4.7 Article

Bactericidal and synergistic activity of double-carbapenem regimen for infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 147-153

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.09.014

关键词

Bactericidal activity; carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; double-carbapenem regimen; sepsis; synergy; time-kill studies

资金

  1. Sapienza University of Rome [C26N14S7RB]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Available therapeutic options against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR-Kp) are limited because of the high level of resistance to other antimicrobial classes including polymyxins. The double-carbapenem regimen has been recently considered a possible therapeutic strategy. In the present study, we evaluated the in vitro bactericidal and synergistic activity of a double-carbapenem regimen consisting of ertapenem plus high -dose meropenem in a series of patients with healthcare -associated CR-Kp infections in whom the use of colistin was not indicated because of potential nephrotoxicity and/or resistance. In vitro synergy was evaluated using checkerboard and killing studies. A total of 15 patients were included in the study, with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock found in two (13.3%), five (33.3%) and one (6.7%) patients, respectively. Overall, the clinical/microbiological response was 12/15 (80%). Synergy was observed in 11/14 (78.6%) isolates using the checkerboard method whereas in killing studies 12/14 (85.7%) and 14/14 (100%) strains were synergistic and bactericidal at 24 h at concentrations of I x MIC MEM + I x MIC ERT and 2 x MEM + I X MIC ERT, respectively, with a significant decrease of log CFU/mL compared with other combinations (p <0.0001). The double-carbapenem regimen showed clinical and in vitro effectiveness in patients with CR-Kp infections. Clinical Microbiology and Infection (C) 2015 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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