帕尼培南-倍他米隆的临床评价

目的 评价碳青霉烯类新药帕尼培南－倍他米隆的疗效与安全性。方法 以亚胺培南－西司他丁为对照药,对两种药物治疗重症下呼吸道、尿咱和腹腔细菌性感染共２４６例的疗效和窀生进行随机对照观察。另以帕尼培南－倍他米隆开放治疗其他感染１０例。结果 帕尼培南－倍他米隆组和亚胺培南－西司他丁组的有效率分别为８９．０％和８９．９％,细菌清除率分别为７８．４％和８０．０％;治疗组和对照组的不良反应发生率各为５．８％和９     

美罗培南在急性白血病并发感染中的应用

目的:评价美罗培南治疗急性白血病并发感染时的临床疗效及安全性。方法:采用随机对照试验方法,选用亚胺培南/西司他丁为对照药,其中美罗培南组与亚胺培南/西司他丁组分别为42例。结果:美罗培南组临床痊愈率为66.7%,有效率为85.7%,细菌清除率为81.3%;亚胺培南/西司他丁组相应为64.3%,83.3%,73.3%。统计学处理2组差异无统计学意义。本组美罗培南治疗的不良反应为9.5%(4/184)。结论:应用美罗培南治疗急性白血病并发感染的患者,具有疗效快、作用显著之特点,美罗培南在药效和不良反应方面与亚胺培南/西司他丁相似,治疗急性白血病并发感染效果明显且较安全。     

2002～2007年铜绿假单胞菌对美洛培南的耐药情况分析

2002～2007年,从本院ICU住院感染患者中共检出致病菌8337株,其中铜绿假单胞菌2151株（占25．80％）;2002～2007年各年度铜绿假单胞菌对美洛堵南的耐药率分别为11．22％、1I．49％、12．88％、14．46％、15．85％、17．94％;对美洛培南敏感的铜绿假单胞菌,美洛培南抑制50％受试菌的最低抑菌浓度（MIC50）在2002—2007年各年度分别为（1．26±0．24）、（1．41±0．24）、（1．73±0．29）、（1．94±0．28）、（2．26±0．32）、（2．56±0．35）μg／ml,抑制90％受试菌的最低抑菌浓度（MIC90）分别为（2．41±0．36）、（2．55±0．37）、（2．96±0．32）、（3．25±0．37）、（3．74±0．45）、（4．12±0．48）μg／ml。认为2002—2007年本院ICU感染患者中感染的铜绿假单胞菌对美洛培南的耐药率逐年上升,即使对美洛培南敏感的铜绿假单胞菌,美洛培南的MIC50及MIC50也逐年上升。     

比阿培南与亚胺培南／西司他丁治疗下呼吸道感染疗效对比

目的比较比阿培南与亚胺培南／西司他丁治疗下呼吸道感染的临床效果。方法将80例下呼吸道感染患者随机分成两组,对照组给予亚胺培南／西司他丁静滴,治疗组给予比阿培南静滴,疗程7～14d。比较两组的临床疗效和细菌学疗效,记录治疗过程中的不良事件。结果对照组和治疗组的临床有效率分别为82．50％和87．50％,细菌学疗效分别为77．50％和82．50％,两组比较均无统计学差异（P均〉0．05）。两组不良反应发生率分别为10．0％和7．5％,两组比较无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论比阿培南与亚胺培南／西司他丁对下呼吸道感染的临床疗效相当,不良反应少,安全可靠。     

美罗培南与头孢哌酮/舒巴坦治疗老年重度医院感染肺炎的临床评价

目的 评价美罗培南与头孢哌酮／舒巴坦治疗老年重度医院感染肺炎（HAP）的有效性和安全性。方法 美罗培南为治疗组，头孢哌酮／舒巴坦为对照组，随机对照观察两组药物治疗老年重度HAP的疗效和安全性。结果 人选81例病例，治疗组41例，对照组40例，美罗培南与头孢哌酮／舒巴坦治疗老年重度HAP的总有效率分别为90．2％和87．5％，痊愈率为39．0％和35．0％，不良反应发生率为12．1％和10．0％，实验室异常发生率为9．7％和7．5％（P〉0．05）。两组共分离细菌102株，细菌清除率分别为98．1％和62．5％，对铜绿假单胞菌的清除率分别为94．7％和36．3％（P〈0．05）。结论 美罗培南与头孢哌酮／舒巴坦治疗老年重度HAP疗效确切且安全，美罗培南抗菌活性比头孢哌酮／舒巴坦更强，尤其对铜绿假单胞菌。     

2006—2007年呼吸道铜绿假单胞菌药敏变化趋势

目的分析呼吸道铜绿假单胞菌的药敏结果及药敏变化趋势，指导临床合理使用抗菌药物。方法收集并分析2006—2007年呼吸道标本铜绿假单胞菌药敏资料。结果2006年本院呼吸道铜绿假单胞菌药物敏感率排在前3位的抗菌药依次为阿米卡星（82．2％）、亚胺培南（66．7％）、美罗培南（58．9％）。2007年变为亚胺培南（85．9％）、阿米卡星（83．9％）、氨曲南（76．4％）。其它敏感性较好的抗菌药物有：环丙沙星（72．9％），头孢吡肟（69．3％），头孢他啶（64．3％）。药物中介率前3位依次为美罗培南（28．1％）、头孢哌酮／舒巴坦（26．1％）、左氧氟沙星（20．6％）。结论近两年亚胺培南、氨曲南、环丙沙星、头孢吡肟等抗菌药物敏感性显著增加，为治疗铜绿假单胞菌感染提供了更多药物选择。阿米卡星对铜绿假单胞菌敏感性稳定在较好水平。庆大霉素、妥布霉素等少数药物敏感性发生了显著下降。     

老年下呼吸道感染患者肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌耐药性分析

目的：监测老年下呼吸道感染患者肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌的耐药性。为临床合理应用抗生素提供依据。方法：对我院下呼吸道感染患者中分离出的肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌240株，以Kirby-Bauer(K-B)琼脂扩散法作药敏试验；以美国临床实验室标准委员会（NCCLS）1999年推荐的表型确认试验检测超广谱β－内酰胺酶（ESBLs）。结果：老年组和非老年组肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌对14例抗生素的耐药率分别为阿莫西林93．2％和87．3％，哌拉西林57．1％和42．9％、头孢呋新51．4％和33．3％、头孢噻肟40．1％和17．5％、头孢他啶13．6％和3．2％、头孢曲松39．0％和17．5％、头孢哌酮37．3％和15．9％，头孢吡肟10．2％和3．2％、阿米卡星47．5％和34．9％，环丙沙星54．2％和38．1％、亚胺培南15．9％、头孢吡肟10．2％和3．2％、阿米卡星47．5％和34．9％、环丙沙星54．2％和38．1％，亚胺培南0和0、头孢哌酮／舒巴坦0和0、哌拉西林／三唑巴坦1．1％和0、头孢美唑9．6％和4．8％。78株肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌被证实为产ESBLs菌，ESBLs检测出率为32．5％（78／240），其中老年组ESBLs检出率为38．4％（68／177），非老年组ESBLs检出率为15．9％（10／63）。亚胺培南，头孢哌酮／舒巴坦，哌拉西林／三唑巴坦和头孢美唑对产ESBLs菌的耐药率最低，分别为0、0、2．6％和12．8％。结论：老年下呼吸道感染患者肺炎克雷伯菌和大肠埃希菌的耐药率和ESBLs检出率均显著高于非老年患者；亚胺培南，头孢哌酮／舒巴坦、哌拉西林／三唑巴坦和头孢美唑是治疗由产ESBLs菌引起感染的有效抗生素。     

老年人院内感染铜绿假单胞菌耐药的危险因素及预后因素分析

目的 探讨老年人院内感染铜绿假单胞菌耐药（RPA）的危险因素及预后。方法 收集我院2004～2005年老年人院内感染铜绿假单胞菌耐药共48例临床资料进行分析。结果 对48例下列因素与RPA感染有关：高龄、2种以上细菌混合感染、机械通气、患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）、分离出RPA前15d用过氟喹诺酮及亚胺培南／美罗培南。48例中28例死亡，20例好转，病死率为58％。结论 患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）、分离出RPA前15d用过氟喹诺酮及亚胺培南／美罗培南是RPA感染的危险因素。     

成人脓毒血症患者不同负荷剂量的亚胺培南/西司他丁药动学/药效学参数差异的研究

目的 比较成人脓毒血症患者2h静脉泵入负荷量1.0g与2.0g亚胺培南/西司他丁的％T＞4×最低抑菌浓度(MIC),为制定亚胺培南/西司他丁在成人脓毒血症患者的合理用药方案提供参考.方法 对10位脓毒血症的患者随机分为实验组和对照组各5例.实验组受试者接受方案1给药即1.0g亚胺培南/西司他丁2.0h静脉泵入;对照组受试者接受方案2给药即2.0g亚胺培南/西司他丁2h静脉泵入.在给药前和给药后0.25、0.5、1、2、4、6、8h抽取静脉血标本测定血药浓度.结果 试验组对病原菌MIC为4、2、1 mg/L的％T＞4 ×MIC分别为分别为(19.89±4.10)％,(44.66 ±5.56)％,(68.97±7.47)％.对照组对病原菌MIC为4、2、1 mg/L的％T ＞4×MIC分别为(53.34±7.54)％,(79.45±8.66)％,(105.87 ±11.14)％.结论 ①结果提示2h静脉泵入负荷量2.0g亚胺培南/西司他丁的％T ＞4×MIC值超过静脉泵入1.0g;②随MIC值增加,％T ＞4×MIC呈下降趋势,对于MIC=4.0 mg/L的高病原菌感染,可采用亚胺培南/西司他丁负荷剂量2.0g2h给药.     

8704例孕妇产前阴道分泌物细菌培养及药敏试验结果分析

目的 分析孕妇产前阴道分泌物细菌培养及药敏结果,了解病原菌的分布及其药敏情况.方法 对8 704例孕妇产前进行阴道分泌物细菌培养及药敏试验.结果 8 704例孕妇阴道分泌物共培养出2 115株病菌,阳性率为24.30％,其中革兰阴性杆菌121株,革兰阳性球菌856株,真菌1 121株;革兰阴性杆菌中优势菌主要是大肠埃希菌（94株）和肺炎克雷伯菌（16株）;革兰阳性球菌中优势菌是B群无乳链球菌（548株）、金黄色葡萄球菌（167株）、粪肠球菌（34株）.大肠埃希菌对亚胺培南（100％）、美罗培南（100％）、厄他培南（98.94％）、阿米卡星（96.81％）、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦（96.81％）的敏感性较高;肺炎克雷伯菌对环丙沙星（100％）、亚胺培南（100％）、左氧氟沙星（100％）、美罗培南（100％）、替卡西林/克拉维酸（93.75％）、阿米卡星（93.75％）、头孢西丁（93.75％）、厄他培南（93.75％）的敏感性较高.B群无乳链球菌、金黄色葡萄球菌、粪肠球菌对万古霉素和达托霉素敏感率均为100％.结论 孕妇阴道细菌以革兰阳性球菌居多,真菌的生长比例较高.革兰阴性杆菌敏感率高的药物为亚胺培南、美罗培南、厄他培南和阿米卡星,革兰阳性球菌为万古霉素和达托霉素.     

Empirical monotherapy with meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients

Summary In a nonblind, randomised, parallel-group study, initial empirical monotherapy with meropenem 1 g intravenously every 8 h was compared to an identical dosage of imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of 66 febrile episodes in 61 adult neutropenic patients. 25/31 episodes treated with meropenem and 24/30 imipenem/cilastatin-treated episodes were still receiving unmodified therapy at 72 h (primary endpoint); this difference was not statistically significant. By the end of the treatment courses, 18/31 meropenem-treated episodes had responded clinically (cured or improved) compared with 18/30 episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Another ten episodes initially treated with meropenem and six episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatin were cured after an additional antimicrobial agent had been administered (cured with modification). Satisfactory bacteriological responses (eradication plus presumed eradication) at the end of unmodified therapy was 9/11 in the meropenem group and 14/16 in the comparator group. Both regimes were well tolerated; however, there were more reports of nausea and/or vomiting in the imipenem/cilastatin group (7/33 vs. 2/33 in the meropenem group). The carbapenems meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin appear to be suitable agents for empirical monotherapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Meropenem may be better tolerated than imipenem/cilastatin, allowing optimal dosing in this patient population.

---

Empirische Monotherapie mit Meropenem oder Imipenem/Cilastatin für Fieber bei neutropenischen Patienten

Zusammenfassung In einer offenen, randomisierten Vergleichsstudie wurde die initiale empirische Monotherapie mit Meropenem in einer Dosierung von 3 × 1g täglich verglichen mit Imipenem/Cilastatin in der gleichen Dosierung bei 66 Fieberepisoden von 61 erwachsenen neutropenischen Patienten. 72 Stunden nach Therapiebeginn erhielten noch 25/31 Patienten aus der Meropenem-Gruppe und 24/30 Patienten aus der Behandlungsgruppe mit Imipenem/Cilastatin die usprünglich zugewiesene Initialtherapie (Hauptzielkriterium). Bei Therapieende waren in der Meropenem-Gruppe 18/31 Episoden geheilt oder gebessert gegenüber 18/30 in der Gruppe mit Imipenem/Cilastatin. Weitere 10 Infektionsepisoden, die initial mit Meropenem behandelt wurden, und sechs Infektionsepisoden aus der Vergleichsgruppe konnten erfolgreich behandelt werden, nachdem eine zusätzliche antimikrobielle Substanz verabreicht worden war (Heilung nach Therapiemodifikation). Das zufriedenstellende bakteriologische Ansprechen (Keimelimination sowie vermutete Keimelimination) mit der Initialtherapie Meropenem betrug 9/11 und 14/16 mit Imipenem/Cilastatin. Beide Antibiotika wurden gut vertragen; es wurden jedoch unter Imipenem/Cilastatin mehr Fälle von Übelkeit und/oder Erbrechen registriert (7/33 vs 2/33 unter Meropenem). Die Carbapenem-Antibiotika Meropenem und Imipenem/Cilastatin scheinen geeignet für die empirische Monotherapie bei Fieberepisoden neutropenischer Patienten zu sein. Meropenem erlaubt durch seine offensichtlich bessere Verträglichkeit im Vergleich zu Impienem/Cilastatin auch eine optimale Dosierung bei diesem Patientengut.

     

Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin: a cost effectiveness study

A previously published clinical trial was used for analysis of costs for antibiotic treatment in patients with serious bacterial infections requiring the use of injectable broad spectrum antibiotics. The patients were randomized to receive imipenem/cilastatin 500/500 mg q6h (77 patients of which 56 were evaluable for efficacy) or clindamycin 600 mg q6h plus gentamicin 1.5 mg/kg with dose intervals determined by serum concentration monitoring (86 patients of which 62 were evaluable for efficacy). An analysis of the costs for antibiotics, including drugs, equipment and staff for administration and gentamicin serum concentration assays, showed that imipenem/cilastatin was not more expensive than gentamicin plus clindamycin per treatment day although the drug cost was considerably higher for imipenem/cilastatin. Since imipenem/cilastatin was significantly more effective and caused less frequent adverse reactions than gentamicin plus clindamycin it was more cost-effective in the patients studied.     

哌拉西林钠/他唑巴坦钠治疗肺部感染的临床研究

目的　以亚胺培南 /西司他丁作为对照药物 ,评价哌拉西林钠 /他唑巴坦钠治疗中、重度肺部感染的有效性和安全性。方法　哌拉西林钠 /他唑巴坦钠 3.375 g静脉滴注 ,每 12 h一次 ,或亚胺培南 /西司他丁 0 .5 g静脉滴注 ,每 12 h一次 ,治疗中、重度肺部感染 ,疗程为 7- 14 d。结果　共治疗病人 90例 ,其中试验组 5 8例 ,对照组 32例。哌拉西林钠 /他唑巴坦钠试验组治疗中、重度肺部感染有效率 91.38% ,治愈率 81.0 4 % ,细菌清除率 89.4 6 % ,副作用发生率 3.4 5 % ;亚胺培南 /西司他丁对照组有效率 90 .6 3% ,治愈率 81.2 5 % ,细菌清除率 90 .0 0 % ,副作用发生率 3.13%。两组各率比较差异无显著性 (p>0 .0 5 )。结论　哌拉西林钠 /他唑巴坦钠是一高效、安全广谱抗菌药物 ,对中、重度肺部感染的疗效与亚胺培南 /西司他丁相似 ,两者副作用发生率相近     

Monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections

Summary During the last decade improved clinical and microbiological methods have resulted in the realization that most intraabdominal infections involve both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Papers on the use of different antimicrobial agents directed against the polymicrobial flora of the infected site have been published. In this paper the use of monobactams and carbapenems for treatment of intraabdominal infections is reviewed. The review is based on data published since 1990. Three hundred forty-four patients participated in three trials where aztreonam combined with clindamycin was compared with other antimicrobial agents for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-six percent of the patients receiving aztreonam plus clindamycin were cured/improved, while 83% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs had favorable outcomes. Eleven trials compared imipenem/cilastatin versus other antimicrobial combinations for therapyof intraabdominal infections. One thousand three hundred seventy-five patients were evaluated in the trials. Eighty percent of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin had favorable outcomes, while 81% of the patients receiving the comparative drugs were cured/improved. Nine studies including 1,205 patients for evaluation of meropenem versus other antimicrobial agents in the treatment of intraabdominal infections have been published. Cure/improvement was seen in 96% of the patients treated with meropenem and in 91% receiving the comparative drugs. One trial has been published comparing biapenem with imipenem/cilastatin for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Eighty-three patients participated, 65% of the patients in the biapenem group were cured/improved and 68% in the imipenem/cilastatin group.     

Optimization of anti‐pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations: I. aztreonam and carbapenems

Acute pulmonary exacerbations (APE) in cystic fibrosis (CF) are associated with loss of lung function that may require aggressive management with intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this review is to provide an evidence‐based summary of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), tolerability, and efficacy studies utilizing aztreonam and anti‐pseudomonal carbapenems (i.e., doripenem, imipenem–cilastatin, and meropenem) in the treatment of an APE, and to identify areas where further study is warranted. The current dosing recommendations in the United States and Europe for aztreonam are lower than the literature supported dosing range of 200–300 mg/kg/day divided every 6 hr, maximum 8–12 g/day. In vitro, PK/PD, and tolerability studies show the potential of doripenem 90 mg/kg/day divided every 8 hr, infused over 4 hr, maximum 6 g/day in the treatment of APE. Imipenem‐cilastatin 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 hr, maximum 4 g/day and meropenem 120 mg/kg/day divided every 8 hr, maximum 6 g/day have been shown to be tolerable and effective in the treatment of APE. With availability issues of new anti‐pseudomonal agents and a large percentage of CF patients will not regain their lung function following an APE, we suggest the need to determine optimization of aztreonam and meropenem dosing in CF, as well as to determine the clinical efficacy of doripenem in the treatment of APE. The usefulness of imipenem‐cilastatin may be limited due to the rapid development of resistance. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2012; 47:1147–1158. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparative <Emphasis Type="Italic">in vitro</Emphasis> activity of Meropenem,Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study

Background  

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 in vitro 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.     

Meropenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients

 Infections remain the major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic cancer patients. The current study addresses the question whether monotherapy with the new broad-spectrum carbapenem meropenem exhibits efficacy comparable to that of the standard combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Seventy-one patients with hematological malignancies (55%) or solid tumors (45%), neutropenia <500/μl, and fever <38.5  °C were randomly assigned to either meropenem (1 g every 8 h) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day) intravenously. Meropenem (n=34) and ceftazidime/amikacin (n=37) were equivalent with respect to the clinical response at 72 h (62% versus 68%) (p<0.05) and at the end of unmodified therapy (59% versus 62%). Gram-positive bacteremia responded poorly in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin group (29% versus 25%), whereas all gram-negative bacteremias responded except for one in the meropenem group caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All patients survived to 72 h. One patient in each group died of gram-positive sepsis resistant to study medication. No significant side effects occurred in any regimen. This study suggests that meropenem monotherapy might be as effective as combination therapy with ceftazidime and amikacin for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Received: 13 June 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 5 December 1997     

美罗培南静脉注射联合吸入对老年VAP的临床疗效

目的 探讨美罗培南静脉注射联合吸入对老年VAP （呼吸机相关性肺炎）的疗效.方法 将78例VAP患者随机分成两组,分别为观察组38例和对照组40例.对照组每日静脉注射美罗培南3次（每次500 mg）.给予观察组每日静脉注射两次美罗培南（每次500 mg）,同时每日进行4次美罗培南雾化吸入进行治疗（10 mg/次,用2 ml生理盐水稀释）;以上两组均连续治疗10 d后,观察各组疗效.结果 观察组的总有效率为86.84%,对照组的总有效率为77.50%,观察组的疗效优于对照组（P〈0.05）,且不良反应的发生率也比对照组低（P〈0.05）.结论 美罗培南静脉注射联合吸入治疗老年呼吸机相关性肺炎疗效好,使用药量少,不良反应轻,值得进一步推广.