4.7 Article

In Vivo Efficacy of a Human-Simulated Regimen of Ceftaroline Combined with NXL104 against Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase (ESBL)-Producing and Non-ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 55, 期 7, 页码 3220-3225

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00024-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cerexa, Inc., Oakland, CA (a wholly owned subsidiary of Forest Laboratories, Inc., New York, NY)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceftaroline exhibits in vitro activity against extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-, AmpC-, and KPC-producing Enterobacteriaceae when combined with the novel beta-lactamase inhibitor NXL104. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a human-simulated regimen of ceftaroline plus NXL104 against Enterobacteriaceae in a murine thigh infection model. Twelve Enterobacteriaceae isolates were tested with neutropenic ICR mice. Seven of these isolates were also tested with immunocompetent mice. Doses were given to simulate human free-drug exposures of ceftaroline (600 mg) plus NXL104 (600 mg) every 8 h over 24 h by targeting the percentage of time that free drug concentrations remain above the MIC, fT > MIC. The change in log(10) CFU/ml compared with 0 h controls was observed after 24 h. Human-simulated exposures were achieved against all isolates (MICs of <= 0.015 to 1 mu g/ml) in both the neutropenic and the immunocompetent host models, which was equivalent to a fT > MIC of 100%. A 0.5 to >= 2 log CFU reduction was observed in the neutropenic thigh infection model. Furthermore, significantly greater reductions in bacterial density were observed for five of seven isolates studied in an immunocompetent model than in the neutropenic-host model. Regardless of immune status, ceftaroline (600 mg) combined with NXL104 (600 mg) every 8 h provided predictable efficacy against ESBL-, non-ESBL-, and KPC-producing isolates with an MIC of <= 1 mu g/ml and could be useful in combating the growing threat of resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

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