DOCSLIB.ORG

Ampicillin in Combination with Ceftaroline, Cefepime, Or Ceftriaxone Demonstrates Equivalent Activities in a High- Inoculum Enterococcus Faecalis Infection Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ampicillin in Combination with Ceftaroline, Cefepime, Or Ceftriaxone Demonstrates Equivalent Activities in a High- Inoculum Enterococcus Faecalis Infection Model University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Pharmacy Practice Faculty Publications Pharmacy Practice 2016 Ampicillin in Combination with Ceftaroline, Cefepime, or Ceftriaxone Demonstrates Equivalent Activities in a High- Inoculum Enterococcus faecalis Infection Model Megan K. Luther University of Rhode Island Louis B. Rice Kerry L. LaPlante University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/php_facpubs Terms of Use All rights reserved under copyright. Citation/Publisher Attribution Luther MK, Rice LB, LaPlante KL. 2016. Ampicillin in combination with ceftaroline, cefepime, or ceftriaxone demonstrates equivalent activities in a highinoculum Enterococcus faecalis infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:3178 –3182. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03126-15. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03126-15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Pharmacy Practice at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pharmacy Practice Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. crossmark Ampicillin in Combination with Ceftaroline, Cefepime, or Ceftriaxone Demonstrates Equivalent Activities in a High-Inoculum Enterococcus faecalis Infection Model Megan K. Luther,a,b Louis B. Rice,c,d Kerry L. LaPlantea,b,c Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USAa; Rhode Island Infectious Diseases (RIID) Research Program, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island, USAb; Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USAc; Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USAd Ampicillin-ceftriaxone combination therapy has become a predominant treatment for serious Enterococcus faecalis infections, Downloaded from such as endocarditis. Unfortunately, ceftriaxone use is associated with future vancomycin-resistant enterococcus colonization. We evaluated E. faecalis in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model against simulated human concentration-time profiles of ampi- cillin plus ceftaroline, cefepime, ceftriaxone, or gentamicin. Ampicillin-cefepime and ampicillin-ceftaroline demonstrated activi- ties similar to those of ampicillin-ceftriaxone against E. faecalis. nterococcus faecalis is one of the most common causes of infec- (ϳ108 CFU/ml) over 24 h (15, 16). A 250-ml working-volume Etive endocarditis in hospitalized and/or immunocompro- glass model with inflow and outflow ports controlled by peristaltic mised patients. The combination regimen of ampicillin plus pumps was used to achieve desired antibiotic concentrations and http://aac.asm.org/ ceftriaxone has averted high-level aminoglycoside resistance half-lives. The regimens simulated free serum concentrations of (HLAR) and improved the safety profile in E. faecalis endocarditis human doses, including2gofampicillin every 4 h (maximum ␮ treatment over the traditional regimen of ampicillin plus genta- concentration in serum [Cmax], 150 g/ml; protein binding, 20%; micin (1–4). Accordingly, ampicillin and ceftriaxone were re- ␮ half-life, 1 h), 2 g of ceftriaxone every 12 h (Cmax, 257 g/ml; cently added as an option to treat both HLAR and non-HLAR E. protein binding, 90%; half-life, 6 h), 2 g of cefepime every 12 h faecalis endocarditis, according to national guidelines (5). While ␮ (Cmax, 163.9 g/ml; protein binding, 20%; half-life, 2 h), 600 mg this regimen has increased safety for patients with serious E. faeca- ␮ of ceftaroline every 12 h (Cmax, 21.3 g/ml; protein binding, 20%; lis infections, it may create long-term collateral damage, as ceftri- half-life, 2.66 h), and 6 mg/kg of body weight of gentamicin every axone carries an increased risk of vancomycin-resistant Enterococ- ␮ on February 5, 2019 by guest 24h(Cmax,24 g/ml; protein binding, 0%; half-life, 2 h) (17–22). cus (VRE) gastrointestinal colonization (6, 7). This increase in For combination regimens, the rate was set for the drug with the VRE colonization is likely due to ceftriaxone’s high biliary excre- shorter half-life; the drug with the longer half-life was supple- tion and is associated