Literature DB >> 20308371

Impact of different carbapenems and regimens of administration on resistance emergence for three isogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains with differing mechanisms of resistance.

Arnold Louie1, Adam Bied, Christine Fregeau, Brian Van Scoy, David Brown, Weiguo Liu, Karen Bush, Anne-Marie Queenan, Brian Morrow, Mohammed Khashab, James B Kahn, Susan Nicholson, Robert Kulawy, G L Drusano.   

Abstract

We compared drugs (imipenem and doripenem), doses (500 mg and 1 g), and infusion times (0.5 and 1.0 [imipenem], 1.0 and 4.0 h [doripenem]) in our hollow-fiber model, examining cell kill and resistance suppression for three isogenic strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. The experiments ran for 10 days. Serial samples were taken for total organism and resistant subpopulation counts. Drug concentrations were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Free time above the MIC (time > MIC) was calculated using ADAPT II. Time to resistance emergence was examined with Cox modeling. Cell kill and resistance emergence differences were explained, in the main, by differences in potency (MIC) between doripenem and imipenem. Prolonged infusion increased free drug time > MIC and improved cell kill. For resistance suppression, the 1-g, 4-h infusion was able to completely suppress resistance for the full period of observation for the wild-type isolate. For the mutants, control was ultimately lost, but in all cases, this was the best regimen. Doripenem gave longer free time > MIC than imipenem and, therefore, better cell kill and resistance suppression. For the wild-type organism, the 1-g, 4-h infusion regimen is preferred. For organisms with resistance mutations, larger doses or addition of a second drug should be studied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20308371      PMCID: PMC2876389          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01721-09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  8 in total

1.  Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents.

Authors:  G L Drusano
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Impact of short-course quinolone therapy on susceptible and resistant populations of Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  G L Drusano; W Liu; D L Brown; L B Rice; A Louie
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 5.226

3.  Optimization of meropenem minimum concentration/MIC ratio to suppress in vitro resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Vincent H Tam; Amy N Schilling; Shadi Neshat; Keith Poole; David A Melnick; Elizabeth A Coyle
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Interplay of efflux system, ampC, and oprD expression in carbapenem resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates.

Authors:  John Quale; Simona Bratu; Jyoti Gupta; David Landman
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Doripenem versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro: activity against characterized isolates, mutants, and transconjugants and resistance selection potential.

Authors:  Shazad Mushtaq; Yigong Ge; David M Livermore
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study.

Authors:  Jean Chastre; Richard Wunderink; Philippe Prokocimer; Michael Lee; Koné Kaniga; Ian Friedland
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in non-metallo-beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a Tunisian hospital.

Authors:  S Hammami; R Ghozzi; B Burghoffer; G Arlet; S Redjeb
Journal:  Pathol Biol (Paris)       Date:  2008-10-31

8.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling to support doripenem dose regimen optimization for critically ill patients.

Authors:  Scott A Van Wart; David R Andes; Paul G Ambrose; Sujata M Bhavnani
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 2.803

  8 in total
  22 in total

1.  Evaluation of ceftobiprole activity against a variety of gram-negative pathogens, including Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenzae (β-lactamase positive and β-lactamase negative), and Klebsiella pneumoniae, in a rabbit meningitis model.

Authors:  A Stucki; M Cottagnoud; F Acosta; U Egerman; J Läuffer; P Cottagnoud
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 2.  Suppression of Emergence of Resistance in Pathogenic Bacteria: Keeping Our Powder Dry, Part 1.

Authors:  G L Drusano; Arnold Louie; Alasdair MacGowan; William Hope
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Substantial Impact of Altered Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients on the Antibacterial Effects of Meropenem Evaluated via the Dynamic Hollow-Fiber Infection Model.

Authors:  Phillip J Bergen; Jürgen B Bulitta; Carl M J Kirkpatrick; Kate E Rogers; Megan J McGregor; Steven C Wallis; David L Paterson; Roger L Nation; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts; Cornelia B Landersdorfer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Novel approach to optimize synergistic carbapenem-aminoglycoside combinations against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.

Authors:  Rajbharan Yadav; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Roger L Nation; John D Boyce; Jürgen B Bulitta
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 5.  What Antibiotic Exposures Are Required to Suppress the Emergence of Resistance for Gram-Negative Bacteria? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Chandra Datta Sumi; Aaron J Heffernan; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts; Fekade B Sime
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Relationship between ceftolozane-tazobactam exposure and selection for Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance in a hollow-fiber infection model.

Authors:  Brian D VanScoy; Rodrigo E Mendes; Mariana Castanheira; Jennifer McCauley; Sujata M Bhavnani; Ronald N Jones; Lawrence V Friedrich; Judith N Steenbergen; Paul G Ambrose
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Optimization of Synergistic Combination Regimens against Carbapenem- and Aminoglycoside-Resistant Clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates via Mechanism-Based Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling.

Authors:  Rajbharan Yadav; Jürgen B Bulitta; Roger L Nation; Cornelia B Landersdorfer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Comparative pharmacodynamics and antimutant potentials of doripenem and imipenem with ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro model.

Authors:  Alexander A Firsov; Deborah Gilbert; Kenneth Greer; Yury A Portnoy; Stephen H Zinner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 9.  Multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: Three major threats to hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Authors:  Michael J Satlin; Thomas J Walsh
Journal:  Transpl Infect Dis       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.228

10.  Kinetic Driver of Antibacterial Drugs against Plasmodium falciparum and Implications for Clinical Dosing.

Authors:  Emily Caton; Elizabeth Nenortas; Rahul P Bakshi; Theresa A Shapiro
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.