4.7 Article

Assessment of Antimicrobial Combinations for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-Producing K. pneumoniae

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 207, 期 5, 页码 786-793

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jis766

关键词

beta-lactamases; combined killing; pharmacodynamics; synergism; AmpC

资金

  1. Ortho McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  2. Pfizer
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The prevalence of blaKPC among gram-negative bacteria continues to increase worldwide. Limited treatment options exist for this multidrug-resistant phenotype, often necessitating combination therapy. We investigated the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of multiple antimicrobial combinations. Methods. Two clinical strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae were studied. The killing activities of six 2-agent combinations of amikacin, doripenem, levofloxacin, and rifampin were quantitatively assessed using a validated mathematical model. Combination time-kill studies were conducted using clinically relevant concentrations; observed bacterial burdens were modeled using 3-dimensional response surfaces. Selected combinations were further validated in a neutropenic murine pneumonia model, using human-like dosing exposures. Results. The most enhanced killing effect in time-kill studies was seen with amikacin plus doripenem. Compared with placebo controls, this combination resulted in significant reduction of the bacterial burden in tissue at 24 hours, along with prolonged animal survival. In contrast, amikacin plus levofloxacin was found to be antagonistic in time-kill studies, showing inferior animal survival, as predicted. Conclusions. Our modeling approach appeared to be robust in assessing the effectiveness of various combinations for KPC-producing isolates. Amikacin plus doripenem was the most effective combination in both in vitro and in vivo infection models. Empirical selection of combinations against KPCs may result in antagonism and should be avoided.

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