. J Chemother 1994 Feb; 6: 29–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Khardori N, Shawar R, Gupta R, et al. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibilities of Nocardia species [see comments]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Apr; 37: 882–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yazawa K, Mikami Y, Ohashi S, et al. In-vitro activity of new carbapenem antibiotics: comparative studies with meropenem, L-627 and imipenem against pathogenic Nocardia spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Feb; 29: 169–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goldstein EJC, Citron DM, Cherubin CE, et al. Comparative susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group species and other anaerobic bacteria to meropenem, imipenem, piperacillin, cefoxitin, ampicillin/sulbactam, clindamycin and metronidazole. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Mar; 31: 363–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Neu HC, Gu J-W, Fang W, et al. In vitro activity and β-lactamase stability of LJC 10,627. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Jul; 36: 1418–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Appelbaum PC, Spangler SK, Jacobs MR. Susceptibility of 539 Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes to new agents, including RP59500, biapenem, trospectomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. J Antimicrob Chemother1993 Aug; 32:223–31Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Clarke AM, Zemcov SJ. Comparative in vitro activity of biapenem, a new carbapenem antibiotic. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 May; 12: 377–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Murakami K, Miyazaki S, Kaneko Y, et al. Antibacterial activity of biapenem, a new carbapenem [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Dec; 42 Suppl. 4: 37–54Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Aldridge KE, Morice N, Schiro DD. In vitro activity of biapenem (L-627), a new carbapenem, against anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Apr; 38: 889–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Garcfa-Rodriguez JA, García-Sánchez JE, Trujillano-Martín I, et al. L-627, a novel carbapenem: in-vitro activity against anaerobes. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 Jan; 33: 183–6Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nishino T, Otsuki M, Obana Y, et al. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of biapenem, a new carbapenem antibiotic [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Dec; 42 Suppl. 4: 64–81Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nord CE, Lindmark A, Persson I. In vitro activity of L-627 against anaerobic bacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis1992 Aug; 11:757–60Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Luengo FM, Baquero F, Cisterna R, et al. In vitro activity of biapenem compared to imipenem and meropenem against Gram positive and Gram negative organisms [abstract]. 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 285.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kobayashi Y, Uchida H, Ikeda Y. Comparative in vitro activity of biapenem, imipenem and panipenem against gram-negative rods isolated from blood [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Dec; 42 Suppl. 4: 681–2Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hazumi N, Hioki Y, Hashizume T, et al. BO-2727, a new injectable beta-methyl carbapenem: in vitro antibacterial activity [abstract]. 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 284.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nishino T, Kato Y, Otsuki M. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of BO-2727, a new carbapenem antibiotic [abstract]. 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 30.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Inoue K, Hamana Y, Mitsuhashi S. Antibacterial activity of new carbapenem BO-2727 and stability to beta-lactamase [abstract]. 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 29.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Asahi Y, Miyazaki S, Yamaguchi K. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of BO-2727, a new 1-β-methyl carbapenem [abstract]. 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 31.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Koga H, Iwamoto M, Kohno S, et al. Laboratory and clinical studies of SY5555 [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1:381–8Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Cho N, Kimura T, Shimizu A, et al. Basic and clinical studies of SY5555 in obstetrics and gynecology [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1: 559–72Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Spangler SK, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Activity of WY-49605 compared with those of amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, imipenem, ciprofloxacin, cefaclor, cefpodoxime, cefuroxime, clindamycin, and metronidazole against 384 anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Nov; 38: 2599–604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Fukuhara H, Inadome J, Kakazu T, et al. Basic and clinical studies of SY5555 in respiratory tract infections [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1: 406–12Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Yamada Y, Nakamura A, Yamamoto T, et al. Basic and clinical studies on SY5555 [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1:350–5Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yonezu S, Yamanaka Y, Yasunaga K. Laboratory and clinical studies on SY5555 [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1: 356–64Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kitagawa T, Goto T, Yamauchi D, et al. Antimicrobial activity and clinical study on SY5555, a new oral penem, in urinary tract infection [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1:496–502Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kurimura O, Hiramoto T, Nakano K, et al. Laboratory and clinical studies on SY5555 [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1: 721–8Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wiseman LR, Wagstaff AJ, Brogden RN, et al. Meropenem: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1995; 50: 73–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Tanaka H, Kaku M, Kohno S, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of meropenem, imipenem, panipenem and biapenem against recent clinical isolates [abstract] (34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 31).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Matsumoto T, Kumazawa J, Nagayama A. Susceptibility of freshly isolated bacteria from complicated urinary tract infection against four carbapenems [abstract]. 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 31.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Livermore DM. Carbapenemases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29: 609–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Livingstone D, Gill MJ, Wise R. Mechanisms of resistance to the carbapenems. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Chen HY, Livermore DM. Effects of β-lactamase inducibility and derepression on the activity of cefepime and cefpirome against Gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Oct; 32: 651–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chen HY, Livermore DM. In-vitro activity of biapenem, compared with imipenem and meropenem, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains and mutants with known resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 May; 33: 949–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wight LJ, Freeth CJ, Deaney NB, et al. Susceptibility of aerobic and facultative anaerobic organisms to imipenem. Drug Invest 1992; 4: 192–8Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Baron EJ, Jones RN. National survery of the in vitro spectrum of piperacillin-tazobactam tested against more than 40,000 aerobic clinical isolates from 236 medical centers. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 21: 141–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Gaynes RP, Culver DH. Resistance to imipenem among selected Gram-negative bacilli in the United States [see comments]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992 Jan; 13: 10–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sirot DL, Goldstein FW, Soussy CJ, et al. Resistance to cefotaxime and seven other β-lactams in members of the family Enterobacteriaceae: a 3-year survey in France. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Aug; 36: 1677–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Pierson CL, Friedman BA. Comparison of susceptibility to β-lactam antimicrobial agents among bacteria isolated from intensive care units. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Feb; 15(2) Suppl. 2: 19S–30SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Jones RN, Kehrberg EN, Erwin ME, et al. Prevalence of important pathogens and antimicrobial activity of parenteral drugs at numerous medical centers in the United States. I. Study on the threat of emerging resistances; real or perceived? Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 19: 203–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Chen HY, Yuan M, Ibrahim-Elmagboul IB, et al. National survey of susceptibility to antimicrobials amongst clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 521–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Takigawa K, Fujita J, Negayama K, et al. Comparing antimicrobial activity against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa using an index for the absence of cross-resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 425–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Garcia-Dominguez C, Martin P, Santo-Hurtado I, et al. Susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to anti-pseudomonal antibiotics in a general hospital in Spain from 1989 to 1992. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 May; 33: 1057–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Takahashi K, Watanabe M, Kannc H. Isolation of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and synergistic activities of combinations of ceftazidime and imipenem or ofloxacin against imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Oct; 40: 1201–7Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Stratton CW, Ratner H, Johnston PE, et al. Focused microbiologie surveillance by specific hospital unit as a sensitive means of defining antimicrobial resistance problems. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15: 11–8Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Karray H, Hammami A, Mahjoubi F, et al. In vitro study of susceptibility to antibiotics of 213 Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated in an intensive care unit of Sfax hospital (Tunisia) [in French]. Pathol Biol 1993 Apr; 41: 307–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Lopez-Yeste ML, Tirado M, Reig R, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa susceptibility to antibiotics [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Quimioter 1992; 5: 137–41Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Stratton IV CW, Ratner H, Johnston PE, et al. Focused microbiologic surveillance by specific hospital unit: practical application and clinical utility. Clin Ther 1993; 15 Suppl. A: 12–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Rasmussen BA, Bush K, Tally FP. Antimicrobial resistance in Bactewides. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Jun; 16 Suppl 4: S390–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Johnson CC. Susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to β-lactam antibiotics in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Jun; 16 Suppl. 4: S371–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Hecht DW, Osmolski JR, O’Keefe JP. Variation in the susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates from six Chicago hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Jun; 16 Suppl 4: S357–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Aldridge KE, Gelfand M, Relier LB, et al. A five-year multi-center study of the susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group isolates to cephalosporins, cephamins, penicillins, clindamycin, and metronidazole in the United States. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1994 Apr; 18: 235–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Phillips I, King A, Nord CE, et al. Antibiotic sensitivity of the Bacteroides fragilis group in Europe. European Study Group. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Apr; 11: 292–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Betriu C, Cabronero C, Gomez M, et al. Changes in the susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group organisms to various antimicrobial agents 1979–1989. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis1992 Apr; 11:352–6Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Baquero F, Reig M. Resistance of anaerobic bacteria to antimicrobial agents in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Nov; 11: 1016–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Chen SC, Gottlieb T, Palmer JM, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria in Australia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Dec; 30: 811–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Horn R, Lavallee J, Robson HG. Susceptibilities of members of the Bacteroides fragilis group to 11 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Sep; 36: 2051–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Turgeon P, Turgeon V, Gourdeau M, et al. Longitudinal study of susceptibilities of species of the Bacteroides fragilis group to five antimicrobial agents in three medical centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Oct; 38: 2276–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Bourgault A-M, Lamothe F, Hoban DJ, et al. Survey of Bacteroides fragilis group susceptibility patterns in Canada. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Feb; 36: 343–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Lee K, Jang IH, Kim YJ, et al. In vitro susceptibilities of the Bacteroides fragilis group to 14 antimicrobial agents in Korea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Jan; 36: 195–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Bremmelgaard A, Jansen JE, Justesen T, et al. Antibiotic sensitivity of the Bacteroides-fragilis group in Denmark. APMIS 1993 Sep; 101: 727–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    van der Westhuyzen I, Chalkley LJ. Antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria isolated in Johannesburg. S Afr Med J 1992 Nov; 82: 314–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Bandoh K, Ueno K, Watanabe K, et al. Susceptibility patterns and resistance to imipenem in the Bacteroides fragilis group species in Japan: a 4-year study. Clin Infect Dis 1993 Jun; 16 Suppl. 4: 382–6Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Igari J. A nationwide survey of antimicrobial susceptibilities of clinical isolates to antibiotics in Japan (1988-1990) [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1993 Jun; 46: 454–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Carlucci G, Mazzeo P, Bologna M. Imipenem in biological fluids analysed by derivative UV- spectrophotometry. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1991; 9(10-12): 1169–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Forsyth RJ, Ip DP. Determination of imipenem and cilastatin sodium in primaxin by first order derivative ultraviolet spectrophotometry. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1994 Oct; 12: 1243–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Parra A, Garcia-Villanova J, Rodenas V, et al. First- and second-derivative spectrophotometric determination of imipenem and cilastatin in injections. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1993 Jun; 11:477–82Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Signs SA, Tan JS, Salstrom S-J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem in serum and skin window fluid in healthy adults after intramuscular or intravenous administration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Jul; 36: 1400–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Paradis D, Vallée F, Allard S, et al. Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activities of cefpirome, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Oct; 36: 2085–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Saito A. Pharmacokinetic study on meropenem [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Apr; 40 Suppl. 1: 276–82Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Saito A, Miura T, Tarao F. Pharmacokinetic study of biapenem [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Dec; 42 Suppl. 4: 277–84Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Merck & Co. Merck & Co., Ltd. (New Jersey), 1995. International Physicians Circular.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Onishi A, Otawa AM, Hara K, et al. A clinical phase I study on intramuscular imipenem/cilastatin sodium. Jpn J Antibiot 1991; 44: 860–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Nilsson-Ehle I, Hutchison M, Haworth SJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem compared to inipenem-cilastatin in young, healthy males. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; 10: 85–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Reed MD, Kliegman RM, Yamashita T, et al. Clinical pharmacology of imipenem in premature infants during the first week of life. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1172–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Claesson G, Eriksson M, Rogers JD. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem/cilastatin sodium in children with peritonitis. Pharmacol Toxicol 1992 Aug; 71: 103–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Jacobs RF, Kearns GL, Trang JM, et al. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of imipenem in children. J Pediatr 1984; 105: 996–1001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Jacobs RF, Kearns GL, Brown AL, et al. Renal clearance of imipenem in children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1984; 3: 471–4Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Toon S, Hopkins KJ, Garstang FM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem and cilastatin after their simultaneous administration to the elderly. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 23: 143–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Mueller BA, Scarim SK, Macias WL. Comparison of imipenem pharmacokinetics in patients with acute or chronic renal failure treated with continuous hemofiltration. Am J Kidney Dis 1993 Feb;21: 172–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Boucher BA, Kuhl DA, Hickerson WL. Pharmacokinetics of systemically administered antibiotics in patients with thermal injury. Clin Infect Dis 1992 Feb; 14: 458–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Bergan T, Michalsen H, Malmborg AS, et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of imipenem combined with cilastatin in cystic fibrosis. Chemotherapy (Basel) 1993 Nov-Dec; 39: 369–73Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Heikkilä A, Renkonen O-V, Erkkola R. Pharmacokinetics and transplacental passage of imipenem during pregnancy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Dec; 36: 2652–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Bressolle F, Kinowski J-M, de la Coussaye JE, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics during continuous haemofiltration. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994 Jun; 26: 457–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Somani P, Freimer EH, Gross ML, et al. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem-cilastatin in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988; 32: 530–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Hara K-I, Shibata M, Kobayashi H, et al. Physiological disposition of imipenem and cilastatin sodium in rats (I). Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1985; 33 Suppl. 4: 290–304Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Rolando N, Wade JJ, Philpott-Howard JN, et al. The penetration of imipenem/cilastatin into ascitic fluid in patients with chronic liver disease. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 Jan; 33: 163–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Leung JWC, Ling TKW, Chan RCY, et al. Antibiotics, biliary sepsis, and bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 1994 Nov–Dec; 40: 716–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Dealy DH, Duma RJ, Tartaglione TA, et al. Penetration of primaxin (N-formimidoyl thienamycin and cilastatin) into human cerebrospinal fluid. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1985 Jun 23–28; Kyoto, Japan, Abstract no. S-78-4.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Errttmann M, Krausse R, Ulimann U. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem in patients undergoing major colon surgery. Infection 1990; 18: 367–71Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Esposito S, Noviello S, Marvaso A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and prophylactic efficacy of imipenem in abdominal surgery. Curr Ther Res 1992 Nov; 52: 708–20Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Unertl K, Adam D, Sunder-Plassman L, et al. Serum and lung tissue concentrations of imipenem [abstract no. P-44-57]. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1985 Jun 23–28; Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Büchler M, Malfertheiner P, Friess H, et al. Human pancreatic tissue concentration of bactericidal antibiotics. Gastroenterology 1992 Dec; 103: 1902–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Ito Y, Takeda A, Kanematsu N, et al. Clinical studies of imipenem/cilastatin sodium in complicated urinary tract infections and drug concentrations in human kidney and prostate. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1985; 33 Suppl. 4: 825–33Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Miano I, Vicentine C, Carlucci G, et al. Imipenem concentrations in human prostatic tissue: clinical implications. Curr Ther Res 1989; 46: 614–8Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Suzuyama Y, Nagasawa M, Koya H, et al. Laboratory and clinical studies on imipenem/cilastain sodium. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1985; 33 Suppl. 4: 694–711Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Péchinot A, Arnould H, Baulot E, et al. Diffusion of imipenem in synovial fluid [in French]. Pathol Biol 1991; 39: 503–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Adenis JP, Mounier M, Salomon JL, et al. Human vitreous penetration of imipenem. Eur J Ophthalmol 1994 Apr-Jun; 4: 115–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Suzuki K, Baba S, Kiroshita H, et al. Laboratory and clinical studies of imipenem/cilastatin sodium in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1985; 33 Suppl. 4: 1109–17Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Garau J, Calandra GB. Intramuscular imipenem/cilastatin in multiple-dose treatment regimens: review of the worldwide clinical experience. Chemotherapy (Basel) 1991; 37 Suppl. 2: 44–52Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    de Groot HG, Hustinx PA, Lampe AS, et al. Comparison of imipenem/cilastatin with the combination of aztreonam and clindamycin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Sep; 32: 491–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Gonzenbach HR, Simmen HP, Angwerd R. Imipenem (N-F-thienamycin) versus netilmicin plus clindamycin. Ann Surg 1987; 205: 271–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Heseltine PNR, Yellin AE, Berne TV, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin as adjunctive monotherapy to surgical treatment of intraabdominal infections. Infections in Surgery 1990; 9: 75–80Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Mandell LA, Turgeon PL, Ronalds AR. A prospective randomized trial of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin/tobramycin in the treatment of intra-abdominal and pelvic infections. Can J Infect Dis 1993 Sep/Oct; 4: 279–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Poenaru D, De Santis M, Christou NV. Imipenem versus tobramycin-antianaerobe antibioetic therapy in intra-abdominal infections. Can J Surg 1990; 33: 415–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Solomkin JS, Dellinger EP, Christou NV, et al. Results of a multicenter trial comparing imipenem/cilastatin to tobramycin/clindamycin for intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 1990; 212: 581–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Brismar B, Malmborg AS, Tunevall G, et al. Piperacillin-tazobactam versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Dec; 36: 2766–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Brismar B, Malmborg AS, Tunevall G, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995 Jan; 35: 139–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Geroulanos SJ. Antibiotics and the abdomen. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994 Oct; 7 Suppl. 