ライフサイエンスコーパス: piperacillin

1 ia between 2001 and 2010 who were prescribed piperacillin.

2 than an equivalent amount of tazobactam and piperacillin.

3 e CD27 expression when cultured with soluble piperacillin.

4 (5 of 127 isolates, 3.9%), pseudomonas with piperacillin (1 of 28, 3.6%), coagulase-negative staphyl

5 ations (6.7-fold for meropenem, 3.8-fold for piperacillin, 10.5-fold for tazobactam, 1.9-fold for van

6 1%) were most used in the PAP group, whereas piperacillin (19%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (33%) dom

7 Patients received piperacillin, 50 mg/kg of body weight intravenously ever

8 d target concentrations for meropenem (89%), piperacillin (83%), and vancomycin (60%) against suscept

9 The MIC values of 24 in combination with piperacillin against class A and class C producing organ

10 SI recommendation to lower the breakpoint of piperacillin against P. aeruginosa to </=16 microg/mL.

11 ype veronii strains were 100% susceptible to piperacillin and 100% resistant to ticarcillin.

12 e patients taking the beta-lactam antibiotic piperacillin and the threshold required for T cell activ

13 A. jandaei displayed resistance to piperacillin and ticarcillin in 53 and 71% of the isolat

14 hrough October 2016 using ["vancomycin" and "piperacillin" and "tazobactam"] and ["AKI" or "acute ren

15 hrough October 2016 using ["vancomycin" and "piperacillin" and "tazobactam"] and ["AKI" or "acute ren

16 7 muM for meropenem, and 7.1 +/- 0.6 muM for piperacillin) and in urine (LODs: 36.6 +/- 11.0 muM for

17 Minocycline, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin, and piperacillin-tazobactam were the most

18 escribing the pharmacokinetics of meropenem, piperacillin, and vancomycin in critically ill patients

19 ent groups involved in studies of meropenem, piperacillin, and vancomycin were 55.3, 60.3, and 56.9 y

20 Meropenem, piperacillin, and voriconazole were cleared by the conti

21 f PBP3 with cephalexin, but not aztreonam or piperacillin, appeared to be stimulated by cell division

22 o and in vivo activities in combination with piperacillin are discussed.

23 The objective of this study was to use piperacillin as a model of beta-lactam hypersensitivity

24 ral administration of beta-lactamase reduced piperacillin-associated alteration of the indigenous mic

25 actam nonsusceptible Bcc and B. gladioli The piperacillin-avibactam and piperacillin-tazobactam-cefta

26 Combinations of piperacillin-avibactam, as well as piperacillin-tazobact

27 A piperacillin-BSA adduct was used as an antigen in ELISA

28 A piperacillin-BSA adduct with cyclized and hydrolysed for

29 ding was detected with antigens generated at piperacillin/BSA ratios of 10:1 and above, which corresp

30 ly resistant PA was defined by resistance to piperacillin, ceftazidime, imipenem, and FQ.

31 d by the resistance to two antibiotics among piperacillin, ceftazidime, imipenem, colistine, and fluo

32 cells from healthy volunteers were primed to piperacillin, cloned, and subjected to the similar analy

33 ersus 94.1% of patients receiving tobramycin-piperacillin; difference, 2.1 percentage points [CI, -2.

34 The present study suggests that piperacillin drug monitoring might be necessary in the s

35 e would inactivate the portion of parenteral piperacillin excreted into the intestinal tract, preserv

36 illin is as safe and effective as tobramycin-piperacillin for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever.

37 tests were noted primarily with cefepime and piperacillin, for which the BMD results were typically m

38 (63 of 234 febrile episodes) and tobramycin-piperacillin group (52 of 237 episodes) were similar (27

39 Success rates in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group (63 of 234 febrile episodes) and tobr

40 inically evaluable (234 in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group and 237 in the tobramycin-piperacilli

41 ing for 67% of failures in the ciprofloxacin-piperacillin group and 72% in the tobramycin-piperacilli

42 piperacillin group and 237 in the tobramycin-piperacillin group).

43 piperacillin group and 72% in the tobramycin-piperacillin group; difference, 5.0 percentage points [C

44 A hydrolyzed piperacillin hapten was detected on four lysine residues

45 t proteins modified to different levels with piperacillin haptens.

46 Piperacillin-HSA conjugates that had levels and epitopes

47 To conclude, the levels of piperacillin-HSA modification that activated T cells are

48 l clones (n = 570, 84% CD4(+)) from blood of piperacillin-hypersensitive patients proliferated and se

49 mphocytes and T lymphocytes are activated in piperacillin-hypersensitive patients.

50 Thus, the aim of this study was to utilize piperacillin hypersensitivity as an exemplar to (i) deve

51 The combinations examined included cefoxitin-piperacillin, imipenem-cefotaxime, imipenem-ceftazidime,

52 shock, that is, moxifloxacin, meropenem, and piperacillin in aqueous solution and human urine.

53 We aimed to compare pharmacokinetics of piperacillin in severely obese and nonobese patients wit

54 ree beta-lactams (cephalexin, aztreonam, and piperacillin) in growing cells.

55 le and piperacillin-tazobactam intermediate; piperacillin intermediate and piperacillin-tazobactam re

56 Ciprofloxacin-piperacillin is as safe and effective as tobramycin-pipe

57 ty of Bcc and B. gladioli to ceftazidime and piperacillin is restored in vitro Both the lack of bla (

58 ive commonly used antimicrobials (meropenem, piperacillin, liposomal amphotericin B, caspofungin, and

59 cillin than in patients receiving tobramycin-piperacillin (mean, 5 vs. 6 days) (P = 0.005).

60 mortality was 9% and 24% in children with a piperacillin MIC of </=16 microg/mL and of 32-64 microg/

61 herapeutic choices should be considered when piperacillin MICs against P. aeruginosa are >/=32 microg

62 Our finding that elevated piperacillin MICs are associated with higher mortality i

63 One hundred twenty-four (72%) children had piperacillin MICs of </=16 microg/mL and 46 (28%) childr

64 of </=16 microg/mL and 46 (28%) children had piperacillin MICs of 32-64 microg/mL.

65 stics and clinical outcomes of children with piperacillin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of

66 Subcutaneous piperacillin or piperacillin plus oral beta-lactamase we

67 isolates were susceptible by both methods to piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbac

68 tes, correlation coefficients (r values) for piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and meropenem wer

69 Unbound piperacillin plasma concentration and fractional time of

70 Piperacillin plasma concentration was measured every 12

71 ve a statistically significant difference in piperacillin plasma concentrations over time between gro

72 obese patients experienced potentially toxic piperacillin plasma concentrations.

73 Subcutaneous piperacillin or piperacillin plus oral beta-lactamase were administered

74 for moxifloxacin, and 114.8 +/- 3.1 muM for piperacillin) points toward the potential of UV Raman sp

75 Piperacillin-primed naive T cells from healthy volunteer

76 24 and 12 h before orogastric inoculation of piperacillin-resistant pathogens.

77 Surprisingly, piperacillin-resistant transformants contained no altera

78 Piperacillin-responsive skin-homing CD4(+) clones expres

79 earance for meropenem (rs = 0.43; p = 0.12), piperacillin (rs = 0.77; p = 0.10), and vancomycin (rs =

80 dults, the combination of IV vancomycin plus piperacillin sodium/tazobactam sodium is associated with

81 LSI) recently elected to adjust the previous piperacillin susceptibility breakpoint of </=64 microg/m

82 Unprecedented phenotypes (piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam int

83 diate and piperacillin-tazobactam resistant; piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam res

84 Moreover, piperacillin, tazobactam, ceftazidime, and avibactam, as

85 ility to piperacillin was similar to that to piperacillin-tazobactam (<1% difference) for 6,938 isola

86 of very major (false-susceptible) errors for piperacillin-tazobactam (19 to 27%).

87 5%]) versus ceftazidime (25/201 [12.4%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (28/332 [8.4%] (P = .007).

88 he PAP group, whereas piperacillin (19%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (33%) dominated in the PAT group

89 ftriaxone (825, 10.8%; 95% CI, 10.1%-11.5%), piperacillin-tazobactam (788, 10.3%; 95% CI, 9.6%-11.0%)

90 rvention groups had decreased broad-spectrum piperacillin-tazobactam (control 56 hours, rmPCR 44 hour

91 Piperacillin-tazobactam (P/T) is a beta-lactam-beta-lact

92 A series of cases of piperacillin-tazobactam (P/T)-associated neutropenia has

93 to 6 g ZTI-01 q8h or 4.5 g intravenous (IV) piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) q8h for a fixed 7-day

94 GNB infection at low risk for resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam (PT), cefepime (CE), and meropen

95 The combination of piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) and vancomycin (VAN) has b

96 The effectiveness of piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) for the treatment of exten

97 Piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) is known to cause false-po

98 infusion (C/EI) vs intermittent infusion of piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) and carbapenems on 30-day

99 The compound synergized with piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) both in vitro and in vivo

100 Limited data exist regarding the efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) for the management of non-

101 Limited data exist regarding the efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) for the management of nonb

102 al. describe a multisite study evaluation of piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) MIC testing on three U.S.

