4.7 Article

Antibacterial activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam alone and in combination with other antimicrobial agents against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 73, 期 4, 页码 942-952

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx483

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck & Co. Inc. (Kenilworth, NJ, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Broad-spectrum antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) isolates is a growing concern as our therapeutic options have become significantly limited. Although ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) has been shown to be highly active against MDR PSA pathogens, combination regimens are often employed in real-world settings. To assist the clinical decision-making process regarding the selection of combination antibiotics and dosages for this pathogen, we performed time-kill studies assessing clinical free peak and trough C/T concentrations alone and in combination with eight anti-pseudomonal agents against four clinical MDR PSA isolates. Methods: Time-kill analyses were performed over 24 h in duplicate using C/T concentrations reflective of the free peak concentrations of a 3 g dose every 8 h (q8h; 120/25.2 mg/L) and the peak and trough of a 1.5 g q8h dose (60/12.6 and 7.5/1.6 mg/L) in humans. The activity of C/T 120, 60 and 7.5 mg/L alone and C/T 7.5 mg/L in combination with free peak and trough concentrations of clinical doses for cefepime, ciprofloxacin, colistin, aztreonam, meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, fosfomycin and amikacin was tested for all isolates. Results: C/T 3 and 1.5 g q8h peak concentrations demonstrated killing against the MDR PSA. Colistin and fosfomycin were synergistic with C/T as dual therapy and triple therapy regimens. Conclusions: As a result of escalating resistance, PSA is an increasingly challenging pathogen in the clinical setting. Our findings aid in the identification of novel treatment options using achievable drug exposures for the treatment of MDR PSA.

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