Ertapenem versus Ceftriaxone and Metronidazole As Treatment For Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections

ISRCTN ISRCTN59616541
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN59616541
Secondary identifying numbers MK-0826 Protocol 802
Submission date
14/01/2005
Registration date
19/01/2005
Last edited
13/08/2009
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Infections and Infestations
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr Christina Y. Chan
Scientific

Merck & Co., Inc.
One Merck Drive
Whitehouse Station
08889-0100
United States of America

Study information

Study designMulticentre randomised open label active controlled parallel group trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Not specified
Study typeNot Specified
Scientific titleA Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ertapenem Versus Ceftriaxone/Metronidazole in the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infections in Adults
Study acronymOASIS II
Study objectivesNot provided at time of registration

As of 13/08/09 this record has been extensively updated. All updates can be found in the relevant field with the above update date. Please also note that the country of recruitment has been corrected, initially USA was entered in error.
Ethics approval(s)Not provided at time of registration
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedComplicated intra-abdominal infections
InterventionCurrent information as of 13/08/09:
Adult patients with intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery were eligible for this open-label randomized trial comparing ertapenem 1 g daily with ceftriaxone 2 g daily plus metronidazole 30 mg/kg/day.

Initial information at time of registration:
Ertapenem, ceftriaxone, metronidazole
Intervention typeDrug
Pharmaceutical study type(s)
PhaseNot Specified
Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s)Ertapenem, ceftriaxone, metronidazole
Primary outcome measureAdded 13/08/09:
Efficacy as measured by clinical response rate in clinically and microbiologically evaluable participants at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit 2 weeks after discontinuation of therapy
Secondary outcome measuresAdded 13/08/09:
Efficacy measured at TOC visit 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy
Overall study start date01/06/2002
Completion date30/06/2003

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
SexBoth
Target number of participants500
Key inclusion criteriaCurrent information as of 13/08/09:
1. Male or female patients aged 18 or over
2. Patient has a diagnosis of intra-abdominal infection requiring surgery as evidenced by fever, elevated while blood cell count and abdominal pain

Initial information at time of registration:
Adult patients with intra-abdominal infections requiring surgery
Key exclusion criteriaAdded 13/08/09:
1. Patient has another infection, other than abdominal
2. Female patient is pregnant or planning to become pregnant
Date of first enrolment01/06/2002
Date of final enrolment30/06/2003

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Philippines
  • United States of America

Study participating centre

Merck & Co., Inc.
Whitehouse Station
08889-0100
United States of America

Sponsor information

Merck and Co., Inc. (USA)
Industry

Christina Y. Chan, M.D.
One Merck Drive
Whitehouse Station
08889-0100
United States of America

Funders

Funder type

Industry

Merck & Co., Inc. (USA)
Government organisation / For-profit companies (industry)
Alternative name(s)
Merck & Co., Inc., Merck & Co.
Location
United States of America

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/02/2005 Yes No