1: S17–22Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    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 Jun; 12: 449–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Niinikoski J, Havia T, Alhava E, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993 Mar; 176: 255–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Van Kraaij MGJ, Verkooyen RP, Verbrugh HA. Meta-analysis of imipenem monotherapy versus aminoglycoside combination therapy [abstract]. Neth J Med 1993 Jun; 42: A106Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Janvier G, Carles J. Efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin in the adjuvant treatment of surgery for peritonitis in patients over the age of 70 years [in French]. Ann Chir 1993; 47(4): 370–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Merchant MR, Anwar N, Were A, et al. Imipenem versus netilmicin and vancomycin in the treatment of CAPD peritonitis. Adv Perit Dial 1992; 8: 234–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Lui S-F, Cheng AB, Leung CB, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin sodium in the treatment of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. Am J Nephrol 1994; 14: 182–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Ahlmén J, Bronnestam R, Eriksson C, et al. Imipenem in the treatment of peritonitis during CAPD. Dialysis Transplant 1991; 20: 498–515Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Uhari M, Seppänen J, Heikkinen E. Imipenem-cilastatin vs. tobramycin and metronidazole for appendicitis-related infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992 Jun; 11: 445–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Burkitt DS, Donovan IA, Wise R, et al. A comparison between imipenem and metronidazole prophylaxis against sepsis following appendicectomy. J Hosp Infect 1990; 15: 283–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Karran SJ, Sutton G, Gartell P, et al. Imipenem prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1993 Sep; 80: 1196–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Pacelli F, Brisinda G, Bellantone R, et al. Single dose imipenem-cilastatin compared with three doses of cefuroxime and metronidazole as prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: a prospective randomised study. J Chemother 1991; 3: 372–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesentini S. A randomized multicenter clinical trial of antibiotic prophylaxis of septic complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with imipenem. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993 May; 176: 480–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Au E, Tow A, Allen DM. Randomised study comparing imipenem/cilastatin to ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994 Nov; 23: 819–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Cornelissen JJ, de Graeff A, Verdonck LF, et al. Imipenem versus gentamicin combined with either cefuroxime or cephalothin as initial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Apr; 36: 801–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Erjavec Z, De Vries-Hospers HG, van Kamp H, et al. Comparison of imipenem versus cefuroxim plus tobramycin as empirical therapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients and efficacy of vancomycin and aztreonam in case of failure. Scand J Infect Dis 1994; 26(5): 585–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Leyland MJ, Bayston KF, Cohen J, et al. A comparative study of imipenem versus piperacillin plus gentamicin in the initial management of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Dec; 30: 843–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Matsui K, Masuda N, Takada M, et al. A randomized trial comparing imipenem/cilastatine alone with latamoxef plus tobramycin in febrile neutropenic patients with lung cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1991; 21: 428–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Miller JA, Butler T, Beveridge RA, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of imipenem-cisplatin versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin as empiric therapy of presumed bacterial infection in neutropenic cancer patients. Clin Ther 1993 May–Jun; 15:486–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Rolston KVI, Berkey P, Bodey GP, et al. A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Arch Intern Med 1992 Feb; 152: 283–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Bosseray A, Nicolini F, Brion JP, et al. Randomized trial of three empirical antibiotic regimens in patients with febrile neutropenia: imipenem-cilastatin, ceftazidime-vancomycin, and ticarcillin-vancomycin-amikacin [in French]. Pathol Biol 1992 Oct; 40: 797–804PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Mortimer J, Miller S, Black D, et al. Comparison of cefoperazone and mezlocillin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Am J Med 1988; 85 Suppl. la: 17–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Winston DJ, Ho WG, Bruckner DA, et al. Beta-lactam antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. A randomized trial comparing cefoperazone plus piperacillin, ceftazidime plus piperacillin, and imipenem alone. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 849–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Freifeld AG, Walsh T, Marshall D, et al. Monotherapy for fever and neutropenia in cancer patients: a randomized comparison of ceftazidime versus imipenem. J Clin Oncol 1995 Jan; 13: 165–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Liang R, Yung R, Chiu E, et al. Ceftazidime versus imipenem-cilastatin as initial monotherapy for febrile neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1336–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Kojima A, Shinkai T, Soejima Y, et al. Arandomized prospective study of imipenem-cilastatin with or without amikacin as an empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenic patients. Am J Clin Oncol Cancer Clin Trials 1994 Oct; 17: 400–4Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Riikonen P. Imipenem compared with ceftazidime plus vancomycin as initial therapy for fever in neutropenic children with cancer. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991; 10: 918–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Wake A, Murakami S, Ogawa R, et al. Clinical efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin sodium and amikacin combination therapy on severe infections in patients with hematological disorders [in Japanese]. Shinryo to Shinyaku 1993; 30(4): 829–37Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Sawada H, Sasada M, Tajima M, et al. Effect of a combination treatment using imipenem/cilastatin sodium with G-CSF on infections in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1995 Feb; 48: 271–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Sakata Y, Sawada Y, Kuroe K, et al. A randomized controlled study on imipenem/cilastatin sodium in comparison to aztreonam + lincomycin in treating severe infections in patients with malignant tumors or hematological diseases [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1992 Aug; 45: 1009–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Link H, Maschmeyer G, Meyer P, et al. Interventional antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Study Group of the Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy. Ann Hematol 1994 Nov; 69: 231–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Engervall PA, Stiernstedt GT, Gunther GC, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus amikacin as first-line therapy and imipenem/cilastatin as second empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological disorders. J Chemother 1992 Apr; 4: 99–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Petrilli AS, Melaragno R, Barros KVT, et al. Fever and neutropenia in children with cancer: a therapeutic approach related to the underlying disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J1993 Nov; 12:916–21Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Takeda T, Hatae Y, Nakadate H, et al. A multi-institutional study on the efficacy and toxicity of imipenem/cilastatin sodium in severe infections complicating hematological diseases and cancers in children [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1993 May; 46: 388–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Hauer C, Urban C, Slave I, et al. Imipenem-antibiotic monotherapy in juvenile cancer patients with neutropenia. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1990; 7: 229–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Mouton Y, Deboscker Y, Bazin C, et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of imipenem-cilastatin versus cefotaxime-amikacin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and septicaemia in intensive care units. Presse Med 1990; 19: 607–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Takamoto M, Ishibashi T, Toyoshima H, et al. Imipenem/ cilastatin sodium alone or combined with amikacin sulfate in respiratory infections [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1994 Sep; 47: 1131–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Hara K, Kohno S, Koga H, et al. A comparative study of panipenem/betamipron and imipenem/cilastatin in respiratory tract infections [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 May; 40: 613–37Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Hara K, Kohno S, Koga H, et al. A comparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin sodium in chronic respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1993; 40: 1426–50Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Hara K, Sakamoto A, Komori K, et al. A comparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin sodium in bacterial pneumonia [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Nov; 40: 1343–64Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Fink MP, Snydman DR, Niederman MS, et al. Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Mar; 38: 547–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Giamarellou H, Mandragos K, Bechrakis P, et al. Pefloxacin versus imipenem in the therapy of nosocomial lung infections of intensive care unit patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26 Suppl. B: 117–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Lode H, Wiley R, Hoffken G, et al. Prospective randomised controlled study of ciprofloxacin versus imipenem-cilastatin in severe clinical infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1491–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Norrby SR, Finch RG, Glauser M, et al. Monotherapy in serious hospital-acquired infections: a clinical trial of ceftazidime versus imipenem/cilastatin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31: 927–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Shishido H, Nagai H, Kurashima A, et al. In vitro and clinical studies of imipenem/cilastatin sodium in combination with amikacin for respiratory tract infections [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1993 Oct; 41: 1113–24Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Salata RA, Gebhart RL, Palmer DL, et al. Pneumonia treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6a: 104–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Potgieter PD, Linton DM, Forder AA, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia. S Afr Med J 1988; 74: 390–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Atsuhiko S, Sato A, Suganuma H, et al. Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and early clinical efficacy of imipenem/ cilastatin sodium administered in four divided doses per day for severe pulmonary infection [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1993 Jul; 41: 774–83Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Unertl KE, Lenhart F-P, Forst H, et al. Systemic antibiotic treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 1992; 18 Suppl Suppl. 1: S28–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Neu HC. Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to imipenem [editorial; comment]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992 Jan; 13: 7–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Cometta A, Baumgartner JD, Lew D, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infetions in non-neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Jun; 38: 1309–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    Szczygiel B, Pertkiewicz M, Meszaros J, et al. Imipenem in the treatment of patients with severe surgical infection [in Polish]. Pol Tyg Lek 1992 Jul 20–27; 47: 638–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  231. 231.
    del Valle J, Noriega AR, Sanz F, et al. Efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin in the empirical treatment of septicemia. Scand J Infect Dis 1987; 52: 20–5Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Linton DM, Aitchison JM, Potgieter PD. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerance of intravenously administered imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of septicaemia. S Afr Med J 1989; 75: 529–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  233. 233.