with increased risk for VRE bacteremia (6– mented. The following regimens were tested: ampicillin alone, 9). Cefepime and ceftaroline are cephalosporins with different ceftriaxone alone, cefepime alone, ampicillin plus ceftriaxone, spectra of activity, distinct structures, and less biliary excretion; ampicillin plus cefepime, ampicillin plus ceftaroline, ampicillin therefore, they should carry less risk of VRE colonization (6, 10). plus gentamicin, and no antibiotic (growth control). We therefore evaluated the activities of these dual ␤-lactam com- All model experiments were performed at least in duplicate to binations that have less potential for VRE colonization in a high- ensure reproducibility. Samples were removed from each model inoculum in vitro pharmacodynamic (IVPD) infection model (6, 10, 11). at 0, 4, 8, and 24 h. Once removed, samples were serially diluted, (A portion of the results were presented as a poster at the 54th plated on TSA, and incubated at 37°C for 24 h before colony count Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemo- enumeration. The limit of detection for this method is 2.0 log10 therapy [ICAAC], 8 September 2014, Washington, DC.) CFU/ml. Antimicrobial carryover was minimized by serial dilu- We evaluated two previously described strains of E. faecalis: tion (1:10 to 1:10,000) of plated samples in conjunction with vac- one ampicillin-susceptible and gentamicin-susceptible strain uum filtration, if needed, as previously described (23). (OG1X), and a ␤-lactamase-producing although still ampicillin- The MICs of the antimicrobial agents were determined by Etest susceptible and HLAR gentamicin-resistant strain (HH22) (12, methodology (Table 1). All samples were incubated at 37°C in 13). Mueller-Hinton broth (MHB; Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, USA), adjusted to 25 mg/liter calcium and 12.5 mg/liter mag- nesium, was used for in vitro pharmacodynamic models (14). Col- Received 30 December 2015 Returned for modification 8 February 2016 ony counts were determined using tryptic soy agar (TSA; Difco, Accepted 20 February 2016 Becton Dickinson). Ampicillin (App Pharmaceuticals, Schaum- Accepted manuscript posted online 29 February 2016 Citation Luther MK, Rice LB, LaPlante KL. 2016. Ampicillin in combination with berg, IL), ceftriaxone (Hospira, Lake Forest, IL), cefepime (Sagent ceftaroline, cefepime, or ceftriaxone demonstrates equivalent activities in a high- Pharmaceuticals, Schaumberg, IL), ceftaroline research powder inoculum Enterococcus faecalis infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Forest Laboratories, New York, NY), and gentamicin (Sigma- 60:3178–3182. doi:10.1128/AAC.03126-15. Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) were evaluated. Address correspondence to Kerry L. LaPlante, [email protected]. A previously described IVPD model was used to evaluate sev- Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved. eral antibiotic regimens against enterococci at a high inoculum 3178 aac.asm.org Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2016 Volume 60 Number 5 Dual ␤-Lactams against Enterococci TABLE 1 MICs by Etest against two strains of E. faecalis CI], 0.46 to 4.52; P ϭ 0.01, and 3.62; 95% CI, 1.59 to 5.65; P ϭ MIC (mg/liter) (CLSI susceptibility)a 0.001). Ampicillin-ceftriaxone did not significantly increase activ- ity over that of ampicillin alone but was also not significantly OG1X, aminoglycoside HH22, high-level different from the other cephalosporin combinations. Against this Drug susceptible aminoglycoside resistant HLAR isolate, there was regrowth at 24 h with all monotherapy Ampicillin 0.19 (S) 2 (S) regimens and ampicillin-gentamicin. Despite regrowth, no in- Ͼ Ͼ Ceftriaxone 256* 256* creases in MIC were seen with any combination or ampicillin Cefepime 3* 16* monotherapy. There was no regrowth with ampicillin-cefepime Ceftaroline 0.047* 0.5* Gentamicin 12 (S) Ͼ500 (R) or ampicillin-ceftaroline. Enterococcal ␤-lactamase production has a negligible effect on a S, susceptible per CLSI guidelines; R, resistant per CLSI guidelines. *, no CLSI breakpoints for cephalosporins against enterococci. ampicillin MIC at standard testing inocula but raises the MIC when tested at high inocula (27). The significant differences we observed in the activities of ampicillin alone against the two strains in this study are consistent with these prior studies of Downloaded from ambient air for 24 h. Etests were also used to assess