103 peracillin (VM error, 5.7%; m error, 13.5%), piperacillin-tazobactam (VM error, 9.3%; m error, 12.9%)

104 (AKI) among patients receiving vancomycin + piperacillin-tazobactam (VPT) compared to similar patien

105 n 31.8%, cefazolin 62.7%, ceftriaxone 67.1%, piperacillin-tazobactam 72.5%, ceftazidime 74.1%, trimet

106 loxacin (400 mg q24 hours) or comparator (IV piperacillin-tazobactam [3.0/0.375 g q6 hours] +/- PO am

107 BLBLI (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid [AMC] and piperacillin-tazobactam [PTZ]) or carbapenem were compar

108 thoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazobactam also showed reasonable activity;

109 ility, 4523 were treated with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam and 3046 were treated with vanco

110 at included cefepime (+/- metronidazole) and piperacillin-tazobactam and a clinical prediction rule t

111 cs such as ceftriaxone plus metronidazole or piperacillin-tazobactam and additional invasive manageme

112 She was treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and azithromycin and rapidly imp

113 After intervention 3, use of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem increased by 0.28

114 more DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -11.05 (95%

115 ewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -2.10 (95% C

116 r conditions with presumed equipoise between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime were included in th

117 Both piperacillin-tazobactam and ceftriaxone inhibited coloni

118 f broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs such as piperacillin-tazobactam and drugs such as vancomycin for

119 Since this property of piperacillin-tazobactam and galactomannan ELISA is not w

120 The patient was treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and gentamicin.

121 d performance was noted for the reformulated piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem found on the AST-GN

122 stematic biases toward false susceptibility (piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem) and others toward

123 Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam are 2 of the most commonly presc

124 Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hos

125 Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly used broad-spectrum

126 Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam are two of the most commonly pre

127 med to compare ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive monotherapy.

128 trated between ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive treatment of P. ae

129 pneumonia (VAP) who received clindamycin and piperacillin-tazobactam as part of their treatment regim

130 We compared ceftriaxone and piperacillin-tazobactam at doses ranging from 0.1 to 2 t

131 ered in their impact on the microbiota, with piperacillin-tazobactam being particularly damaging.

132 Piperacillin-tazobactam caused the most severe declines

133 antigen in vitro, that in animals receiving piperacillin-tazobactam circulating galactomannan antige

134 creased AKI in the setting of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam co-administration.

135 dney injury in the setting of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam coadministration.

136 ndamycin, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, and piperacillin-tazobactam confer the highest risk.

137 Piperacillin-tazobactam consumption was the strongest pr

138 nly used in immunocompromised patients, only piperacillin-tazobactam contains significant amounts of

139 modify pharmacokinetics of antibiotics, but piperacillin-tazobactam continuous IV infusion pharmacok

140 is randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence o

141 penems exhibited reliable activity, although piperacillin-tazobactam did not.

142 e beta-lactamase gene was observed following piperacillin-tazobactam exposure and only in those strai

143 commonly used in immunocompromised patients, piperacillin-tazobactam expressed a distinctively high l

144 of recent emerging data on the inefficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam for certain organisms that test

145 rom 2001 to 2004, that compared ertapenem to piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of moderate-to

146 ring regimens, suggests using ceftazidime or piperacillin-tazobactam for treating susceptible infecti

147 44 (16%) in the ceftazidime, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively.

148 Five (38.5%) of thirteen patients receiving piperacillin-tazobactam had serum GMI values > 0.5 compa

149 Patients (n = 13) receiving piperacillin-tazobactam had significantly greater mean s

150 Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause a

151 rbapenems in Klebsiella species) to 3.0 (for piperacillin-tazobactam in P. aeruginosa and Enterobacte

152 re of the challenges associated with testing piperacillin-tazobactam in regions where bla(OXA-1) is p

153 enem, cefepime, cefazolin, levofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazobactam in resin-containing BacT/Alert F

154 there was no difference between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam in the occurrence of severe AKI.

155 analysis suggested cefepime was superior to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating sepsis.

156 creased from 16% in 2006 to 31% in 2010, and piperacillin-tazobactam increased from 16% to 27%, and t

157 receiving vancomycin, receipt of concomitant piperacillin-tazobactam increases the risk of nephrotoxi

158 were treated with 16 g/2 g/24 hr continuous piperacillin-tazobactam infusion.

159 t doses at least 0.5 times the HEDD, whereas piperacillin-tazobactam inhibited colonization at doses

160 ted phenotypes (piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam intermediate; piperacillin inter

161 After intravenous infusion of piperacillin-tazobactam into rabbits, the serum galactom

162 al relationship with increased toxicity when piperacillin-tazobactam is added to vancomycin.

163 al relationship with increased toxicity when piperacillin-tazobactam is added to vancomycin.

164 rganisms that test susceptible, the value of piperacillin-tazobactam MICs is controversial.

