Start Page

Table of Contents

Reviews Editorial Board Contact Us

ERTAPENEM (Invanz)

 

Clinical Trials   Review Articles   Adverse Effects   FDA Information   Manufacturer

Comments

Ertapenem is one of the carbapenems and is characterized by a high protein-binding percentage and a long half-life which permits once-daily administration (1 gm IV or IM q24h). It was licensed in the US in 2001, and currently has FDA indications for use in (1) complicated intra-abdominal infections, (2) complicated skin and skin-structure infections (including diabetic foot infections without osteomyelitis), (3) acute pelvic infection (postpartum endomyometritis, septic abortion, and post surgical gynecologic infections), (4) complicated urinary tract infections, and (5) community-acquired pneumonia. It is also FDA indicated in pediatrics (>=3 months of age) for the above indications. In addition, its use in the prophylaxis of surgical-site infection following elective colorectoal surgery was also approved by FDA in 2006.

Ertapenem has a broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against many Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, and several anaerobic organisms. With the exception of metallo-beta-lactamase, it has high stability against nearly all beta-lactamases, including ESBLs and AmpC. However, it is not active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia cepacia, and Aeromonas spp., entorococci, MRSA, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, Clostridium difficile and Lactobacillus spp.

Ertapenem does not interact with cytochrom p450 or P-glycoprotein. The risk of seizure is reported at 0.5% in clinical trials.

Complicated intra-abdominal infections

Ertapenem was compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as therapy following adequate surgical management of complicated intra-abdominal infections in a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind Phase III trial. The clinical (79.3% vs. 76.2%) and microbiological cure rate (86.7% vs. 81.2%) was similar in ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups. However, ertapenem had higher efficacy rates than piperacillin/tazobactam did in patients with non-appendiceal infection (83.8% vs. 68.8%), generalized peritonitis (83.3% vs. 73.6%), and postoperative infection (75.0% vs. 40.9%).

Complicated urinary tract infections

Ertapenem was compared with ceftriaxon in two prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials for patients with complicated urinary tract infections including pyelonephritis; the favorable microbiological responses between the two treatment groups were similar in the two studies (91.8% vs. 93.0% and 85.6% vs. 84.9%, respectively).

Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Ertapenem was compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for complicated skin and skin-structure infections in a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial; the success rates for the two groups were equivalent (83.9% in 168 patients vs. 85.3% in 170 patients).

Diabetic foot infections without osteomyelitis

Ertapenem was compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for adult diabetes patients with foot infection and without osteomyelitis in a randomized, double-blind multi-center clinical efficacy trial (the SIDESTEP study); rates of favorable clinical response (75% in 204 patients vs. 70.8% in 202 patients), microbiological outcomes, and adverse events were similar between the two groups.

Acute pelvic infections

Ertapenem was compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for acute pelvic infections in a multi-center double-blind study; the cure rates (93.9% in 163 patients vs. 91.5% in 153 patients) and the frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were similar in both groups at 2-4 weeks post-therapy.

Clinical Trials

Comparative costs of ertapenem and cefotetan as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery.Wilson SE, Turpin RS, Kumar RN, Itani KM, Jensen EH, Pellissier JM, Abramson MA.Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Jun;9(3):349-56.

Ertapenem as prophylaxis for elective colorectal operations saved $2,181 per patient compared with cefotetan.

 

A prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial comparing ertapenem 3 vs >or=5 days in community-acquired intraabdominal infection.Basoli A, Chirletti P, Cirino E, D'Ovidio NG, Doglietto GB, Giglio D, Giulini SM, Malizia A, Taffurelli M, Petrovic J, Ecari M; Italian Study Group.J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Mar;12(3):592-600.

Both 3-day and >=5-day course of ertapenem worked well for patients with localized community-acquired intraabdominal infection.
 
A pilot study of ertapenem use in ESBL VAP.
 
The efficacy of ertapenem was equivalent to piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections.
 
Ertapenem was as effective as ceftriaxone for the initial treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults.
 
Ertapenem was as effective as ceftriaxone for the initial treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults.
 
The cure rates of ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam were similar for complicated skin and skin-structure infections in adults.
 
Ertapenem was appropriate for parenteral therapy of diabetic foot infections.
 

Review Articles

 

Adverse Drug Reactions and Warnings

FDA Information

Manufacturer/Distributor Product Information

 USA

[Privacy Statement]  [Shipping Policy]  [Return Policy]
©2003 antimicrobe.org and ESun Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved.