OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of faropenem in the treatment of bacterial infection. METHODS: Pub Med

the Cochrane Library

Embase

CNKI

Wanfang Data and CBM were retrieved to collect the randomized controlled trials（ RCT） of faropenem in the treatment of bacterial infection（ the study group was treated with faropenem

while the control group received conventional therapy or anti-infective drugs according to the patients’ conditions）. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to Feb. 2021. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria

two researchers independently screened the literature

extracted relevant data

and evaluated the risk of bias in the included literature

and Rev Man 5. 3 software was used to performed the Meta-analysis.RESULTS: A total of 19 articles（ 19 RCT） were enrolled

including 3 371 patients. Meta-analysis indicated that there was no statistical significance in the clinical cure rate（ RR = 1. 08

95% CI = 0. 88-1. 32

P = 0. 49） and bacterial clearance rate（ RR = 1. 03

95% CI = 0. 94-1. 13

P = 0. 50） between faropenem sodium for injection and imipenem and cilastatin sodium for injection in the treatment of urinary system infection. The clinical cure rate（ RR = 1. 00

95% CI =0. 84-1. 20

P = 0. 97） of faropenem sodium tablets and cefaclor tablets（ capsules） in the treatment of urinary system infection was not statistically different. However

the clinical effective rate（ RR = 1. 09

95% CI = 1. 01-1. 17

P = 0. 03）of faropenem sodium tablets and cefaclor tablets（ capsules） in the treatment of urinary system infection

the clinical cure rate（ RR = 1. 39

95% CI = 1. 12-1. 73

P = 0. 003）

clinical effective rate（ RR = 1. 09

95% CI = 1. 01-1. 17

P = 0. 02）and bacterial clearance rate（ RR = 1. 05

95% CI = 1. 00-1. 09

P = 0. 03） of faropenem sodium tablets and cefaclor tablets（ capsules） in the treatment of respiratory system infection were statistically significant

indicating that faropenem sodium tablets had certain advantages in the treatment effects. There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical cure rate（ RR = 0. 96

95% CI = 0. 86-1. 07

P = 0. 45）

clinical effective rate（ RR = 1. 03

95% CI = 1. 00-1. 07

P = 0. 07） and bacterial clearance rate（ RR = 1. 00

95% CI = 0. 96-1. 03

P = 0. 83） of faropenem sodium tablets and cefuroxime axetil tablets in the treatment of respiratory system infection. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse drug reactions between faropenem sodium for injection and imipenem and cilastatin sodium for injection（ RR = 1. 20

95% CI = 0. 56-2. 57

P = 0. 65）

faropenem sodium tablets and cefaclor tablets（ capsules）（ RR = 1. 24

95% CI = 0. 72-2. 16

P = 0. 44）

faropenem sodium tablets and cefuroxime axetil tablets（ RR = 1. 09

95% CI = 0. 88-1. 35

P = 0. 43）.CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence suggests that faropenem is safe and effective in the treatment of clinical bacterial infection

yet due to the limitations of quantity and quality of the included literature

the above conclusions need to be verified by more large-sample

multi-center clinical trials.