4.7 Article

In Vitro Activity and In Vivo Efficacy of Clavulanic Acid against Acinetobacter baumannii

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 53, 期 10, 页码 4298-4304

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00320-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases [REIPI RD06/0008]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER
  4. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [PI061368, PI081613]
  5. Conselleria de Sanidad [PS07/90]
  6. Xunta de Galicia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clavulanic acid (CLA) exhibits low MICs against some Acinetobacter baumannii strains. The present study evaluates the efficacy of CLA in a murine model of A. baumannii pneumonia. For this purpose, two clinical strains, Ab11 and Ab51, were used; CLA MICs for these strains were 2 and 4 mg/liter, respectively, and the imipenem (IPM) MIC was 0.5 mg/liter for both. A pneumonia model in C57BL/6 mice was used. The CLA dosage (13 mg/kg of body weight given intraperitoneally) was chosen to reach a maximum concentration of the drug in serum similar to that in humans and a time during which the serum CLA concentration remained above the MIC equivalent to 40% of the interval between doses. Six groups (n = 15) were inoculated with Ab11 or Ab51 and were allocated to IPM or CLA therapy or to the untreated control group. In time-kill experiments, CLA was bactericidal only against Ab11 whereas IPM was bactericidal against both strains. CLA and IPM both decreased bacterial concentrations in lungs, 1.78 and 2.47 log(10) CFU/g (P <= 0.001), respectively, in the experiments with Ab11 and 2.42 and 2.28 log(10) CFU/g (P <= 0.001), respectively, with Ab51. IPM significantly increased the sterility of blood cultures over that for the controls with both strains (P <= 0.005); CLA had the same effect with Ab51 (P < 0.005) but not with Ab11 (P = 0.07). For the first time, we suggest that CLA may be used for the treatment of experimental severe A. baumannii infections.

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