changes in MIC HH22. Our results are encouraging in that the reduced efficacy of at 24 h to detect resistance. ampicillin against the ␤-lactamase-producing strain was over- Changes in log10 CFU/ml were plotted to demonstrate reduc- come by the addition of cefepime or ceftaroline. Our study is tion by each regimen over 24 h. Bactericidal activity (99.9% kill) limited by the use of two strains and the 24-h duration. Additional Ն was defined as a 3-log10 CFU/ml reduction and bacteriostatic research will be required before the efficacy of cefepime and cef- Ͻ activity as a 3-log10 CFU/ml change in colony count from the taroline against E. faecalis endocarditis in the clinical setting can be initial inoculum. determined. Changes in bacterial growth (log10 CFU/ml) at 24 h were Overall, ampicillin-cephalosporin combinations demonstrated compared by analysis of variance with Tukey’s post hoc test. A P the greatest activity against both
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide
    Stanford Health Issue Date: 05/2017 Stanford Antimicrobial Safety and Sustainability Program Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide Table 1: Antibiotic selection options for healthcare associated and/or immunocompromised patients • Healthcare associated: intravenous therapy, wound care, or intravenous chemotherapy within the prior 30 days, residence in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, hospitalization in an acute care hospital for two or more days within the prior 90 days, attendance at a hospital or hemodialysis clinic within the prior 30 days • Immunocompromised: Receiving chemotherapy, known systemic cancer not in remission, ANC <500, severe cell-mediated immune deficiency Table 2: Antibiotic selection options for community acquired, immunocompetent patients Table 3: Antibiotic selection options for patients with simple sepsis, community acquired, immunocompetent patients requiring hospitalization. Risk Factors for Select Organisms P. aeruginosa MRSA Invasive Candidiasis VRE (and other resistant GNR) Community acquired: • Known colonization with MDROs • Central venous catheter • Liver transplant • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 day • Recent MRSA infection • Broad-spectrum antibiotics • Known colonization • Known colonization with MDROs • Known MRSA colonization • + 1 of the following risk factors: • Prolonged broad antibacterial • Skin & Skin Structure and/or IV access site: ♦ Parenteral nutrition therapy Hospital acquired: ♦ Purulence ♦ Dialysis • Prolonged profound • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 days ♦ Abscess
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Susceptibilities of Escherichia Coli and Klebsiella Spp. To
    Jpn. J. Infect. Dis., 60, 227-229, 2007 Short Communication In Vitro Susceptibilities of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella Spp. to Ampicillin-Sulbactam and Amoxicillin-Clavulanic Acid Birgul Kacmaz* and Nedim Sultan1 Department of Central Microbiology and 1Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey (Received January 30, 2007. Accepted April 13, 2007) SUMMARY: Ampicillin-sulbactam (A/S) and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AUG) are thought to be equally efficacious clinically against the Enterobacteriaceae family. In this study, the in vitro activities of the A/S and AUG were evaluated and compared against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed by standard agar dilution and disc diffusion techniques according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). During the study period, 973 strains were isolated. Of the 973 bacteria isolated, 823 were E. coli and 150 Klebsiella spp. More organisms were found to be susceptible to AUG than A/S, regardless of the susceptibility testing methodology. The agar dilution results of the isolates that were found to be sensitive or resistant were also compatible with the disc diffusion results. However, some differences were seen in the agar dilution results of some isolates that were found to be intermediately resistant with disc diffusion. In E. coli isolates, 17 of the 76 AUG intermediately resistant isolates (by disc diffusion), and 17 of the 63 A/S intermediately resistant isolates (by disc diffusion) showed different resistant patterns by agar dilution. When the CLSI breakpoint criteria are applied it should be considered that AUG and A/S sensitivity in E. coli and Klebsiella spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance
    Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines March 2013 Clinical guidelines are made available to the public for informational purposes only. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not warrant these guidelines for any other purpose, and assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage resulting from the reliance thereof. Proper medical practice necessitates that all cases are evaluated on an individual basis and that treatment decisions are patient-specific. Consult the BOP Clinical Practice Guidelines Web page to determine the date of the most recent update to this document: http://www.bop.gov/news/medresources.jsp Federal Bureau of Prisons Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance Clinical Practice Guidelines March 2013 Table of Contents 1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Antimicrobial Stewardship in the BOP............................................................................................ 4 4. General Guidance for Diagnosis and Identifying Infection ............................................................. 5 Diagnosis of Specific Infections ........................................................................................................ 6 Upper Respiratory Infections (not otherwise specified) ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ampicillin (Ampicillin Sodium) INJECTION, POWDER, FOR
    Ampicillin for Injection, USP Rx Only (For Intramuscular or Intravenous Injection) To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of ampicillin and other antibacterial drugs, ampicillin should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by bacteria. DESCRIPTION Ampicillin for injection, USP the monosodium salt of [2S-[2α,5α,6β(S*)]]-6- [(aminophenylacetyl)amino]-3,3-dimethyl-7-oxo-4-thia-1-azabicyclo[3.2.0]heptane-2-carboxylic acid, is a synthetic penicillin. It is an antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of bactericidal activity against both penicillin-susceptible Gram-positive organisms and many common Gram-negative pathogens. Ampicillin for injection, USP is a white to cream-tinged, crystalline powder. The reconstituted solution is clear, colorless and free from visible particulates. Each vial of Ampicillin for injection, USP contains ampicillin sodium equivalent to 250 mg, 500 mg, 1 gram or 2 grams ampicillin. Ampicillin for injection, USP contains 65.8 mg [2.9 mEq] sodium per gram ampicillin. It has the following molecular structure: The molecular formula is C16H18N3NaO4S, and the molecular weight is 371.39. The pH range of the reconstituted solution is 8 to 10. CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY Ampicillin for injection diffuses readily into most body tissues and fluids. However, penetration into the cerebrospinal fluid and brain occurs only when the meninges are inflamed. Ampicillin is excreted largely unchanged in the urine and its excretion can be delayed by concurrent administration of probenecid. Due to maturational changes in renal function, ampicillin half-life decreases as postmenstrual age (a sum of gestational age and postnatal age) increases for infants with postnatal age of less than 28 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document
    Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document Key Points Background Careful evaluation of antibiotic allergy and prior tolerance history is essential to providing optimal treatment The true incidence of penicillin hypersensitivity amongst patients in the United States is less than 1% Alterations in antibiotic prescribing due to reported penicillin allergy has been shown to result in higher costs, increased risk of antibiotic resistance, and worse patient outcomes Cross-reactivity between truly penicillin allergic patients and later generation cephalosporins and/or carbapenems is rare Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy Obtain a detailed history of allergic reaction Classify the type and severity of the reaction paying particular attention to any IgE-mediated reactions (e.g., anaphylaxis, hives, angioedema, etc.) (Table 1) Evaluate prior tolerance of beta-lactam antibiotics utilizing patient interview or the electronic medical record Recommendations for Challenging Penicillin Allergic Patients See Figure 1 Follow-Up Document tolerance or intolerance in the patient’s allergy history Consider referring to allergy clinic for skin testing