Impact of ceftazidime restriction on gram-negative bacterial resistance in an intensive care unit

The present study included three periods: (1) a 12-month prerestriction and control period in 2001; (2) a 12-month restriction period with reduced ceftazidime prescribing in favor of piperacillin-tazobactam (2002); (3) and a 24 month postrestriction period (2003–2004). Note that, for results, P represents the difference between 2002 and 2001; P′, the difference between 2003 and 2001; and P″, the difference between 2004 and 2001. No changes in hygiene practices were observed during these three periods. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of reducing ceftazidime use in an intensive care unit (ICU) upon Gram-negative bacterial resistance, particularly as regards Pseudomonas aeruginosa. During the three periods of the study, patients were similar concerning age, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPSII), the site of nosocomial infection, and the requirements for mechanical ventilation (75% in 2001, 76% in 2002, 74% in 2003, and 85% in 2004). The most commonly isolated pathogens were P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Enterobacteriaceae. The use of ceftazidime decreased significantly from 12.6% in 2001 to 9% in 2002, to 3% in 2003 (P′ = 0.0009), and 2.6% in 2004 (P″ = 0.0001) in favor of piperacillin-tazobactam (0% 2001 to 3.7% in 2003; P′ = 0.002; and 5% in 2004; P″ = 0.0001). Simultaneously, we observed a significant decrease in isolates of P. aeruginosa resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam (P = 0.03; P′ = 0.004; P″ = 0.009), and those resistant to imipenem in 2003 (P′ = 0.008). We also noted a significant decrease in A. baumannii isolates resistant to ceftazidime (P′ = 0.01; P″ = 0.0004) and those resistant to imipenem in both 2002 and 2004 (P = 0.03; P″ = 0.04), and a considerable decrease in isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae producing expanded spectrum betalactamase (ESBL) in 2003 and 2004 (P′ = 0.04; P″ = 6.10⁻⁵). In contrast, we noted an increase in penicillinase-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae, from 6% in 2001 to 16% in 2002 (p = 0.01), 20% in 2003 (P′ = 0.001), and 32% in 2004 (P″ = 10⁻⁶). We concluded that restriction of ceftazidime use was demonstrated to be efficient in reducing antimicrobial resistance, especially to K. pneumoniae ESBL.     

亚胺培南/西司他丁与头孢他啶治疗中、重度细菌感染疗效费用分析比较研究

对我院４５例确诊为中、重度细菌感染住院患者进行了亚胺培南／西司他丁与头孢他啶疗效费用分析比较研究。结果表明：２组病例有效率、死亡率无显著性差异；头孢他啶组较亚胺培南／西司他丁组疗程明显延长。亚胺培南／西司他丁每日所需费用明显高于头孢他啶；治疗结束时，前者全部费用并未超过后者；全部住院费用无明显差异。作者认为：决定２种药物全部费用的因素，除与药物单价和每日费用有关，还与药物疗程密切相关。选用药物抗菌作用越强，用药时间即相应缩短，住院时间必然缩短；最终患者住院费用降低     

国产与进口头孢他啶治疗小儿细菌性下呼吸道感染的成本-效果分析

目的对国产与进口头孢他啶治疗小儿细菌性下呼吸道感染进行成本—效果分析。方法对我院2008年10月-2009年10月间患小儿细菌性下呼吸道感染且单用头孢他啶治疗的住院患者136例进行回顾性分析,根据药品不同产地将其分为A、B两组,A组给与头孢他啶（国产）60mg/（kg·d）,分2次静脉滴注;B组给与头孢他啶（进口）60mg/（kg·d）,分2次静脉滴注,两组疗程均为7d,分别计算两组病人治疗后的细菌清除率、不良反应发生率,两组的治疗有效率和总成本,计算成本-效果比。结果疗程结束后A、B两组的药物治疗成本分别为：A组236.4元、B组982.5元,组间比较存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）;治疗有效率分别为：91.30%、94.03%;A、B两组的细菌清除率分别为：86.36%、90.70%;两组不良反应发生率分别为：5.80%、2.99%,组间比较差异均无显著性（P〈0.05）;两组成本-效果比分别为：2.59、10.45。结论国产头孢他啶的成本-效果比优于进口头孢他啶,为较佳的治疗方案。     

头孢吡肟和头孢他啶治疗重症下呼吸道感染疗效比较

目的 比较头孢吡肟和头孢他啶治疗重症下呼吸道感染的疗效和安全性。方法 选取住院治疗的重症下呼吸道感染患者62例进行随机比较,头孢吡肟组28例4g/d,头孢他啶组３４例4g/d,疗程７－１０天,静脉注射。结果 两组临床疗效差异有显著性（Ｐ＜0.05),分别为89.3%及70.6%。细菌清除率分别为８５％及67.9％。人体外药敏试验上看,细菌对头孢吡肟敏感率优于头孢他啶,尤其是革兰氏阳性球菌。两组患者无皮疹及其它副作用。结论 在治疗重症下呼吸道感染患者中,头孢吡较头孢他啶更加安全有效,而且对于革兰氏阳性球菌感染者疗效明显优于头孢他啶,可作为首选经验性用药。     