    Schreiner A et al. Imipenem/cilastatin as monotherapy in severe infections: comparison with cefotaxime in combination with metronidazole and cloxacillin. Scand J Infect Dis 1987; 19: 667–75Google Scholar
  234. 234.
    Cakmakci M, Stern A, Schilling J, et al. Randomized comparative trial of imipenem/cilastatin versus aminoglycoside plus amoxycillin plus clindamycin in the treatment of severe intra- and post-operative infections. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1993; 19(5): 223–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  235. 235.
    Hackford AW, Tally FP, Reinhold RB, et al. Prospective study comparing imipenem/cilastatin with clindamycin and gentamicin for the treatment of serious surgical infections. Arch Surg 1988; 123: 322–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Dickinson G, Rodriguez K, Arcey S, et al. Efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in endocarditis. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6A: 117–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  237. 237.
    Donabedian H, Freimer EH. Pathogenesis and treatment of endocarditis. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6A: 127–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  238. 238.
    Uema K, Kagawa S, Takigawa H, et al. Clinical evaluation of intramuscular imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nishinihon J Urol 1992;54: 1200–8Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Ito Y, Yamada S, Komeda H, et al. Antibacterial activity and clinical efficacy of intramuscular imipenem/cilastatin sodium in complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy 1991; 39: 1071–85Google Scholar
  240. 240.
    Cox CE, Holloway WJ, Geckler RW. A multicenter comparative study of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21: 86–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  241. 241.
    Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T, Tanaka M, et al. Dose finding study of meropenem in complicated urinary tract infection [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Apr; 40 Suppl. 1:631–45Google Scholar
  242. 242.
    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: 954–69Google Scholar
  243. 243.
    Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T, Kumamoto Y, et al. Phase III comparative clinical trial of panipenem/betamipron (PAPM/BP) with imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nishinihon J Urol 1992; 54(2): 254–71Google Scholar
  244. 244.
    Yoshida K-I, Kobayashi N, Tohsaka A, et al. Efficacy of sodium imipenem/cilastatin on patients of complicated urinary tract infections. Following the failure of prior antimicrobial agents [in Japanese]. Hinyokika Kiyo 1992 Apr; 38: 495–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  245. 245.
    Chimura T, Banzai M, Nara N, et al. Clinical studies on imipenem/cilastatin sodium in the field of obstetrics and gynecology [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1992 Aug; 45: 1029–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  246. 246.
    Chimura T, Matsuo M, Yokoyama Y, et al. Clinical effects of imipenem/cilastatin sodium on gynecological infections [in Japanese]. Jpn J Antibiot 1994 Aug; 47: 1085–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  247. 247.
    Frongillo RF, Custo GM, Gilardi G, et al. Imipenem versus netilmicin plus chloramphenicol in gynecological upper tract infections: a comparative study. Int J Exp Clin Chemother 1992; 5: 41–4Google Scholar
  248. 248.
    Marier RL. Role of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 79 Suppl. 6a: 140–4Google Scholar
  249. 249.
    Grayson ML, Gibbons GW, Habershaw GM, et al. Use of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1994 May; 18: 683–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  250. 250.
    Nichols RL, Smith JW, Geckler RW, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections. South Med J 1995; 88(4): 397–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  251. 251.
    Wang C, Calandra G, Aziz MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin: a review of worldwide clinical trials. Rev Infect Dis 1985; 7 Suppl. 3: S528–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  252. 252.
    MacGregor RR, Gentry LO. Imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6A: 100–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  253. 253.
    Freij BJ, Kusmiesz H, Shelton S, et al. Imipenem and cilastatin in acute osteomyelitis and suppurative arthritis. Therapy in infants and children. Am J Dis Child 1987; 141: 335–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  254. 254.
    Benfield P, Chrisp P. Imipenem/cilastatin: a pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in intra-abdominal infections. PharmacoEconomics 1992 Jun; 1: 443–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  255. 255.
    Parker SE, Davey PG. Once-daily aminoglycoside administration in Gram-negative sepsis. Economic and practical aspects. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7(5): 393–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  256. 256.
    Jhee SS, Gill MA, Yellin AE, et al. Pharmacoeconomics of piperacillin/tazobactam an imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Clin Ther 1995; 17: 126–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  257. 257.
    Akova M, Hayran M, Unal S, et al. Imipenem (I) versus amikacin (A) plus ceftazidime (C) for the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients [abstract no 1263]. 7th ECCMID, Vienna 1995Google Scholar
  258. 258.