Created July 2017 by Macey Wolfe, PharmD; John Schoen, PharmD, BCPS; Scott Bergman, PharmD, BCPS; Sara May, MD; and Trevor Van Schooneveld, MD, FACP Disclaimer: This resource is intended for non-commercial educational and quality improvement purposes. Outside entities may utilize for these purposes, but must acknowledge the source. The guidance is intended to assist practitioners in managing a clinical situation but is not mandatory. The interprofessional group of authors have made considerable efforts to ensure the information upon which they are based is accurate and up to date. Any treatments have some inherent risk. Recommendations are meant to improve quality of patient care yet should not replace clinical judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F
    Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine DigitalCommons@PCOM PCOM Scholarly Papers 2014 Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F. DeBellis Kimberly L. Barefield Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/scholarly_papers Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation DeBellis, Heather F. and Barefield, Kimberly L., "Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community- Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia" (2014). PCOM Scholarly Papers. 1913. https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/scholarly_papers/1913 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@PCOM. It has been accepted for inclusion in PCOM Scholarly Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@PCOM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open Access: Full open access to Clinical Medicine Reviews this and thousands of other papers at http://www.la-press.com. in Therapeutics Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community- Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F. DeBellis and Kimberly L. Tackett South University School of Pharmacy, Savannah, GA, USA. ABSTR ACT: Ceftaroline fosamil is a new fifth-generation cephalosporin indicated for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). It possesses antimicrobial effects against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but not against anaerobes. Organisms covered by this novel agent that are commonly associated with CABP are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae; however, ceftaroline fosamil lacks antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Trigger of Morbilliform Eruption in the Setting of Atypical Infectious
    A New Trigger of Morbilliform Eruption in the Setting of Atypical Infectious Mononucleosis Roxanne Rajaii, DO,* Megan Furniss, DO,** John Pui, MD,*** Brett Bender, DO**** *Dermatology Resident, PGY2, Beaumont Hospital - Farmington Hills, Farmington Hills, MI **Dermatology Resident, PGY4, Beaumont Hospital - Farmington Hills, Farmington Hills, MI ***Dermatopathologist, Beaumont Hospital - Farmington Hills, Farmington Hills, MI ****Dermatologist, Beaumont Hospital - Farmington Hills, Farmington Hills, MI Disclosures: None Correspondence: Roxanne Rajaii, DO; [email protected] Abstract Morbilliform eruptions, also commonly referred to as exanthematous or maculopapular drug eruptions, are the most common type of hypersensitivity reaction and can vary in etiology. Antibiotics are a common trigger, most notably amoxicillin or ampicillin in the setting of a concomitant and acute Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. However, other antibiotics have been identified to cause a similar reaction in the setting of EBV. Cephalexin, a commonly used cephalosporin, is the only antibiotic in its class that has been implicated in causing such a phenomenon. We present a unique case of a morbilliform eruption in the setting of EBV secondary to the use of cefepime, further outlining the importance of conservative antibiotic use and awareness of such a reaction in this specific patient population, not only with penicillins but also with a wider spectrum of antibiotics. Introduction acquired pyelonephritis, as she had been admitted Work-up included the following laboratory tests: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infects more than a month prior to that for status asthmaticus. complete blood count, complete metabolic panel, 98% of the world’s adult population and is the Four days later, she presented with an urticarial anti-nuclear antibody, creatinine phosphate kinase, most common cause of infectious mononucleosis morbilliform rash.
