4.7 Article

Impact of various conditions on the efficacy of dual carbapenem therapy against KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.02.015

关键词

Doripenem; Ertapenem; KPC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of dual carbapenem therapy under various conditions, including increased MIC, different immune status and treatment duration and use of a higher ertapenem dose, was evaluated in a murine thigh model. Three KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates with different phenotypic profiles were used. Human-simulated doripenem and ertapenem doses were given alone or in combination. Three isolates were tested over 24 h in immunocompetent and immunocompromised ICR mice. Two of the isolates were also evaluated over 72 h in neutropenic mice. High-dose ertapenem regimens were also evaluated. The efficacy of combination therapy was enhanced in the immunocompetent model over the neutropenic model (P < 0.05 for all three isolates). In the immunocompetent model, bacterial density was further reduced with use of combination therapy over doripenem monotherapy for two isolates with doripenem MICs <= 16 mg/L (statistically greater for one isolate; P < 0.05). Whilst not statistically different at 24 h in neutropenic mice, combination therapy demonstrated significantly greater efficacy over doripenem alone for one of two isolates at 72 h (P < 0.05). Use of ertapenem 2 g did not enhance efficacy over ertapenem 1 g (P > 0.05). The beneficial effects of dual carbapenem therapy and potential difference in efficacy based on doripenem MICs are evident at 24 h in an immunocompetent setting. Within a neutropenic setting, enhanced efficacy with combination therapy may only be evident with continued therapy. Dual carbapenem regimens may represent a promising option for infections caused by KPC-producing isolates, particularly when the MIC is low. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据