Werth Brian J, Shireman Laura M
Department of Pharmacy University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington, USA
Department of Pharmacy University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Mar 24;61(4). doi: 10.1128/AAC.02235-16. Print 2017 Apr.
The combination of ampicillin plus ceftaroline has been suggested to be more reliably synergistic against than ampicillin plus ceftriaxone using time-kill methods. The purpose of this study was to determine if this trend persists in a two-compartment model of simulated endocardial vegetations (SEV) using clinically relevant pharmacokinetic exposures of these antimicrobials. Three clinically derived strains were included in the study. The MICs of study antimicrobials were determined by broth microdilution. Simulations of ampicillin (2 g every 4 h [q4h]; maximum concentration of drug in serum [], 72.4 mg/liter; half-life [], 1.9 h), ceftaroline-fosamil (600 mg q8h; , 21.3 mg/liter; , 2.66 h), ceftriaxone (, 257 mg/liter; , 8 h), and ampicillin plus ceftaroline and ampicillin plus ceftriaxone were evaluated against 3 strains of isolated from patients with endocarditis in an PK/PD SEV model over 72 h, with a starting inoculum of ∼9 log CFU/g. All strains were susceptible to ampicillin (MIC, ≤2 mg/liter). Ceftaroline MICs varied from 2 to 16 mg/liter. All strains had ceftriaxone MICs of 256 mg/liter. W04 and W151 exhibited high-level aminoglycoside resistance but W07 did not. Ampicillin plus ceftaroline resulted in significantly greater reductions in CFU per gram by 72 h than ampicillin for all strains ( ≤ 0.025) than ampicillin plus ceftriaxone for W04 ( = 0.019) but not W07 or W151 ( ≥ 0.15). A 4-fold increase in ampicillin MIC was observed for W07 at 72 h, but this was prevented by the addition of ceftaroline or ceftriaxone. The combination of ampicillin plus ceftaroline appears to be at least as efficacious as ampicillin plus ceftriaxone and may lead to improved activity against some strains of , but these differences may be small and the clinical significance should not be overestimated.
使用时间杀菌法研究表明,氨苄西林联合头孢洛林比氨苄西林联合头孢曲松对[具体病菌未提及]具有更可靠的协同作用。本研究旨在确定在模拟心内膜赘生物(SEV)的双室模型中,使用这些抗菌药物的临床相关药代动力学暴露情况时,这种趋势是否仍然存在。研究纳入了三株临床分离的[病菌名称未提及]菌株。通过肉汤微量稀释法测定研究抗菌药物的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)。评估了氨苄西林(每4小时2克[q4h];血清中药物最大浓度[Cmax],72.4毫克/升;半衰期[t1/2],1.9小时)、头孢洛林磷酰胺(每8小时600毫克;Cmax,21.3毫克/升;t1/2,2.66小时)、头孢曲松(Cmax,257毫克/升;t1/2,8小时)以及氨苄西林联合头孢洛林和氨苄西林联合头孢曲松在72小时内对从心内膜炎患者分离出的3株[病菌名称未提及]菌株的作用,起始接种量约为9 log CFU/克。所有菌株对氨苄西林敏感(MIC≤2毫克/升)。头孢洛林的MIC在2至16毫克/升之间变化。所有菌株的头孢曲松MIC均为256毫克/升。W04和W151表现出高水平氨基糖苷类耐药性,但W07没有。对于所有菌株,氨苄西林联合头孢洛林在72小时时每克CFU的减少量比氨苄西林显著更大(P≤0.025);对于W04,比氨苄西林联合头孢曲松显著更大(P = 0.019),但对于W07或W151并非如此(P≥0.15)。在72小时时观察到W07的氨苄西林MIC增加了4倍,但添加头孢洛林或头孢曲松可防止这种情况。氨苄西林联合头孢洛林似乎至少与氨苄西林联合头孢曲松一样有效,并且可能对某些[病菌名称未提及]菌株的活性有所改善,但这些差异可能较小,其临床意义不应被高估。