BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence has been reported on the impact of ertapenem use on the susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp. to group 2 carbapenems. No extensive data for Acinetobacter baumannii are currently available. METHODS: A retrospective time-series segmented regression analysis was conducted in a tertiary centre from January 2001 to December 2011. Ertapenem was introduced in January 2005. Antimicrobial drug use was defined as the number of defined daily doses/100 patient-days (DDDs/100 PDs). Susceptibility (CLSI) was measured in terms of proportion and incidence density. RESULTS: Mean monthly use of imipenem was 2.9 ± 0.9 DDDs/100 PDs, as compared with 1.2 ± 0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for meropenem and 1.0 ± 0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for ertapenem (after its introduction). After ertapenem adoption, a downward trend was seen in the use of imipenem (P = 0.016) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.004). A total of 6272 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 1093 A. baumannii isolates were evaluated. Susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem improved after ertapenem introduction, both according to the proportion of susceptible isolates (P = 0.002) and to the incidence density of resistance (P ≤ 0.001). No significant change was seen in A. baumannii susceptibility to imipenem (P = 0.772). By multiple linear regression analysis, the incidence density of imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa increased with the use of imipenem (P = 0.003) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.008). Occurrence of outbreaks (P ≤ 0.001) and use of gentamicin (P = 0.007) were associated with A. baumannii resistance to imipenem. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ertapenem was directly associated with a downward trend in the use of imipenem and ciprofloxacin, which may have contributed to improve the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem. Ertapenem use had no impact on the susceptibility of A. baumannii to imipenem.
BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence has been reported on the impact of ertapenem use on the susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp. to group 2 carbapenems. No extensive data for Acinetobacter baumannii are currently available. METHODS: A retrospective time-series segmented regression analysis was conducted in a tertiary centre from January 2001 to December 2011. Ertapenem was introduced in January 2005. Antimicrobial drug use was defined as the number of defined daily doses/100 patient-days (DDDs/100 PDs). Susceptibility (CLSI) was measured in terms of proportion and incidence density. RESULTS: Mean monthly use of imipenem was 2.9 ± 0.9 DDDs/100 PDs, as compared with 1.2 ± 0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for meropenem and 1.0 ± 0.7 DDDs/100 PDs for ertapenem (after its introduction). After ertapenem adoption, a downward trend was seen in the use of imipenem (P = 0.016) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.004). A total of 6272 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 1093 A. baumannii isolates were evaluated. Susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem improved after ertapenem introduction, both according to the proportion of susceptible isolates (P = 0.002) and to the incidence density of resistance (P ≤ 0.001). No significant change was seen in A. baumannii susceptibility to imipenem (P = 0.772). By multiple linear regression analysis, the incidence density of imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa increased with the use of imipenem (P = 0.003) and ciprofloxacin (P = 0.008). Occurrence of outbreaks (P ≤ 0.001) and use of gentamicin (P = 0.007) were associated with A. baumannii resistance to imipenem. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ertapenem was directly associated with a downward trend in the use of imipenem and ciprofloxacin, which may have contributed to improve the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to imipenem. Ertapenem use had no impact on the susceptibility of A. baumannii to imipenem.
Authors: Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez; Robert A Bonomo; Yehuda Carmeli; David L Paterson; Benito Almirante; Luis Martínez-Martínez; Antonio Oliver; Esther Calbo; Carmen Peña; Murat Akova; Johann Pitout; Julia Origüen; Vicente Pintado; Elisa García-Vázquez; Oriol Gasch; Axel Hamprecht; Nuria Prim; Mario Tumbarello; German Bou; Pierluigi Viale; Evelina Tacconelli; Manel Almela; Federico Pérez; Helen Giamarellou; José Miguel Cisneros; Mitchell J Schwaber; Mario Venditti; Warren Lowman; Joaquín Bermejo; Po-Ren Hsueh; Marta Mora-Rillo; Irene Gracia-Ahulfinger; Alvaro Pascual; Jesús Rodríguez-Baño Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Silvia Gómez-Zorrilla; Mariana Camoez; Fe Tubau; Elisabet Periche; Rosario Cañizares; M Angeles Dominguez; Javier Ariza; Carmen Peña Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Y M Zou; Y Ma; J H Liu; J Shi; T Fan; Y Y Shan; H P Yao; Y L Dong Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: R Cantón; E Loza; J Aznar; R Barrón-Adúriz; J Calvo; F J Castillo; E Cercenado; R Cisterna; F González-Romo; J L López-Hontangas; A I Suárez-Barrenechea; F Tubau; B Molloy; D López-Mendoza Journal: Rev Esp Quimioter Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 1.553
Authors: Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez; Elena Pérez-Nadales; Salvador Pérez-Galera; Mario Fernández-Ruiz; Jordi Carratalà; Isabel Oriol; Elisa Cordero; José Antonio Lepe; Ban Hock Tan; Laura Corbella; Mical Paul; Alejandra M Natera; Miruna D David; Miguel Montejo; Ranganathan N Iyer; Ligia Camera Pierrotti; Esperanza Merino; Seema Mehta Steinke; Meenakshi M Rana; Patricia Muñoz; Alessandra Mularoni; Christian van Delden; Paolo Antonio Grossi; Elena María Seminari; Filiz Gunseren; Erika D Lease; Emmanuel Roilides; Jesús Fortún; Hande Arslan; Julien Coussement; Zeliha Koçak Tufan; Benoit Pilmis; Marco Rizzi; Belén Loeches; Britt Marie Eriksson; Edson Abdala; Fabio Soldani; Warren Lowman; Wanessa Trindade Clemente; Marta Bodro; María Carmen Fariñas; Esra Kazak; Luis Martínez-Martínez; José María Aguado; Julián Torre-Cisneros; Álvaro Pascual; Jesús Rodríguez-Baño Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Young Kyung Yoon; Kyung Sook Yang; Seung Eun Lee; Hyun Jeong Kim; Jang Wook Sohn; Min Ja Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240