A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of meropenem and imipenem in the treatment of moderate or severe pulmonary infections

Hongli XIAO,Bangwei CAO,Huan HE,Chenghong YIN
2010-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of meropenem and imipenem in Chinese population with moderate or severe pulmonary infection. Methods: The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the therapy of meropenem and imipenem in Chinese population with moderate or severe pulmonary infection were collected between 1983 and 2009 from the PubMed and CNKI databases. The methodological quality of trials was assessed by Jadad-scale. The heterogeneity was examined by using Revman5.0 and Stata10.0 software. Fixed effect model or random effect model was used to pool the data. The Egger's test and Begg's test were used to evaluate the publication bias. Results: The meta-analysis results of nine RCTs showed that meropenem exhibited a high bacterial eradication rate compared with imipenem in moderate or severe pulmonary infection (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.03-2.53). Similarly, the clinical cure rate displayed a borderline statistical significance (OR, 1.39, 95% CI: 1.00-1.94). Clinical efficacy rate and incidence of adverse reactions did not show any significant difference between the two drugs (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reaction in central nervous system possessed a higher rate in imipenem group (P<0.01). Begg's test in this meta-analysis revealed no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: The bacterial eradication rate and clinical cure rate of meropenem in the treatment of moderate or severe pulmonary infection is slightly better than imipenem. Moreover, meropenem shows significantly lower incidence of adverse reaction in central nervous system than imipenem.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?