Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2010 Jul 21:10:217.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-217.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial

Zhangjing Chen  1 , Jufang Wu, Yingyuan Zhang, Junming Wei, Xisheng Leng, Jianwei Bi, Rong Li, Lunan Yan, Zhiwei Quan, Xiaoping Chen, Yunsong Yu, Zhiyong Wu, Dawei Liu, Xiaochun Ma, Robert Maroko, Angel Cooper
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial

Zhangjing Chen et al. BMC Infect Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Tigecycline, a first-in-class broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against bacteria commonly encountered in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), including aerobic and facultative Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. In the current trial, tigecycline was evaluated for safety and efficacy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in hospitalized Chinese patients with cIAIs.

Methods: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomly assigned to receive IV tigecycline or imipenem/cilastatin for </=2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-37 days after therapy) for the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat and microbiologically evaluable populations. Because the study was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority between tigecycline and imipenem/cilastatin, no formal statistical analysis was performed. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the response rates in each treatment group and for differences between treatment groups for descriptive purposes.

Results: One hundred ninety-nine patients received >/=1 dose of study drug and comprised the modified intent-to-treat population. In the microbiologically evaluable population, 86.5% (45 of 52) of tigecycline- and 97.9% (47 of 48) of imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients were cured at the test-of-cure assessment (12-37 days after therapy); in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat population, cure rates were 81.7% (49 of 60) and 90.9% (50 of 55), respectively. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 80.4% for tigecycline vs. 53.9% after imipenem/cilastatin therapy (P < 0.001), primarily due to gastrointestinal-related events, especially nausea (21.6% vs. 3.9%; P < 0.001) and vomiting (12.4% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.005).

Conclusions: Clinical cure rates for tigecycline were consistent with those found in global cIAI studies. The overall safety profile was also consistent with that observed in global studies of tigecycline for treatment of cIAI, as well as that observed in analyses of Chinese patients in those studies; no novel trends were observed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00136201.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Analysis populations and patient disposition: Tigecycline (TGC) vs. imipenem-cilastatin (I/C) in complicated intra-abdominal infections.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tigecycline clinical cure rates compared to previous intra-abdominal studies (301, 306): (a) microbiologically evaluable (ME) and (b) microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals, unweighted and calculated using the method of Clopper and Pearson.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mazuski JE, Sawyer RG, Nathens AB, DiPiro JT, Schein M, Kudsk KA, Yowler C. The Surgical Infection Society guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: evidence for the recommendations. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2002;3(3):175–233. doi: 10.1089/109629602761624180. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Baron EJ, Sawyer RG, Nathens AB, DiPiro JT, Buchman T, Dellinger EP, Jernigan J, Gorbach S. Guidelines for the selection of anti-infective agents for complicated intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(8):997–1005. doi: 10.1086/378702. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weigelt JA. Empiric treatment options in the management of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Cleve Clin J Med. 2007;74(Suppl 4):S29–37. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.74.Suppl_4.S29. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nathens AB, Rotstein OD, Marshall JC. Tertiary peritonitis: clinical features of a complex nosocomial infection. World J Surg. 1998;22(2):158–163. doi: 10.1007/s002689900364. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krobot K, Yin D, Zhang Q, Sen S, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Scheele J, Sendt W. Effect of inappropriate initial empiric antibiotic therapy on outcome of patients with community-acquired intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23(9):682–687. doi: 10.1007/s10096-004-1199-0. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Associated data