Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17696578›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2007

Safety profile of meropenem: an updated review of over 6,000 patients treated with meropenem.

Peter Linden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Therapeutic Interventions forJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. [Clinical practice guidelines for meropenem therapy in neonatal sepsis (2024)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter LindenUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. lindenpk@ccm.upmc.edu
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meropenem is a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibacterial with potent antimicrobial activity against a broad range of Gram-negative, Gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. The second parenteral carbapenem to be introduced worldwide, meropenem has been in clinical use since 1994. Two previous safety reviews have established that meropenem has a favourable and acceptable safety profile. This new review was conducted after the approval of meropenem in the US in 2005 for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, in addition to the previously approved indications of intra-abdominal infections and paediatric bacterial meningitis. The analysis includes the clinical trial data from the previous safety reviews, updated with expanded experience across a number of serious bacterial infections, including a large international study in patients with skin or skin-structure infections and further experience in patients with intra-abdominal infections and bacterial meningitis. A total of 6154 patients with 6308 meropenem exposures were compared with 4483 patients treated with comparator agents (4593 exposures), and the paediatric population base for which safety data are available has doubled to over 1000 patients. The data presented reinforce the favourable safety profile of meropenem. In general, the incidence and pattern of adverse events occurring with meropenem were similar to those of the first carbapenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and to those of the cephalosporin- and clindamycin-based regimens to which it had been compared. The most common adverse events reported for meropenem were diarrhoea (2.5%), rash (1.4%) and nausea/vomiting (1.2%). No adverse event occurred in more than 3% of patient exposures to meropenem, indicating a low overall frequency of adverse events as well as excellent gastrointestinal tolerability. Furthermore, no unexpected adverse events were identified, and the very low incidence of seizures in patients with meningitis was not considered to be drug related. In infections other than meningitis, the incidence of seizures considered by investigators to be related to meropenem treatment was 0.07%. In the new studies that updated the earlier safety data, no new cases of drug-related seizure were reported for any treatment or patient group (meningitis/non-meningitis infections). In conclusion, meropenem is well tolerated and has good CNS and gastrointestinal tolerability when used for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in a wide range of adult and paediatric patient populations.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsClinical Trials as TopicHumansMeropenemThienamycinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsMeropenemThienamycins

Identifiers

PMID17696578
OpenAlexW2000037791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.