    Graham E, Whalen E, Smith ME, et al. Comparison of costs between ciprofloxacin and imipenem for the treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients [abstract]. Pharmacotherapy 1994 May–Jun; 14: 370–1Google Scholar
  259. 259.
    Calandra GB, Ricci FM, Wang C, et al. The efficacy results and safety profile of imipenem/cilastatin from the clinical research trials. J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 28: 120–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  260. 260.
    Del Favero A. Clinically important aspects of carbapenem safety. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994; 7 Suppl. 1: S38–42Google Scholar
  261. 261.
    Farinas MC, de Vega T, Garmendia J, et al. Severe neutropenia in a patient treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 Apr; 12: 303–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  262. 262.
    Bomback T, Sesin GP, Mucciardi N. Possible imipenem/cilastatin-induced aplastic anemia. 1995 May: 293-302Google Scholar
  263. 263.
    Alvan G, Nord CE. Adverse effects of monobactams and carbapenems. Drug Saf 1995; 12(5): 305–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  264. 264.
    Saxon A, Beall GN, Rohr AS, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 204–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  265. 265.
    Kishiyama JL, Adelman DC. The cross-reactivity and immunology of β-lactam antibiotics. Drug Saf 1994 Apr; 10: 318–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  266. 266.
    Shimada J, Hori S, Kanemitsu K, et al. A comparative study on the convulsant activity of carbapenems and beta-lactams. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1992; 18(9): 377–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  267. 267.
    Sunagawa M, Matsumura H, Sumita Y, et al. Structural features resulting in convulsive activity of carbapenem compounds: effect of C-2 side chain. J Antibiot 1995; 48(5): 408–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  268. 268.
    Calandra GB, Brown KR, Grad LC, et al. Review of adverse experiences and tolerability in the first 2516 patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6a: 73–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  269. 269.
    Choucino C, Chopra A, Khardori N. Incidence of seizures in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin in a teaching hospital [abstract]. Clin Res 1992 Oct; 40: 753AGoogle Scholar
  270. 270.
    Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS, et al. Prospective surveillance of imipenem/cilastatin use and associated seizures using a hospital information system. Ann Pharmacother 1993 Apr; 27: 497–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  271. 271.
    Calandra G, Lydick E, Weiss L, et al. Factors predisposing to seizures in seriously ill infected patients receiving antibiotics: experience with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med 1988; 84: 911–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  272. 272.
    O’Donovan CA, White ML, Cheung A, et al. Seizure incidence with imipenem use at a VA hospital. Hosp Formul 1995; 30: 172–5Google Scholar
  273. 273.
    Wong VK, Wright HT, Ross LA, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin tretament of bacterial meningitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991; 10: 122–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  274. 274.
    De Sarro A, Imperatore C, Mastroeni P, et al. Comparative convulsant potencies of two carbapenem derivatives in C57 and DBA/2 mice. J Pharm Pharmacol 1995; 47: 292–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  275. 275.
    Markewitz A, Hammer C, Pfeiffer M, et al. Reduction of cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity by cilastatin following clinical heart transplantation. Transplantation 1994 Mar 27; 57: 865–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  276. 276.
    Baghaie A, Bayat M, Abobo C, et al. The effect of imipenem/cilastatin on acute cyclosporin nephrotoxicity in heart/lung transplant patients. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: A241Google Scholar
  277. 277.
    Gray JW, Pedler SJ, Kernahan J, et al. Enterococcal superinfection in paediatric oncology patients treated with imipenem. Lancet 1992 Jun 13; 339: 1487–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  278. 278.
    Ahonkhai VI, Cyhan GM, Wilson SE, et al. Imipenem-cilastatin in pediatric patients: an overview of safety and efficacy in studies conducted in the United States. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989; 8: 740–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  279. 279.
    Stuart RL, Turnidge J, Grayson ML. Safety of Imipenem in neonates. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14: 804–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  280. 280.
    Nalin DR, Jacobsen CA. Imipenem/cilastatin therapy for serious infections in neonates and infants. Scand J Infect Dis 1987; 52: 46–55Google Scholar
  281. 281.
    Freifeld AG. Infectious complications in the immunocompromised host. The antimicrobial armamentarium. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1993 Aug; 7: 813–39PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia A. Balfour
    • 1
  • Harriet M. Bryson
    • 1
  • Rex N. Brogden
    • 1
  1. 1.Adis International LimitedAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations