ライフサイエンスコーパス: cefepime

1 pared with anaerobe-sparing antibiotics (eg, cefepime).

2 resembling a hybrid between ceftazidime and cefepime.

3 were susceptible to the carbapenems than to cefepime.

4 t of the beta-lactam antibiotics, but not to cefepime.

5 loxacin; and time period 3 (1,102 patients), cefepime.

6 duration of organ dysfunction compared with cefepime.

7 am and 3046 were treated with vancomycin and cefepime.

8 during the first 10 days after the onset of cefepime.

9 iaxone, 97.4% for ceftazidime, and 98.7% for cefepime.

10 s would have been regarded as susceptible to cefepime.

11 of the 36 patients who received single-agent cefepime (0%) had persistent bacteremia, as opposed to 4

12 m 4.5 g every 6 hrs and 3.375 g every 6 hrs, cefepime 1 g every 12 hrs, and ceftazidime 1 g every 8 h

13 hest target attainment at 99.9%, followed by cefepime 2 g every 12 hrs, ceftazidime 2 g every 8 hrs,

14 At the bactericidal end point of 50% T>MIC, cefepime 2 g every 8 hrs displayed the highest target at

15 e patients were randomized to receive either cefepime, 2 g/enmetazobactam, 0.5 g (n = 520), or pipera

16 significantly higher rates of resistance to cefepime (29.0% vs. 7.0%), piperacillin/tazobactam (31.9

17 solates was observed to ciprofloxacin (59%), cefepime (35%), and gentamicin (38%).

18 for aztreonam; 59 and 14%, respectively, for cefepime; 44 and 43%, respectively, for ceftazidime; 71

19 T results were available for 96% of them for cefepime, 80% for ceftazidime, and 4% for ceftolozane-ta

20 e interval [95% CI], 1.23 to 1.99), 1.13 for cefepime (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.64), and 0.86 for vancomycin

21 ients after exposure to vancomycin, TZP, and cefepime, alone or in combination, within 48 hours of ad

22 y of microbiological material to antibiotics cefepime, ampicillin, amikacin, and erythromycin was pro

23 critically ill children treated with TZP or cefepime, an alternative frequently used in intensive ca

24 A total of (68%) received cefepime and (32%) piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatme

25 included in the final cohort, 4569 received cefepime and 3858 received piperacillin-tazobactam.

26 hort, stage 3 AKI occurred in 9.9% receiving cefepime and 9.8% receiving piperacillin-tazobactam (odd

27 In-hospital mortality was similar for use of cefepime and carbapenems in adjusted regression models a

28 ty score analyses to compare the efficacy of cefepime and carbapenems.

29 observed in two of these isolates by testing cefepime and cefepime plus CA.

30 identified as CP-CRPA; 6 of the 7 were NS to cefepime and ceftazidime, and all 7 were NS to ceftoloza

31 pplemental use of reference BMD or Etest for cefepime and meropenem for susceptibility testing of KPC

32 Cefepime and meropenem increased CDI risk relative to pi

33 total or lean body weight affected the PK of cefepime and meropenem.

34 f BMD and DD tests were noted primarily with cefepime and piperacillin, for which the BMD results wer

35 Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly admini

36 Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly used b

37 eptic shock, there was no difference between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam in the occurrence o

38 We compared the effects of cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam on the incidence of

39 there was no significant difference between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam with regard to rena

40 ystem detected P. aeruginosa in bottles with cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam, but the PF system

41 Cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam are antimicrobials

42 This study aims to compare the effect of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill C

43 After running the TMLE, we found that cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatments ha

44 among ICU-admitted CAP patients treated with cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam.

45 zolin, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam agar dilution MIC determination;

46 lactam antibiotics cephaloridine, cefoselis, cefepime, and cefluprenam were found to inhibit OCTN2-me

47 In contrast, cephaloridine, cefoselis, cefepime, and cefluprenam, which were recognized by OCTN

48 d others toward false resistance (aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime).

49 increase in resistance to ceftazidime, CZA, cefepime, and ceftolozane-tazobactam when engineered int

50 the CLSI breakpoints (2 each for aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftriaxone, and 1 for cefazolin and cefta

51 bial agents, namely, cefazolin, ceftazidime, cefepime, and doripenem, were determined by the dielectr

52 domonas aeruginosa, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and gentamicin, Neisseria meningitidis and cef

53 hazards ratios for piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 1.50 (95% CI: 1.43-1.54), 1

54 hazards ratios for piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 1.50 (95% CI: 1.43-1.54), 1

55 oniae isolates for polymyxin B, tigecycline, cefepime, and meropenem.

56 Aztreonam, cefazolin, cefepime, and, to a lesser extent, ceftazidime, which ne

57 ping, thereby simultaneously controlling for cefepime antibacterial activity and taniborbactam beta-l

58 e later-generation cephalosporins, including cefepime, are poorly hydrolyzed by specific ESBL enzymes

59 oducers) were susceptible to ceftriaxone and cefepime at the standard inoculum as were 6 of 6 isolate

60 harmacodynamic, and clinical reevaluation of cefepime breakpoints for E. cloacae may be prudent.

61 halmic isolates to ertapenem, meropenem, and cefepime by utilizing the Etest.

62 ded-spectrum cephalosporins (ceftazidime and cefepime), carbapenems (meropenem and imipenem), fluoroq

63 However, compared to cefepime/carbapenems, using third-generation cephalospor

64 ts definitively treated with in vitro active cefepime (cases) were compared with those treated with a

65 resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam (PT), cefepime (CE), and meropenem (ME).

66 omonal beta-lactam/VAN combination: PTZ/VAN, cefepime (CEF)/VAN, or meropenem (MER)/VAN.

67 rough concentrations of meropenem, imipenem, cefepime, cefazolin, levofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazo

68 umoniae when exposed to meropenem, imipenem, cefepime, cefazolin, levofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazo

69 more of ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, cefepime, cefodizime, and ceftazidime; group B, positive

70 l and challenge isolates were tested against cefepime, cefotaxime (CTX), ceftriaxone (CTR), clindamyc

71 re active parenteral cephalosporins, such as cefepime, cefotaxime, and ceftriaxone, by 9.1 to 13.0%,

72 all the beta-lactam antibiotics, except for cefepime, cefpirome, and the carbapenems.

73 on methodology with ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefepime, cefpodoxime, and aztreonam.

74 Meropenem, imipenem, cefepime, ceftazidime (2 g every 8 hrs), and piperacilli

75 structures of three beta-lactams (oxacillin, cefepime, ceftazidime) complexes with PBP2a-each with th

76 five-broad spectrum beta-lactams, aztreonam, cefepime, ceftazidime, imipenem, and piperacillin-tazoba

77 Subcutaneous ceftriaxone, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, and aztreonam promoted increase

78 The cefepime-clavulanate combination provided 88% sensitivit

79 ed-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) and with cefepime-clavulanate disk combinations.

80 are clinical outcomes for patients receiving cefepime compared with meropenem for invasive infections

81 d proportion of patients who achieved a free cefepime concentration above the minimum inhibitory conc

82 wing increased invasion of colonocytes where cefepime concentrations were reduced.

83 only recovered from intestinal tissue, where cefepime concentrations were still inhibitory.

84 f a cystatin C-inclusive dosing nomogram for cefepime could improve target attainment without increas

85 us TZP and AKI compared with vancomycin plus cefepime, creates some uncertainty about the nature of t

86 Secondary objectives were to establish a cefepime Css threshold discriminating CIN and control gr

87 ll administration and each mg/mL increase in cefepime Css were independently associated with CIN onse

88 imum inhibitory concentration </= 8 mug/mL), cefepime definitive therapy is inferior to carbapenem th

89 This study created and evaluated a cefepime dosing nomogram based on eGFR cr-cys for initia

90 based on eGFR cr-cys and weight for initial cefepime dosing.

91 ntration of 8 mug/ml in the MIC assay, and a cefepime-enmetazobactam disk mass of 30/20 mug was used

92 g the susceptibility of clinical isolates to cefepime-enmetazobactam.

93 lity control (QC) ranges were determined for cefepime-enmetazobactam.

94 of 1.7% (9/516) of participants who received cefepime/enmetazobactam and 0.8% (4/518) of those who re

95 in 50.0% (258/516) of patients treated with cefepime/enmetazobactam and 44.0% (228/518) with piperac

96 red in 79.1% (273/345) of patients receiving cefepime/enmetazobactam compared with 58.9% (196/333) re

97 s needed to determine the potential role for cefepime/enmetazobactam in the treatment of complicated

98 Cefepime/enmetazobactam is a novel beta-lactam/beta-lact

99 nephritis caused by gram-negative pathogens, cefepime/enmetazobactam, compared with piperacillin/tazo

100 The CLSI reduced the cefepime Enterobacteriaceae susceptibility breakpoint an

101 as to assess the relationship between plasma cefepime exposure and the occurrence of neurotoxicity.

102 Cefepime exposure was found to be independently associat

103 exhibited a persister phenotype upon further cefepime exposure.

104 omycin and either piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime for conditions with presumed equipoise between

105 The MIC(90) for cefepime for ESBL-producing strains was 64 mug/ml, while

106 In addition, the efficacy of cefepime for such infections is controversial.

107 was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; th

108 Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of

109 between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacilli

110 ere were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (

111 In the cefepime group, a 3-hour infusion achieved a higher PTA

112 Our data suggest prolonged courses of cefepime (>=2 weeks), administered by rapid intravenous

113 r routine quality control (QC) as ranges for cefepime (>=64 ug/mL) and cefepime-taniborbactam (0.12 t

114 Cefepime has a similar efficacy as carbapenems for the t

115 ypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dys

116 The combination of enmetazobactam and cefepime has entered phase 3 development in patients wit

117 The role of cefepime, however, remains unclear.

118 ded spectrum cephalosporins (ceftriaxone and cefepime) identified either PbpF or PonA as essential pa

119 e AmpC-producing strains were susceptible to cefepime, imipenem, and ertapenem but that with a high i

120 in combination with cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, imipenem, gentamicin, tigecycline, doxycycline

121 Cefepime imputability was determined for each neurologic

122 However, it has not been compared with cefepime in patients with septic shock.

123 eutropenia treated by continuous infusion of cefepime in the hematology department.

124 though isolates are typically susceptible to cefepime in vitro, there are few data supporting its cli

125 Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) is commonly describ

126 A cluster of cefepime-induced neutropenia (CIN) was identified from J

127 Cefepime is a fourth generation cephalosporin with the g

128 Cefepime is a potentially useful antibiotic for treatmen

129 However, cefepime is an alternative not associated with AKI.

130 Meropenem is approved for use in children, cefepime is approved for use in adults only, and trovafl

131 TEM beta-lactamases in nature-resistance to cefepime-is likely to arise in nature.

132 ients with baseline cystatin C and follow-up cefepime levels were used to develop a nomogram based on

133 Cefepime may be a reasonable option for the treatment of

134 Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, meropenem, levofloxacin, or vancomycin was add

135 antibiotic class currently being prescribed (cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam) or had

136 ycling for febrile neutropenia that included cefepime (+/- metronidazole) and piperacillin-tazobactam

137 The cefepime MIC was determined in triplicate by reference b

138 pital-based clinical laboratories to support cefepime MIC-based dosing strategies.

139 The ability to treat strains with elevated cefepime MICs is codified in new susceptible dose-depend

140 Among these laboratories, cefepime MICs ranged from < or =8 to > or =32 microg/ml

141 tandards Institute susceptible breakpoint of cefepime (minimum inhibitory concentration </= 8 mug/mL)

142 n isolate with bla(TEM-34) for which the MIC cefepime mode was 4 mug/mL.

143 Patients who received cefepime (n = 17) as definitive therapy were more likely

144 iving the following beta-lactam antibiotics: cefepime (n = 82), meropenem (n = 42), or piperacillin-t

145 fer resistance to the beta-lactam antibiotic cefepime, nor do any of the naturally occurring alleles

146 the non-ESBL-producing strains, had MICs of cefepime of >or=2 microg/ml.

147 Pharmacologic tumour PDL1 depletion with cefepime or ceftazidime replicated genetic tumour PDL1 d

148 Adding not susceptible to cefepime or ceftazidime to CRPA carbapenemase testing cr

149 RPA isolates, adding not susceptible (NS) to cefepime or ceftazidime to the definition had 91% sensit

150 ed from 138 to 64 if the definition of NS to cefepime or ceftazidime was used and to 7 with NS to cef

151 s), clinical outcomes for patients receiving cefepime or meropenem therapy were compared.

152 ta-lactamase-positive organisms treated with cefepime or meropenem yielded 32 well-balanced patient p

153 tic shock on hospital admission and received cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

154 Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

155 ides no compelling evidence for a benefit of cefepime over piperacillin-tazobactam.

156 temperature were associated with preferring cefepime over piperacillin/tazobactam (OR 1.14 95% CI [1

157 ed by Next Gen Diagnostics for prediction of cefepime phenotypic susceptibility results in Escherichi

158 y remove vancomycin, cefoxitin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin, oxacillin

159 e available data for the use of cephamycins, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftolozane-tazobacta

160 meropenem, imipenem-cilastatin, ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ciprofloxacin.

161 The antimicrobials examined were vancomycin, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and meropenem.

162 As predicted by our quantitative method, cefepime plus amikacin was found to be the most superior

163 wo of these isolates by testing cefepime and cefepime plus CA.

164 efotaxime, Escherichia coli, cefotaxime, and cefepime, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, piperacillin-tazobacta

165 No growth was detected in bottles containing cefepime regardless of concentration, while recovery was

166 eight evolved alleles increased the level of cefepime resistance by a factor of at least 32, and the

167 s of mutagenesis and selection for increased cefepime resistance each of eight independent population

168 ted CMY-2 evolvants that conferred increased cefepime resistance, we did not recover any CMY-2 evolva

169 beta-lactamases have the potential to evolve cefepime resistance, we evolved the ancestral TEM allele

170 volve the ability to confer higher levels of cefepime resistance.

171 TEM allele, TEM-1, in vitro and selected for cefepime resistance.

172 regression analysis identified resistance to cefepime, resistance to meropenem, presence of multidrug

173 Strikingly, "some" E. coli isolates were not cefepime resistant but acquired mutations in genes invol

174 actamase-producing Escherichia coli (Spain), cefepime-resistant E. coli (Spain), gentamicin-resistant

175 e-susceptible GNB (RS), and ceftriaxone- and cefepime-resistant GNB (RR).

176 ferred resistance levels as high as the best cefepime-resistant TEM alleles.

177 o 12 microg/ml for ertapenem, meropenem, and cefepime, respectively.

178 Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction.

179 sis does not support a mortality benefit for cefepime; results appear dependent on incorrect analytic

180 interest of validating and implementing new cefepime SDD criteria, we evaluated the performances of

181 The recognition of a S-DD response to cefepime should alert clinicians to the possible need fo

182 linical trial of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime showed no difference in short-term outcomes at

183 Both cefepime steady-state concentrations measurement (Css) a

184 Cefepime susceptibility results were interpreted accordi

185 esistant Enterobacterales (CRE) that test as cefepime-susceptible (S) or susceptible-dose dependent (

186 therapy in treating patients with so-called cefepime-susceptible ESBL-producer bacteremia.

187 ceptible GNB (SS), ceftriaxone-resistant but cefepime-susceptible GNB (RS), and ceftriaxone- and cefe

188 (QC) as ranges for cefepime (>=64 ug/mL) and cefepime-taniborbactam (0.12 to 1 ug/mL) were non-overla

189 ritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every

190 reference broth microdilution MIC method for cefepime-taniborbactam (taniborbactam fixed at 4 ug/mL).

191 Investigators are studying the activity of cefepime-taniborbactam against gram-negative pathogens,

192 tions since it will help clinicians evaluate cefepime-taniborbactam as a potential treatment option a

193 strate the robustness and reliability of the cefepime-taniborbactam broth microdilution MIC reference

194 curred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (

195 curred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, re

196 t late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and

197 Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational beta-lactam

198 -lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination cefepime-taniborbactam is intended as therapy for seriou

199 Of the cefepime-taniborbactam MIC results obtained, 99.6% (269/

200 susceptibility testing reference method for cefepime-taniborbactam that conforms to the Clinical Lab

201 cuses on a new antibiotic combination called cefepime-taniborbactam that is being developed to treat

202 Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the

203 Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regardi

204 nal chemistry that led to the development of cefepime-taniborbactam, the pharmacokinetics and pharmac

205 High-dose cefepime-tazobactam (1:1; WCK 4282), a novel antibacteri

206 establish disk diffusion and MIC ranges for cefepime-tazobactam for multiple QC reference strains.

207 The cefepime-tazobactam QC ranges for a fixed tazobactam MIC

208 or accurate in vitro activity evaluations of cefepime-tazobactam when tested against clinical Gram-ne

209 However, there are no data to compare the cefepime testing performance of BD Phoenix automated sus

210 95% CI, 1.5-12.6; P = .006), and definitive cefepime therapy (OR 9.9; 95% CI, 2.8-31.9; P < .001) we

211 istently found that individuals who received cefepime therapy had a lower survival rate (log-rank tes

212 itional tool for the management of high-dose cefepime therapy.

213 A case of failure of cefepime treatment of a bloodstream infection with AmpC-

214 boratory Standards Institute breakpoints for cefepime, two thirds (10/15) of ESBL-producing isolates

215 , and a nonsignificant lower odds ratio with cefepime use (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, .19-1.40; P = .19).

216 d to similar patients receiving vancomycin + cefepime (VC) are lacking.

217 ical isolate and administered the antibiotic cefepime via programmable subcutaneous pumps, allowing c

218 nor error rates were elevated (8 to 32%) for cefepime (VITEK 2 and VITEK) and for aztreonam (all thre

219 eftazidime (VM error, 6.2%; m error, 11.4%), cefepime (VM error, 6.2%; m error, 13.0%), cefotaxime (m

220 s (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a

221 r vancomycin plus TZP versus vancomycin plus cefepime was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.85 to 2.24).

222 A recent high-profile IV analysis suggested cefepime was superior to piperacillin-tazobactam in trea

223 Cefepime was the most common agent with previous exposur

224 In kinetic studies, cefpodoxime and cefepime were hydrolyzed by ESBLs in a manner similar to

225 quipoise between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime were included in the study.

226 nt, whereas the interaction of cefoselis and cefepime with OCTN2 was largely Na(+)-independent.

227 The combination of cefepime with taniborbactam is in advanced clinical deve

228 A cefepime-zidebactam combination was the most potent anti

229 During treatment cefepime-zidebactam MICs increased from 8/8 to 32/32mg/L

230 We describe the first case of cefepime-zidebactam treatment-emergent resistance associ