Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Safety Profile of Meropenem

An Updated Review of Over 6000 Patients Treated with Meropenem

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Meropenem is a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibacterial with potent antimicrobial activity against a broad range of Gram-negative, Gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. The second parenteral carbapenem to be introduced worldwide, meropenem has been in clinical use since 1994. Two previous safety reviews have established that meropenem has a favourable and acceptable safety profile. This new review was conducted after the approval of meropenem in the US in 2005 for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, in addition to the previously approved indications of intra-abdominal infections and paediatric bacterial meningitis. The analysis includes the clinical trial data from the previous safety reviews, updated with expanded experience across a number of serious bacterial infections, including a large international study in patients with skin or skin-structure infections and further experience in patients with intra-abdominal infections and bacterial meningitis. A total of 6154 patients with 6308 meropenem exposures were compared with 4483 patients treated with comparator agents (4593 exposures), and the paediatric population base for which safety data are available has doubled to over 1000 patients.

The data presented reinforce the favourable safety profile of meropenem. In general, the incidence and pattern of adverse events occurring with meropenem were similar to those of the first carbapenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and to those of the cephalosporin-and clindamycin-based regimens to which it had been compared. The most common adverse events reported for meropenem were diarrhoea (2.5%), rash (1.4%) and nausea/vomiting (1.2%). No adverse event occurred in more than 3% of patient exposures to meropenem, indicating a low overall frequency of adverse events as well as excellent gastrointestinal tolerability. Furthermore, no unexpected adverse events were identified, and the very low incidence of seizures in patients with meningitis was not considered to be drug related. In infections other than meningitis, the incidence of seizures considered by investigators to be related to meropenem treatment was 0.07%. In the new studies that updated the earlier safety data, no new cases of drug-related seizure were reported for any treatment or patient group (meningitis/non-meningitis infections).

In conclusion, meropenem is well tolerated and has good CNS and gastrointestinal tolerability when used for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in a wide range of adult and paediatric patient populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Masterton RG, Turner PJ. Trends in antimicrobial susceptibility in UK centres: the MYSTIC Programme (1997–2002). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27(1): 69–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rhomberg PR, Jones RN. Contemporary activity of meropenem and comparator broad-spectrum agents: MYSTIC program report from the United States component (2005). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57(2): 207–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goossens H, Grabein B. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility data for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae from the MYSTIC Program in Europe and the United States (1997–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 53(4): 257–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones RN, Mendes C, Turner PJ, et al. An overview of the Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection (MYSTIC) Program: 1997–2004. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 53(4): 247–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Unal S, Garcia-Rodriguez JA. Activity of meropenem and comparators against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. isolated in the MYSTIC Program, 2002–2004. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2005; 53(4): 265–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Prescribing information for Primaxin® (Imipenem/cilastatin). Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc., 2006 Oct [online]. Available from URL: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/p/primaxin/primaxin_iv_pi.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jul 18]

  7. Prescribing information for Merrem® (meropenem). Wilmington (DE): AstraZeneca [online]. Available from URL: http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/pi/MerremIV.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jul 18]

  8. Prescribing information for Invanz® (ertapenem). Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc., 2007 Mar [online]. Available from URL: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/i/invanz/invanz_pi.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jul 18]

  9. Lowe MN, Lamb HM. Meropenem: an updated review of its use in the management of intra-abdominal infections. Drugs 2000; 60(3): 619–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Norrby SR, Gildon KM. Safety profile of meropenem: a review of nearly 5,000 patients treated with meropenem. Scand J Infect Dis 1999; 31(1): 3–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Norrby SR, Newell PA, Faulkner KL, et al. Safety profile of meropenem: international clinical experience based on the first 3125 patients treated with meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 Suppl. A: 207–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Balfour JA, Bryson HM, Brogden RN. Imipenem/cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections. Drugs 1996; 51(1): 99–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Calandra GB, Wang C, Aziz M, et al. The safety profile of imipenem/cilastatin: worldwide clinical experience based on 3470 patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18 Suppl. E: 193–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Curran M, Simpson D, Perry C. Ertapenem: a review of its use in the management of bacterial infections. Drugs 2003; 63(17): 1855–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Calandra G, Lydick E, Carrigan J, et al. Factors predisposing to seizures in seriously ill infected patients receiving antibiotics: experience with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med 1988; 84(5): 911–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Norrby SR, Vandercam B, Louie T, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin versus amikacin plus piperacillin in the treatment of infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective, randomized multi-clinic study. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1987; 52: 65–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang C, Calandra GB, Aziz MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin: a review of worldwide clinical experience. Rev Infect Dis 1985; 7 Suppl. 3: S528–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrison MP, Haworth SJ, Moss SR, et al. The disposition and metabolic fate of 14C-meropenem in man. Xenobiotica 1993 Nov; 23: 1311–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Majumdar AK, Musson DG, Birk KL, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ertapeneme in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002 Nov; 46(11): 3506–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards SJ, Emmas CE, Campbell HE. Systematic review comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21(5): 785–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Paul M, Yahav D, Fraser A, et al. Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57(2): 176–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bradley JS, Behrendt CE, Arrieta AC, et al. Convalescent phase outpatient parenteral antiinfective therapy for children with complicated appendicitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20(1): 19–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fabian TC, File TM, Embil JM, et al. Meropenem versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparative study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2005; 6(3): 269–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hou F, Li J, Wu G, et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial on meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of bacterial infections. Chin Med J (Engl) 2002; 115(12): 1849–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hsu HL, Lu CY, Tseng HY, et al. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bacterial infections in children. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2001; 34(4): 275–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Snedden S, Rudoy R, Arrieta A, et al. Meropenem versus cefotaxime-based therapy for the initial treatment of infants and children hospitalised with non-CNS infections. Clin Drug Investig 1999; 17(1): 9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Verwaest C. Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empirical monotherapy for serious bacterial infections in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000; 6(6): 294–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Zanetti G, Harbarth SJ, Trampuz A, et al. Meropenem (1.5 g/ day) is as effective as imipenem/cilastatin (2 g/day) for the treatment of moderately severe intra-abdominal infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999; 11(2): 107–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Odio CM, Puig JR, Feris JM, et al. Prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded study of the efficacy and safety of meropenem vs. cefotaxime therapy in bacterial meningitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 18(7): 581–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Embil JM, Soto NE, Melnick DA. 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. Clin Ther 2006; 28(8): 1164–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Eng RH, Munsif AN, Yangco BG, et al. Seizure propensity with imipenem. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149(8): 1881–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wong VK, Wright Jr HT, Ross LA, et al. Imipenem/cilastatin treatment of bacterial meningitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991; 10(2): 122–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Poutanen SM, Simor AE. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. CMAJ 2004; 171(1): 51–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wistrom J, Norrby SR, Myhre EB, et al. Frequency of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in 2462 antibiotic-treated hospitalized 668 patients: a prospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47(1): 43–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Thomas C, Stevenson M, Riley TV. Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51(6): 1339–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Musher DM, Aslam S, Logan N, et al. Relatively poor outcome after treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis with metronidazole. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40(11): 1586–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hurst M, Lamb HM. Meropenem: a review of its use in patients in intensive care. Drugs 2000; 59(3): 653–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Alvarez C, Ramos JM, San Juan R, et al. Risk of superinfection related to antibiotic use: are all antibiotics the same? [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Quimioter 2005; 18(1): 39–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bourgault AM, Lamothe F, Loo VG, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Clostridium difficile clinical isolates from a multi-institutional outbreak in Southern Quebec, Canada. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50(10): 3473–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Saxon A, Adelman DC, Patel A, et al. Imipenem cross-reactivity with penicillin in humans. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1988; 82(2): 213–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Prescott Jr WA, Kusmierski KA. Clinical importance of carbapenem hypersensitivity in patients with self-reported and documented penicillin allergy. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27(1): 137–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cunha BA. Meropenem in elderly and renally impaired patients [published erratum appears in Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999; 11 (2): 167–77]. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1998; 10(2): 107–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fudio S, Carcas A, Pinana E, et al. Epileptic seizures caused by low valproic acid levels from an interaction with meropenem. J Clin Pharm Ther 2006; 31(4): 393–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Clause D, Decleire PY, Vanbinst R, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between valproic acid and meropenem. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31(9): 1293–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Coves-Orts FJ, Borras-Blasco J, Navarro-Ruiz A, et al. Acute seizures due to a probable interaction between valproic acid and meropenem. Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39(3): 533–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. De Turck BJ, Diltoer MW, Cornelis PJ, et al. Lowering of plasma valproic acid concentrations during concomitant therapy with meropenem and amikacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42(4): 563–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Santucci M, Parmeggiani A, Riva R. Seizure worsening caused by decreased serum valproate during meropenem therapy. J Child Neurol 2005; 20(5): 456–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nagai K, Shimizu T, Togo A, et al. Decrease in serum levels of valproic acid during treatment with a new carbapenem, panipenem/betamipron. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39(2): 295–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Yamagata T, Momoi MY, Murai K, et al. Panipenem-betamipron and decreases in serum valproic acid concentration. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20(4): 396–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. This review paper was supported by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, Delaware, USA. The author thanks Ray Hill, from Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Communications, who provided editorial support, funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abdominal Organ Transplant ICU, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Dept. CCM, 3550 Terrace St, 602 A Scaife Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15261, USA

    Peter Linden (Critical Care Medicine and Director)

Authors
  1. Peter Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Linden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Linden, P. Safety Profile of Meropenem. Drug-Safety 30, 657–668 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730080-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730080-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation