Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Meropenem is a carbapenem that has an excellent activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic, facultative, and anaerobic bacteria. The major objective of the present study was to assess the <it>in vitro </it>activity of meropenem compared to imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam, against 1071 non-repetitive isolates collected from patients with bacteremia (55%), pneumonia (29%), peritonitis (12%) and wound infections (3%), in 15 French hospitals in 2006. The secondary aim of the study was to compare the results of routinely testings and those obtained by a referent laboratory.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Susceptibility testing and Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were determined locally by Etest method. Susceptibility to meropenem was confirmed at a central laboratory by disc diffusion method and MICs determined by agar dilution method for meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cumulative susceptibility rates against <it>Escherichia coli </it>were, meropenem and imipenem: 100% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. Against other <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, the rates were meropenem: 99%, imipenem: 98% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. All <it>Staphylococci</it>, <it>Streptococci </it>and anaerobes were susceptible to the three antibiotics. Against non fermeters, meropenem was active on 84-94% of the strains, imipenem on 84-98% of the strains and piperacillin/tazobactam on 90-100% of the strains.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Compared to imipenem, meropenem displays lower MICs against <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, <it>Escherichia coli </it>and <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</it>. Except for non fermenters, MICs90 of carbapenems were <4 mg/L. Piperacillin/tazobactam was less active against <it>Enterobacteriaceae </it>and <it>Acinetobacter </it>but not <it>P. aeruginosa</it>. Some discrepancies were noted between MICs determined by Etest accross centres and MICs determined by agar dilution method at the central laboratory. Discrepancies were more common for imipenem testing and more frequently related to a few centres. Overall MICs determined by Etest were in general higher (0.5 log to 1 log fold) than MICs by agar dilution.</p

Asymptomatic bacteriuria in type 2 Iranian diabetic women: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing infection in diabetic patients is higher and urinary tract is the most common site for infection. Serious complications of urinary infection occur more commonly in diabetic patients. To study the prevalence and associates of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Iranian population, this study was conducted. METHODS: Between February 10, 2004 and October 15, 2004; 202 nonpregnant diabetic (type 2) women (range: 31 to 78 years old) with no abnormalities of the urinary tract system were included in this clinic based study. We defined ASB as the presence of at least 10(5 )colony-forming units/ml of 1 or 2 bacterial species, in two separated cultures of clean-voided midstream urine. All the participants were free from any symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI). Associates for developing bacteriuria was assessed and compared in participants with and without bacteriuria. RESULTS: In this study, the prevalence of ASB was 10.9% among diabetic women. E. coli was the most prevalent microorganism responsible for positive urine culture. Most of the isolated microorganisms were resistant to Co-trimoxazole, Nalidixic acid and Ciprofloxacin. Pyuria (P < 0.001) and glucosuria (P < 0.05) had a meaningful relationship with bacteriuria but no association was evident between age (P < 0.45), duration of diabetes (P < 0.09), macroalbuminuria (P < 0.10) and HbA(1c )level (P < 0.75), and the presence of ASB. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of ASB is higher in women with type 2 diabetes, for which pyuria and glucosuria can be considered as associates. Routine urine culture can be recommended for diabetic women even when there is no urinary symptom

The influence of diabetes mellitus on the spectrum of uropathogens and the antimicrobial resistance in elderly adult patients with urinary tract infection

BACKGROUND: The role of Diabetes mellitus (DM) in the etiology and in the antimicrobial resistance of uropathogens in patients with urinary tract infection has not been well clarified. For this reason we have evaluated the spectrum of uropathogens and the profile of antibiotic resistance in both diabetic and non diabetic patients with asymptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI). METHODS: Urinary isolates and their patterns of susceptibility to the antimicrobials were evaluated in 346 diabetics (229 females and 117 males) and 975 non diabetics (679 females and 296 males) who were screened for significant bacteriuria (≥10(5 )CFU/mL urine). The mean age of diabetic and non diabetic patients was respectively 73.7 yrs ± 15 S.D. and 72.7 ± 24 (p = NS). RESULTS: Most of our patients had asymptomatic UTI. The most frequent causative organisms of bacteriuria in females with and without DM were respectively : E. coli 54.1% vs 58.2% (p = NS), Enterococcus spp 8.3% vs 6.5% (p = NS), Pseudomonas spp 3.9 vs 4.7% (p = NS). The most frequent organisms in diabetic and non diabetic males were respectively E. coli 32.5% vs 31.4% (p = NS), Enterococcus spp 9.4% vs 14.5% (p = NS), Pseudomonas spp 8.5% vs 17.2% (p = <0.02). A similar isolation rate of E. coli, Enterococcus spp and Pseudomonas spp was also observed in patients with indwelling bladder catheter with and without DM. No significant differences in resistance rates to ampicillin, nitrofurantoin, cotrimoxazole and ciprofloxacin of E. coli and Enteroccus spp were observed between diabetic and non diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: In our series of patients with asymptomatic UTI (mostly hospital acquired), diabetes mellitus per se does not seem to influence the isolation rate of different uropathogens and their susceptibility patterns to antimicrobials

