A post hoc subgroup analysis of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of complicated skin and skin-structure infections in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In a multicenter, international, double-blind, randomized clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs), meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin (both administered 500 mg intravenously every 8 hours) were not significantly different in their efficacy and safety profiles.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the post hoc subgroup analysis discussed in the current article was to report the efficacy and tolerability of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of cSSSIs in patients with or without underlying diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS: Hospitalized patients aged > or =13 years with evidence of cSSSIs were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to receive meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin, each 500 mg intravenously every 8 hours, for at least 3 days and up to a maximum of 14 days. Patients were analyzed according to the presence or absence of DM and by the pathogen(s) isolated from wound cultures at baseline, end of N treatment, and test-of-cure visits. The primary efficacy end point was clinical outcome at the posttreatment follow-up (test-of-cure) visit in the clinically evaluable and modified intent-to-treat (intent-to-treat [ITT] subjects who met all eligibility criteria) populations; this was defined as 7 to 14 days after final administration of antibiotics. The secondary efficacy end points included clinical response at the test-of-cure visit in the ITT population (ie, those who received >1 dose of study drug) and at the end of N treatment visit in the clinically evaluable and fully evaluable populations. At baseline, the end of N treatment, and the test-of-cure visits, specimens were obtained from the most extensive site of skin and skin-structure infection and were cultured for bacteria. Adverse events were monitored daily during treatment and for 30 days after the completion of all antibiotic treatment.

RESULTS: Of the 1076 patients enrolled in the original study, 398 had DM. The mean ages of patients with and without DM were 55 and 45 years, respectively; 17.3% of patients with DM and 6.1% of patients without DM had impaired renal function at study entry. Complex abscess was the most common infection diagnosis in both groups (patients with DM, 30.0%; patients without DM, 48.8%). The other top infections per group (patients with and without DM, respectively) were as follows: cellulitis, 24.6% and 12.4%; and ischemic/diabetic ulcers, 20.9% and 1.9%. Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic pathogens accounted for >40% of bacterial isolates from both groups, with polymicrobial infections reported in 44.2% of patients with DM and 34.0% of patients without DM. In the clinically evaluable population, the satisfactory clinical response rate was 85.6% for patients with DM receiving meropenem and 72.4% for those receiving imipenem/cilastatin; for patients without DM, those rates were 86.6% and 89.0%, respectively. Meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin were generally well tolerated. Reported adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION: This subgroup analysis found that 500 mg every 8 hours intravenously of meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin appeared efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of cSSSIs among these patients with and without DM.