    [Show full text]
  • Cephalosporins Can Be Prescribed Safely for Penicillin-Allergic Patients ▲
    JFP_0206_AE_Pichichero.Final 1/23/06 1:26 PM Page 106 APPLIED EVIDENCE New research findings that are changing clinical practice Michael E. Pichichero, MD University of Rochester Cephalosporins can be Medical Center, Rochester, NY prescribed safely for penicillin-allergic patients Practice recommendations an allergic reaction to cephalosporins, ■ The widely quoted cross-allergy risk compared with the incidence of a primary of 10% between penicillin and (and unrelated) cephalosporin allergy. cephalosporins is a myth (A). Most people produce IgG and IgM antibodies in response to exposure to ■ Cephalothin, cephalexin, cefadroxil, penicillin1 that may cross-react with and cefazolin confer an increased risk cephalosporin antigens.2 The presence of of allergic reaction among patients these antibodies does not predict allergic, with penicillin allergy (B). IgE cross-sensitivity to a cephalosporin. ■ Cefprozil, cefuroxime, cefpodoxime, Even penicillin skin testing is generally not ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone do not predictive of cephalosporin allergy.3 increase risk of an allergic reaction (B). Reliably predicting cross-reactivity ndoubtedly you have patients who A comprehensive review of the evidence say they are allergic to penicillin shows that the attributable risk of a cross- U but have difficulty recalling details reactive allergic reaction varies and is of the reactions they experienced. To be strongest when the chemical side chain of safe, we often label these patients as peni- the specific cephalosporin is similar to that cillin-allergic without further questioning of penicillin or amoxicillin. and withhold not only penicillins but Administration of cephalothin, cepha- cephalosporins due to concerns about lexin, cefadroxil, and cefazolin in penicillin- potential cross-reactivity and resultant IgE- allergic patients is associated with a mediated, type I reactions.
    [Show full text]
  • ESBL Disc Tests - Rev.2 / 19.06.2014 ESBL Disc Tests Disc Tests for Detection of ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae
    © Liofilchem® - ESBL Disc Tests - Rev.2 / 19.06.2014 ESBL Disc Tests Disc tests for detection of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. DESCRIPTION Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) are enzymes hydrolyzing most penicillins and cephalosporins, including oxyimino- β-lactam compunds but not cephamycins and carbapenems. Most ESBLs belong to the Amber class A of β-lactamases and are inhibited by β-lactamases inhibitors: clavulanic acid, sulbatam and tazobactam. ESBL production has been observed mostly in Enterobacteriaceae, particularly Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pnuemoniae, but all other clinically-relevant Enterobacteriaceae species are also common ESBL-producers. In many areas, ESBL detection and characterization is recommended or mandatory for infection control purpose. ESBL detection involves two important steps. The first is a screening test with an indicator cephalosporin which looks for resistance or diminished susceptibility, thus identifying isolates likely to be harboring ESBLs. The second step is a confirmation test which evaluates the synergy between an oxyimino cephalosporin and clavulanic acid, distinguishing isolates with ESBLs from those that are resistant for other reasons. METHOD PRINCIPLE ESBL Disc Screening Disk-diffusion method for ESBL screening can be performed using cefpodoxime, ceftazidime, aztreonam, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone, according to EUCAST and/or CLSI guidelines (table 1). Since the affinity of ESBLs for different substrates is variable, the use of more than one of these agents for screening improves the sensitivity of detection. However, it is adequate to use the couple cefotaxime (or ceftriaxone) and ceftazidime. If only one drug can be used, cefpodoxime is the most sensitive indicator cephalosporin for detection of ESBL production may be used for screening.
    [Show full text]
  • MICU Antibiotics and Associated Drug Interactions
    MICU Antibiotics and Associated Drug Interactions Resistant Bacteria ► MICU patient are at risk for resistant organisms: § Recent hospitalizations § From a skilled nursing facility § Immunocompromised patients ►Transplant population ►Chronic steroid use Organisms of Concern ► Gram Negative organisms § Pseudomonas aeruginosa § Acinetobacter § Klebsiella pneumoniae ► ESBL § E.Coli ► ESBL ► Staph Aureus § MRSA ► Enterococcus faecalis & faecium § VRE Antibiotic Management Program (AMP) ► Patient safety initiative to address: § The infections related to C. difficile § Increasing antimicrobial resistance § Increasing antimicrobial cost Commonly Used Restricted Antibiotics ► Must call AMP to get an approval code (Full list on page 12 of Guide to Antimicrobial Chemotherapy) § Commonly used agents ► Ciprofloxacin ► Moxifloxacin ► Linezolid ► Ceftriaxone ► Ceftazidime ► Aztreonam ► Daptomycin ► Clindamycin ► Meropenem ► Imipenem ► Oral Vancomycin—unless you fill out a C.diff order set Not Restricted in the ICU ► Vancomycin ► Zosyn (piperacilin/tazobactam) ► Cefepime ► Aminoglycosides § Gentamicin § Tobramycin Pharmacodynamics ► Concentration dependant killing ► Goal: maximize the concentration § AUC/MIC ratio and Peak/MIC are predictors of efficacy § Antibiotics kill with increasing antibiotic concentrations at a greater rate and extent § Aminoglycosides ►Fluoroquinolones ►Metronidazole Pharmacodynamics ► Time dependent killing ► Goal: Maximize duration of exposure § T > MIC correlates best with efficacy ►Antibiotics kill bacteria at the same rate
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis Entitled an Oral Dosage Form of Ceftriaxone Sodium Using Enteric
    A Thesis entitled An oral dosage form of ceftriaxone sodium using enteric coated sustained release calcium alginate beads by Darshan Lalwani Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences with Industrial Pharmacy Option _________________________________________ Jerry Nesamony, Ph.D., Committee Chair _________________________________________ Sai Hanuman Sagar Boddu, Ph.D, Committee Member _________________________________________ Youssef Sari, Ph.D., Committee Member _________________________________________ Patricia R. Komuniecki, PhD, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2015 Copyright 2015, Darshan Narendra Lalwani This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of An oral dosage form of ceftriaxone sodium using enteric coated sustained release calcium alginate beads by Darshan Lalwani Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences with Industrial Pharmacy option The University of Toledo May 2015 Purpose: Ceftriaxone (CTZ) is a broad spectrum semisynthetic, third generation cephalosporin antibiotic. It is an acid labile drug belonging to class III of biopharmaceutical classification system (BCS). It can be solvated quickly but suffers from the drawback of poor oral bioavailability owing to its limited permeability through
    [Show full text]
  • The Efficacy of Ampicillin Compared with Ceftriaxone on Preventing
    Assawapalanggool et al. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control (2018) 7:13 DOI 10.1186/s13756-018-0304-6 RESEARCH Open Access The efficacy of ampicillin compared with ceftriaxone on preventing cesarean surgical site infections: an observational prospective cohort study Srisuda Assawapalanggool1, Nongyao Kasatpibal2*, Supatra Sirichotiyakul3, Rajin Arora4, Watcharin Suntornlimsiri5 and Anucha Apisarnthanarak6 Abstract Background: Cesarean surgical site infections (SSIs) can be prevented by proper preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Differences in antibiotic selection in clinical practice exist according to obstetricians’ preferences despite clear guidelines on preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ampicillin and ceftriaxone in preventing cesarean SSIs. Methods: The observational prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Thailand from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2012. Propensity scores for ceftriaxone prophylaxis were calculated from potential influencing confounders. The cesarean SSI rates of the ceftriaxone group vs. those of the ampicillin prophylactic group were estimated by multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression nested by propensity score. Results: Data of 4149 cesarean patients were collected. Among these, 911 patients received ceftriaxone whereas 3238 patients received ampicillin as preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The incidence of incisional SSIs was (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.001) and organ space SSIs was (1.2% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.003) in the ceftriaxone group compared with the ampicillin group. After adjusting for confounders, the rate ratios of incisional and organ/space SSIs in the ceftriaxone compared with the ampicillin group did not differ (RR, 0.23; 95% CI 0.03–1.78), and (RR, 1.62; 95% CI 0.83–3.18), respectively.
    [Show full text]