Skip to main content
Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology logoLink to Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology
. 2003;11(1):27–37. doi: 10.1155/S1064744903000048

Ertapenem Once a Day Versus Piperacillin–Tazobactam Every 6 Hours for Treatment of Acute Pelvic Infections: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Subir Roy 1, Iliana Higareda 2, Edith Angel-Muller 3, Mahmoud Ismail 4, Caren Hague 5, Ben Adeyi 5, Gail L Woods 5,6,, Hedy Teppler 5
PMCID: PMC1852268  PMID: 12839630

Abstract

Objective: To compare ertapenem therapy with piperacillin–tazobactam therapy for the management of acute pelvic infections.

Methods: In a multicenter, double-blind study, 412 women with acute pelvic infection were assigned to one of two strata, namely obstetric/postpartum infection or gynecologic/postoperative infection, and were then randomized to ertapenem, 1 g once a day, or piperacillin–tazobactam, 3.375 g every 6 hours, both administered intravenously.

Results: In total, 163 patients in the ertapenem group and 153 patients in the piperacillin–tazobactam group were clinically evaluable. The median duration of therapy was 4.0 days in both treatment groups. The most common single pathogen was Escherichia coli . At the primary efficacy endpoint 2–4 weeks post therapy, 93.9% of patients who received ertapenem and 91.5% of those who received piperacillin–tazobactam were cured (95% confidence interval for the difference, adjusting for strata, –4% to 8.8%), indicating that cure rates for both treatment groups were equivalent. Cure rates for both treatment groups were also similar when compared by stratum and severity of infection. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both groups.

Conclusions: In this study, ertapenem was as effective as piperacillin–tazobactam for the treatment of acute pelvic infection, was generally well tolerated, and had an overall safety profile similar to that of piperacillin–tazobactam.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (157.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blackwelder W. C. "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982 Dec;3(4):345–353. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(82)90024-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Crombleholme W. R., Ohm-Smith M., Robbie M. O., DeKay V., Sweet R. L. Ampicillin/sulbactam versus metronidazole-gentamicin in the treatment of soft tissue pelvic infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Feb;156(2):507–512. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90321-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Faro S. Antibiotic usage in pelvic infections. An overview. J Reprod Med. 1988 Jun;33(6 Suppl):566–570. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Foran R. M., Brett J. L., Wulf P. H. Evaluating the cost impact of intravenous antibiotic dosing frequencies. DICP. 1991 May;25(5):546–552. doi: 10.1177/106002809102500516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fuchs P. C., Barry A. L., Brown S. D. In vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against clinical bacterial isolates from 11 North American medical centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Jun;45(6):1915–1918. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.6.1915-1918.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hemsell D. L., Solomkin J. S., Sweet R., Tally F., Bartlett J. G. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for the treatment of acute pelvic infections in hospitalized women. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Food and Drug Administration. Clin Infect Dis. 1992 Nov;15 (Suppl 1):S43–S52. doi: 10.1093/clind/15.supplement_1.s43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hemsell D. L., Wendel G. D., Gall S. A., Newton E. R., Gibbs R. S., Knuppel R. A., Lane T. W., Sweet R. L. Multicenter comparison of cefotetan and cefoxitin in the treatment of acute obstetric and gynecologic infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Mar;158(3 Pt 2):722–727. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)44535-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Livermore D. M., Carter M. W., Bagel S., Wiedemann B., Baquero F., Loza E., Endtz H. P., van Den Braak N., Fernandes C. J., Fernandes L. In vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against recent clinical bacteria collected in Europe and Australia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Jun;45(6):1860–1867. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.6.1860-1867.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nettleman M. D., Bock M. J. The epidemiology of missed medication doses in hospitalized patients. Clin Perform Qual Health Care. 1996 Jul-Sep;4(3):148–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sweet R. L., Roy S., Faro S., O'Brien W. F., Sanfilippo J. S., Seidlin M. Piperacillin and tazobactam versus clindamycin and gentamicin in the treatment of hospitalized women with pelvic infection. The Piperacillin/tazobactam Study Group. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Feb;83(2):280–286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES