- 92 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCeftazidime Imipenem Meropenem Antimicrob Agent Netilmicin
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; fourth informational supplement. NCCLS, Villanova, USA:, 1994Google Scholar
- 11.Verbist L. Epidemiology and sensitivity of 8625 ICU and hematology/oncology bacterial isolates in Europe. Scand J Infect Dis 1993: 14-24Google Scholar
- 22.Flournoy DJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of 605 consecutively occurring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Med Sci Res 1992; 20: 557–9Google Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 140.Saito A. Pharmacokinetic study on meropenem [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1992 Apr; 40 Suppl. 1: 276–82Google Scholar
- 141.Saito A, Miura T, Tarao F. Pharmacokinetic study of biapenem [in Japanese]. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1994 Dec; 42 Suppl. 4: 277–84Google Scholar
- 142.Merck & Co. Merck & Co., Ltd. (New Jersey), 1995. International Physicians Circular.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Errttmann M, Krausse R, Ulimann U. Pharmacokinetics of imipenem in patients undergoing major colon surgery. Infection 1990; 18: 367–71Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 179.Geroulanos SJ. Antibiotics and the abdomen. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994 Oct; 7 Suppl. 1: S17–22Google Scholar
- 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
- 186.Ahlmén J, Bronnestam R, Eriksson C, et al. Imipenem in the treatment of peritonitis during CAPD. Dialysis Transplant 1991; 20: 498–515Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.Marier RL. Role of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 79 Suppl. 6a: 140–4Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 260.Del Favero A. Clinically important aspects of carbapenem safety. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994; 7 Suppl. 1: S38–42Google Scholar
- 262.Bomback T, Sesin GP, Mucciardi N. Possible imipenem/cilastatin-induced aplastic anemia. 1995 May: 293-302Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 280.Nalin DR, Jacobsen CA. Imipenem/cilastatin therapy for serious infections in neonates and infants. Scand J Infect Dis 1987; 52: 46–55Google Scholar