Unknown

Dataset Information

0

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparison study of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline to imipenem/cilastatin to treat complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized subjects in China.


ABSTRACT: Purpose:To assess the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in treating complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) in hospitalized patients in China. Patients and methods:A Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted. Hospitalized cIAI patients ?18 years of age were randomized (1:1) to receive intravenous tigecycline (initial dose 100 mg, then 50 mg q12h) or imipenem/cilastatin (500 mg/500 mg or adjusted for renal dysfunction, q6h) for 5-14 days. The primary end point was clinical response for clinically evaluable (CE) subjects at test-of-cure (TOC) assessment. Results:Four hundred and seventy subjects were randomized; 232 in the tigecycline and 231 in the imipenem/cilastatin group were treated. Tigecycline was non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin with respect to clinical response at TOC for all CE subjects, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (-12.0%, -1.4%) for the treatment difference in cure rate, tigecycline (89.9%) minus imipenem/cilastatin (96.6%), was >-15%. As non-inferiority was concluded in the CE population, superiority of tigecycline over imipenem/cilastatin and superiority of imipenem/cilastatin over tigecycline were tested on the CE and the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) populations according to pre-specified statistical criteria, and neither could be demonstrated (the cure rate was 82.8% vs 88.7%, difference -6.0% [-12.8%, 0.8%], for the mITT population). The subject-level microbiological response rate at TOC for the microbiologically evaluable population was 88.0% (110/125) vs 95.3% (102/107, difference -7.3% [-15.2%, 0.5%]). Nausea, drug ineffectiveness, postoperative wound infection, vomiting, and pyrexia were the most common adverse events in tigecycline-treated subjects; pyrexia, nausea, vomiting, and increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were most common in imipenem/cilastatin-treated subjects; none were unanticipated. Conclusion:Tigecycline was non-inferior to imipenem/cilastatin in treating hospitalized adult patients with cIAI. Superiority of tigecycline over imipenem/cilastatin or imipenem/cilastatin over tigecycline could not be demonstrated. Safety was consistent with the known profile for tigecycline. ClinicalTrialsgov identifier:NCT01721408.

SUBMITTER: Chen Y 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6281154 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparison study of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline to imipenem/cilastatin to treat complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized subjects in China.

Chen Yijian Y   Zhu Demei D   Zhang Yingyuan Y   Zhao Yongjie Y   Chen Gang G   Li Ping P   Xu Lihong L   Yan Ping P   Hickman M Anne MA   Xu Xiajun X   Tawadrous Margaret M   Wible Michele M  

Therapeutics and clinical risk management 20181130


<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in treating complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) in hospitalized patients in China.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>A Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, non-inferiority study was conducted. Hospitalized cIAI patients ≥18 years of age were randomized (1:1) to receive intravenous tigecycline (initial dose 100 mg, then 50 mg q12h) or imipenem/cilastatin (500 mg/500 mg or adjusted for renal dysf  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC6441193 | biostudies-literature