Managing urinary tract infections

Urinary tract infections (UTI) are common in childhood. Presence of pyuria and bacteriuria in an appropriately collected urine sample are diagnostic of UTI. The risk of UTI is increased with an underlying urological abnormality such as vesicoureteral reflux, constipation, and voiding dysfunction. Patients with acute pyelonephritis are at risk of renal scarring and subsequent complications such as hypertension, proteinuria with and without FSGS, pregnancy-related complications and even end-stage renal failure. The relevance and the sequence of the renal imaging following initial UTI, and the role of antimicrobial prophylaxis and surgical intervention are currently undergoing an intense debate. Prompt treatment of UTI and appropriate follow-up of those at increased risk of recurrence and/or renal scarring are important

In vitro activity of tigecycline against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, including livestock-associated strains

The in vitro activity of tigecycline was determined using a well-defined collection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates (n = 202), including 33 livestock-associated strains. Susceptibility testing was performed using the Etest system. Among the 202 MRSA strains, three (1.5%) had a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value for tigecycline greater than 0.5 mg/l, which are considered to be resistant. When these strains were tested using Iso-Sensitest medium, the MICs were substantially lower and no resistance was found. This discrepancy warrants further investigations into the preferred test conditions for tigecycline. In conclusion, tigecycline showed good activity against MRSA strains in vitro

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tigecycline, a first-in-class broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against bacteria commonly encountered in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), including aerobic and facultative Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. In the current trial, tigecycline was evaluated for safety and efficacy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in hospitalized Chinese patients with cIAIs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomly assigned to receive IV tigecycline or imipenem/cilastatin for ≤2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-37 days after therapy) for the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat and microbiologically evaluable populations. Because the study was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority between tigecycline and imipenem/cilastatin, no formal statistical analysis was performed. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the response rates in each treatment group and for differences between treatment groups for descriptive purposes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred ninety-nine patients received ≥1 dose of study drug and comprised the modified intent-to-treat population. In the microbiologically evaluable population, 86.5% (45 of 52) of tigecycline- and 97.9% (47 of 48) of imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients were cured at the test-of-cure assessment (12-37 days after therapy); in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat population, cure rates were 81.7% (49 of 60) and 90.9% (50 of 55), respectively. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 80.4% for tigecycline vs. 53.9% after imipenem/cilastatin therapy (<it>P </it>< 0.001), primarily due to gastrointestinal-related events, especially nausea (21.6% vs. 3.9%; <it>P </it>< 0.001) and vomiting (12.4% vs. 2.0%; <it>P </it>= 0.005).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Clinical cure rates for tigecycline were consistent with those found in global cIAI studies. The overall safety profile was also consistent with that observed in global studies of tigecycline for treatment of cIAI, as well as that observed in analyses of Chinese patients in those studies; no novel trends were observed.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00136201</p

Prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in type 2 diabetic subjects with and without microalbuminuria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetic subjects, especially women, show high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of ASB in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) with and without microalbuminuria (MA).</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>A hundred diabetic subjects with MA (53 males/47 females, mean age ± standard deviation: 65.5 ± 11.1 years) and 100 diabetic subjects without MA (52 males/48 females, mean age ± standard deviation: 65.4 ± 11.3 years), consecutively attending the outpatient diabetes clinic of our hospital were recruited in the study. Subjects with overt diabetic nephropathy or nephropathy from other causes were excluded. In addition, subjects with symptoms of urinary track infection or use of antimicrobial drugs in the last 14 days were excluded by the study.</p> <p>Diabetic subjects with MA showed increased prevalence of ASB compared to diabetic subjects without MA (21% versus 8%, P < 0.001, respectively). <it>Escherichia coli </it>was the most prevalent pathogen isolated in diabetic subjects with and without MA (12% versus 3.0%, P = 0.01, respectively) followed by <it>Proteus mirabilis </it>(6% versus 5%, P = 0.75, respectively) and <it>Klebsiella </it>spp (5% versus 1%, P = 0.09, respectively). Univariate logistic analysis showed that ASB was associated with the presence of coronary artery disease [odds ratio (OR): 0.29, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI): 0.09-0.95, P = 0.04] and gender (OR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.35, P < 0.001) in the diabetic study group with MA.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>ASB is more prevalent among T2D subjects with MA. Screening for ASB is warranted in diabetic patients especially if pyuria is detected in urine analysis since ASB has been found to be a risk factor for developing symptomatic urinary tract infection.</p

Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ertapenem, a new carbapenem with a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, has been approved for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal Infections (cIAIs), acute pelvic infections (APIs) and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam, which has been reported to possess good efficacy for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, Cochrane library and Embase that compared the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections including cIAIs, APIs, cSSSIs. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical treatment success assessed at the test-of-cure visit. The primary safety outcome was drug related clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred during the treatment and the post-treatment period.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Six RCTs, involving 3161 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Ertapenem was associated similar clinical treatment success with piperacillin/tazobactam for complicated infections treatment (clinically evaluable population, 1937 patients, odds ratios: 1.15, 95% confidence intervals: 0.89-1.49; modified intention to treat population, 2855 patients, odds ratios: 1.03, 95% confidence intervals: 0.87-1.22). All of secondary efficacy outcomes analysis obtained similar findings with clinical treatment success. No difference was found about the incidence of drug related adverse events between ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis provides evidence that ertapenem 1 g once a day can be used as effectively and safely as recommended dose of piperacillin/tazobactam, for the treatment of complicated infections, particularly of mild to moderate severity. It is an appealing option for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p