Efficacy and tolerability of IV doripenem versus meropenem in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection: A phase III, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study

Abstract Background: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) require surgical intervention and empiric antibacterial therapy. Doripenem, a broad-spectrum carbapenem, provides coverage of key gram-negative and -positive aerobes and anaerobes encountered in cIAI. Objective: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of doripenem and meropenem in hospitalized adult patients with cIAI. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, doubleblind, noninferiority study, hospitalized adults with cIAI were randomly assigned to receive doripenem 500 mg IV q8h or meropenem 1 g IV q8h. After a minimum of 9 doses and adequate clinical improvement (relative to before the start of IV study drug, decreased body temperature and white blood cell count, improved or absent signs and symptoms of cIAI, and return of normal bowel function), patients could be switched to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate. Antibacterial therapy (IV plus subsequent oral) was given for a total of 5 to 14 days. The coprimary efficacy end points were the clinical cure rate (complete resolution or significant improvement of signs or symptoms of the index infection) in patients microbiologically evaluable (≥1 baseline pathogen isolated from an intra-abdominal culture that was susceptible to both IV study drug therapies) at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (21-60 days after the completion of study drug therapy) and the clinical cure rate in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (a bacterial pathogen identified at baseline, regardless of its susceptibility to the study drug). Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference (doripenem minus meropenem) in the proportion of patients classified as clinical cures was ≥-15%. Results: A total of 476 patients were enrolled. The microbiologically evaluable population (319 patients) was 62.7% male and 67.7% white, with a mean age and weight of 46.7 years and 77.2 kg, respectively. In this population, doripenem and meropenem were associated with clinical cure rates at the TOC visit of 85.9% and 85.3%, respectively. The corresponding treatment difference was 0.6% (95% CI, -7.7% to 9.0%); this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, in the mMITT population (385 patients), the clinical cure rates were 77.9% and 78.9%, respectively, and the corresponding 1.0% treatment difference was not statistically significant (95% CI, -9.7% to 7.7%). Clinical cure rates were not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms in key subgroups (eg, age, sex, race, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, primary infection site). Microbiological eradication rates for common pathogens isolated at study entry were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups. Doripenem was well tolerated in the population studied. In the intent-to-treat population (471 patients), 83.0% and 78.0% of patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) and 13.2% and 14.0% experienced ≥1 serious AE in the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, respectively. In the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, AEs resulted in study drug discontinuation in 5.1% and 2.1% of patients and death in 2.1% and 3.0% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The present study found that doripenem (500 mg q8h) was effective in the treatment of cIAI, was therapeutically noninferior to meropenem (1 g q8h), with a safety profile not significantly different from that of meropenem in this selected population of patients with cIAI.