The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infections in nonneutropenic patients
Open accessAbstract
Nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis, as well as severe diffuse peritonitis, must be treated early in order to prevent complications such as septic shock and organ dysfunctions. With the availability of new broad-spectrum and highly bactericidal antibiotics, the need of combining beta-lactams with aminoglycosides for the treatment of severe infections should be reassessed. A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to compare imipenem monotherapy with a combination of imipenem plus netilmicin in the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, nosocomial sepsis, and severe diffuse peritonitis. A total of 313 patients were enrolled, and 280 were assessable. The antibiotic treatment was successful in 113 of 142 patients (80%) given the monotherapy and in 119 of 138 patients (86%) given the combination (P = 0.19). The failure rates for the most important type of infection, i.e., pneumonia, were similar in the two groups, as well as the number of superinfections. While creatinine increase was associated with factors not related to antibiotic therapy for all eight patients of the monotherapy group, no factor other than the antibiotics could be found for 6 of the 14 cases of nephrotoxicity observed in the combination group (P = 0.014). Finally, the emergence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to imipenem occurred in 8 monotherapy patients and in 13 combination therapy patients. In conclusion, imipenem monotherapy appeared as effective as the combination of imipenem plus netilmicin for the treatment of severe infection. The addition of netilmicin increased nephrotoxicity, and it did not prevent the emergence of P. aeruginosa resistant to imipenem.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kalil, A. C., Metersky, M. L., Klompas, M., Muscedere, J., Sweeney, D. A., Palmer, L. B., Napolitano, L. M., O'Grady, N. P., Bartlett, J. G., Carratalà, J., et al. (2016) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw353 · Cited by 3,892
Combination Therapy for Treatment of Infections with Gram-Negative Bacteria
Tamma, P. D., Cosgrove, S. E., & Maragakis, L. L. (2012) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.05041-11 · Cited by 836
Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacilli
Ruppé, É., Woerther, P.-L., & Barbier, F. (2015) · Annals of Intensive Care · doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0061-0 · Cited by 490
Paul, M., Benuri-Silbiger, I., Soares-Weiser, K., & Leibovici, L. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38028.520995.63 · Cited by 466
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_225126 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Cometta, A., Baumgartner, J. D., Lew, D., Zimmerli, W., Pittet, D., Chopart, P., Schaad, U., Herter, C., Eggimann, P., & Huber, O.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1994-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1309-1313
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2015842254
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infections in nonneutropenic patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.38.6.1309
- The paper
- Cometta, A., Baumgartner, J. D., Lew, D., Zimmerli, W., Pittet, D., Chopart, P., Schaad, U., Herter, C., Eggimann, P., & Huber, O. (1994). Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infections in nonneutropenic patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.38.6.1309
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.