A comparison of ceftazidime and aminoglycoside based regimens as empirical treatment in 1316 cases of suspected sepsis in the newborn

We report a prospective, non-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel group, multinational investigation to compare ceftazidime to aminoglycoside based regimens as empirical treatment in 1316 cases of suspected sepsis in the newborn. In each of the 15 study centres either ceftazidime alone (CAZ) or ceftazidime + ampicillin (CAZ+AMP) was compared to an aminoglyocoside/ampicillin combination (AG+AMP). In all cases treatment was based on an intention to treat. Bacteria considered to be pathogenic were isolated from 176/1316 (13.4%) patients. The incidence of proven infection varied from 39% in a Yugoslav centre to 6% in a British centre; a further 489/1316 (37.1%) patients fulfilled the criteria for clinically suspected sepsis. A total of 210 bacterial isolates from 197 infection sites in 176 patients were considered to be clinically significant. The cure rate for evaluable patients with proven infection who were treated with CAZ+AMP (97%, 30/31) was significantly higher than that for the corresponding patients treated with AG+AMP (66%, 26/39), (P<0.002). The difference in cure rate between CAZ monotherapy (79%, 34/43) and AG+AMP (86%, 32/37) was not significant. Treatment failed in 28/150 (18.7%) evaluable patients. There were significantly fewer failures (P<0.001) with CAZ+AMP than with AG+AMP therapy. There were 55 staphylococcal infections. Treatment was successful in 16/19 evaluable patients treated with CAZ or CAZ+AMP and in 16/29 evaluable patients treated with AG+AMP. None of the study centres encountered problems with ceftazidime resistant bacteria. The cure rate for patients with only clinical and radiological evidence of sepsis was greater than 94% in all treatment groups. Of the study population 65 (4.9%) died, 15 deaths were attributed to infection, pathogenic bacteria were only isolated from 10. The mortality rate for infected babies was 5.7% compared to 4.8% for those without confirmed infection. All the deaths associated with infection were due to Gram-positive bacteria. This study suggests that the practice of continuing antibiotic therapy once pretreatment cultures are known to be negative should be seriously reconsidered. It is concluded that CAZ+AMP is superior to either AG+AMP or ceftazidime monotherapy for the treatment of infection in the newborn. Further studies are required to confirm these observations in neonates with proven infection.The ESPID Neonatal Sepsis Study Group: Recruitment >=50 patients included Prof. R. Dagan, Soroka Medical Centre, Beer-Sheva, Israel; Dr. I. Tessin, Hospital of Molndal, Molndal, Sweden; Dr. D. Harvey and Dr. J. de Louvois, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, London, UK; Dr. B. Trollfors and Dr. K. Thiringer, Ostra Sjukuset, Goteborg, Sweden; Dr. A. Valido, Maternidade, Dr. Alfredo Costa, Lisbon, Portugal; Dr. H. Baumer, Freedom Fields Hospital, Plymouth, UK: Prof. J. Brines and Dr. Diez, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Dr. L. Benic, Dr. J. Kajfes Hospital, Zagreb, Yugoslavia; and Prof. J. Badoual, Hopital St. Vincent de Paul, Paris, France.Recruitment <50 patients included Prof. L. Corbeel, UZ Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; Prof. R. Roos, Univ.-Kinderklinik, Munich, FRG; Dr. D. Kafetzisa, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Dr. S. Pedersen, Kolding Sykehus, Kolding, Denmark; and Prof. A. Columbo, Ospedali Riunuti di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.     

三种抗生素治疗严重烧伤感染的效果对比分析

目的 :比较头孢他啶、头孢哌酮 舒巴坦与亚胺培南 西拉司丁 3种抗生素治疗严重烧伤感染的效果。方法 :选择严重烧伤患者90例 ,随机分为头孢他啶、头孢哌酮 舒巴坦和亚胺培南 西拉司丁 3组 ,每组各 3 0例。头孢他啶和头孢哌酮 舒巴坦组均为每次 1g ,静脉滴注 ,每日 3次 ,疗程 4～ 6天 ;亚胺培南 西拉司丁组每次 0 5g ,静脉滴注 ,每日 3次 ,疗程 4～ 6天。所有患者创面均做分泌物细菌培养、菌种鉴定和药敏试验。结果 :头孢他啶、头孢哌酮 舒巴坦及亚胺培南 西拉司丁组有效率分别为 60 0 %、73 3 %及93 3 % ;共培养细菌 2 0 0株 ,其中以铜绿假单胞菌 ( 3 0 5 % )和金黄色葡萄球菌 ( 2 2 0 % )最为常见。所有革兰阴性杆菌对头孢他啶、头孢哌酮 舒巴坦和亚胺培南 西拉司丁的敏感率分别为 69 0 %、76 0 %与 94 0 % ,所有革兰阳性球菌对头孢他啶、头孢哌酮 舒巴坦和亚胺培南 西拉司丁的敏感率分别为 68 0 %、70 0 %与 94 0 %。结论 :严重烧伤感染患者选择亚胺培南 西拉司丁的治疗效果优于头孢他啶和头孢哌酮 舒巴坦 ,亚胺培南 西拉司丁可作为治疗严重烧伤感染的首选药物     

国产CEFTAZIDIME的微生物学评价

本文报道国产Ceftazidime对临床分离681株致病菌进行体内外抗菌活性研究,并与头孢噻肟、头孢三嗪、Moxalactam、头孢哌酮、Cefsulodin、头孢孟多、头孢唑啉、头孢噻吩、哌拉西林、替卡西林、庆大霉素及丁胺卡那霉素的抗菌作用进行比较。实验证明Ceftazidime与第三代头孢菌素的抗菌活性相似,其独特之处是抗绿脓杆菌活力强,对400株绿脓杆菌的MIC_(50)、MIC_(90)及MIC_(Gm)分别为1.6、3.2及1.57μg/ml。对121株多种耐药绿脓杆菌,有98.4％的菌株敏感。对小鼠感染绿脓杆菌有明显治疗效果,其ED_(50)为3.09～4.14mg/kg。结果表明:Ceftazidime抗绿脓杆菌作用极强,显著优于其他抗生素,为临床治疗绿脓杆菌感染的重症患者提供了一个新抗生素。     

CEFTAZIDIME的协同抗菌作用及对细菌形态学影响

采用琼脂稀释棋盘法,应用多点接种仪分别对Ceftazidime(CTD)单用或合用时抗菌活性进行测定。结果表明CTD对60株绿脓杆菌的抗菌活性最强,其MIC_(50)和MIC_(90)均为1μg/ml,对50株大肠杆菌的MIC_(50)为0.125μg/ml,MIC(90)为0.25μg/ml,优于实验中其它六种抗生素。 联合抗菌作用结果表明,CTD与妥布拉霉素及丁胺卡那霉素联合对20株绿脓杆菌,其协同率分别为15％、10％。CTD与哌拉西林联合协同率亦为15％,和CTD与妥布拉霉素联合时相同。CTD与丁胺卡那霉素联合对20株大肠杆菌也具有一定的协同作用(5％)。 形态学观察结果表明,光镜、电镜结果基本一致。 CTD2μg/ml(2MIC)作用4小时后,菌体拉长呈丝状,不见横膈形成; 20μg/ml(20MIC)作用后,细菌呈丝状及不规则型,胞壁、胞膜结构不完整,出现断裂和缺损。 CTD与哌拉西林各2MIC联合作用 4小时后,细菌呈多形性改变,胞壁破坏明显,胞内空泡形成。CTD与妥布拉霉素各2MIC联合作用4小时后,细菌形态以短小为主,可以见到收缩期横膈。 CTD与妥布拉霉素各20MIC联合作用后,细菌呈不规则形,有的可见菌体松解,有的则又浓缩变小,多数细菌胞壁结构不完整。     

奈替米星与头孢他啶联合应用的抗生素后效应

［摘要］目的 探讨奈替米星与头孢他啶联合应用的抗生素后效应（PAE）.方法 采用微量稀释法测定MIC,采用棋盘设计、菌落计数法测定其PAE. 结果 奈替米星与头孢他啶对金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠埃希菌PAE较长,对铜绿假单胞菌PAE较小,单用与合用后PAE均呈浓度依赖性,两药合用后对金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠埃希菌PAE表现出明显的协同作用,对铜绿假单胞菌主要表现出相加作用. 结论 奈替米星联合头孢他啶使用可延长PAE,优于两药单独使用.     

头孢他啶与5种止血药在输液中配伍的稳定性考察

目的考察头孢他啶与5种止血药(维生素K1、酚磺乙胺、氨甲苯酸、氨甲环酸、氨基己酸)在3种输液中配伍后的稳定性。方法分别采用紫外分光光度法、系数倍率法及双波长分光光度法观察头孢他啶与5种止血药配伍后在5℃、20℃、37℃下，4h内头孢他啶含量及混合液的pH和外观的变化。结果头孢他啶与5种止血药在NS、5％GS、GNS中配伍后，在不同温度下4小时内含量及混合液pH均无显著变化。结论注射用头孢他啶与5种止血药在3种输液中在4h内可配伍应用。