Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (CIAIs) and complicated urinary tract infections (CUTIs): A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Summary Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (CIAIs) and complicated urinary tract infections (CUTIs) with meta-analysis method. Method: We included six randomized clinical trials identified from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, "ISRCTN Register" and "ClinicalTrials.gov" which compared ceftazidime-avibactam with comparison group. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3. Results: Ceftazidime-avibactam versus active comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of microbiological response success on microbiological evaluable populations at the test-of-cure visit (95CI 1.10-2.38, p=0.02) and late-follow-up visit (95CI 1.09-2.23, p=0.02) for the treatment of CUTIs. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus active comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of microbiological response success on EME populations at the test-of-cure visit (95CI 1.08-4.27, p=0.03) and late-follow-up visit (OR=1.75, 95CI 1.33-2.29, p<0.0001) for the treatment of CUTIs. Similar results were obtained at the late-follow-up visit (OR = 1.58, 95CI 1.26-1.97, p<0.0001) on microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) populations for the treatment of CUTIs. We can find better eradication rates for E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae based on mMITT populations. In terms of AEs, SAEs and mortality, ceftazidime-avibactam had a safety and tolerability profile broadly similar to the comparison group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence of the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam as a potential alternative for the treatment of patients with CUTIs, and CIAIs.

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of doripenem for treating bacterial infections

Objective: The aim of this article is to compare the efficacy and safety of doripenem for bacterial infections. Methods: We included six randomized clinical trials identified from PubMed and Embase up to July 31, 2014. The included trials compared efficacy and safety of doripenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated urinary tract infection, nosocomial pneumonia, and acute biliary tract infection. The meta-analysis was carried on by the statistical software of Review Manager, version 5.2. Results: Compared with empirical antimicrobial agents on overall treatment efficacy, doripenem was associated with similar clinical and microbiological treatment success rates (for the clinical evaluable population, odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.69, p = 0.13; for clinical modified intent-to-treatment population, OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.55-1.41, p = 0.60; for microbiology evaluable population, OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.90-1.50, p = 0.26; for microbiological modified intent-to-treatment (m-mITT), OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.20, p = 0.87). We compared incidence of adverse events and all-cause mortality to analyze treatment safety. The outcomes suggested that doripenem was similar to comparators in terms of incidence of adverse events and all-cause mortality on modified intent-to-treatment population (for incidence of AEs, OR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35, p = 0.33; for all-cause mortality, OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.51, p = 0.67). In nosocomial pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia treatment, doripenem was not inferior to other antibacterial agents in terms of efficacy and safety. Conclusion: From this meta-analysis, we can conclude that doripenem is as valuable and well-tolerated than empirical antimicrobial agents for complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated urinary tract infection, acute biliary tract infection and nosocomial pneumonia treatment. .