165 enem, cefepime, cefazolin, levofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazobactam on the recovery of Pseudomonas a

166 ed sepsis treated with vancomycin and either piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime for conditions with

167 Repeated administration of piperacillin-tazobactam over 7 days resulted in accumula

168 ations of piperacillin-avibactam, as well as piperacillin-tazobactam plus ceftazidime-avibactam (the

169 at doses up to 0.25 times the HEDD, whereas piperacillin-tazobactam promoted colonization at doses u

170 Of all of the combinations, imipenem/piperacillin-tazobactam provided the greatest sensitivit

171 e, 25 to 90%) sensitive for the detection of piperacillin-tazobactam resistance.

172 ctam resistant; piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam resistant) accounted for 6.1% of

173 intermediate; piperacillin intermediate and piperacillin-tazobactam resistant; piperacillin suscepti

174 rd-generation cephalosporins, aztreonam, and piperacillin-tazobactam seen across U.S. census regions.

175 h increased resistance against mecillinam or piperacillin-tazobactam that simultaneously confer full

176 scharged home, where he completed 4 weeks of piperacillin-tazobactam therapy.

177 or antianaerobic coverage, administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with higher morta

178 Piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with low abundanc

179 Piperacillin-tazobactam was prescribed more frequently t

180 pecies, in contrast, susceptibility rates to piperacillin-tazobactam were 5.9 to 13.9% higher than to

181 Ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam were each active against >98% of

182 line, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin, and piperacillin-tazobactam were the most active since 51, 5

183 ent case reports describe patients receiving piperacillin-tazobactam who were found to have circulati

184 ly being prescribed (cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam) or had a positive culture isola

185 78%; cephalosporins, 31%; trimethoprim, 20%; piperacillin-tazobactam, 11%; chloramphenicol, 9%; and a

186 ftazidime, 128 microg/ml versus 2 microg/ml; piperacillin-tazobactam, 256 microg/ml versus 4 microg/m

187 ); trimethoprim, 45% (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.74); piperacillin-tazobactam, 42% (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.71); and

188 ancomycin, cefoxitin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin, oxacillin, gentamic

189 susceptible by both methods to piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, ticarcill

190 m-cefotaxime, imipenem-ceftazidime, imipenem-piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem-cefoxitin.

191 on coefficients (r values) for piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and meropenem were <0.80.

192 spectively), while treatment with meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, and oral ciprofloxacin is assoc

193 reater than 90% susceptibility to meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazo

194 d P. aeruginosa in bottles with cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam, but the PF system recovered bac

195 axime, and cefepime, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and gentamicin, Neiss

196 e data for the use of cephamycins, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and cef

197 Susceptibilities to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, and trovaf

198 infusion versus intermittent bolus dosing of piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, and ticarcillin-clav

199 When ceftazidime-avibactam is combined with piperacillin-tazobactam, the susceptibility of Bcc and B

200 Participants commenced on piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillin-clavulanate, or mer

201 Subcutaneous vancomycin, clindamycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillin-clavulanic acid, me

202 reonam, cefepime, ceftazidime, imipenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam, were tested.

203 Piperacillin-tazobactam, which has antienterococcal acti

204 ceftazidime; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.67-2.51, for piperacillin-tazobactam, with carbapenems as reference i

205 d B. gladioli The piperacillin-avibactam and piperacillin-tazobactam-ceftazidime-avibactam combinatio

206 With in vivo validation, piperacillin-tazobactam-ceftazidime-avibactam may repres

207 SI, even in patients receiving perioperative piperacillin-tazobactam.

208 sure ranged from 1.4 for colistin to 4.9 for piperacillin-tazobactam.

209 cteria only in bottles with trough levels of piperacillin-tazobactam.

210 imipenem; and 50 and 50%, respectively, for piperacillin-tazobactam.

211 state by the third day of administration of piperacillin-tazobactam.

212 300) expressed resistance to ceftazidime and piperacillin-tazobactam.

213 e to ceftazidime but remained susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam.

214 hospital admission and received cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

215 , 65% received vancomycin and 42.8% received piperacillin-tazobactam.

216 periment was performed using ceftazidime and piperacillin-tazobactam.

217 sence of all concentrations of cefazolin and piperacillin-tazobactam.

218 apy was as least as effective as standard IV piperacillin-tazobactam/PO amoxicillin-clavulanate dosed

219 intravenous ertapenem (1 g daily; n=295) or piperacillin/tazobactam (3.375 g every 6 h; n=291) given

220 of resistance to cefepime (29.0% vs. 7.0%), piperacillin/tazobactam (31.9% vs. 11.5%), carbapenems (

221 lignancies were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g intravenously every 8 hou

222 received ertapenem and the 219 who received piperacillin/tazobactam (94%vs 92%, respectively; betwee

223 ctam compared with 58.9% (196/333) receiving piperacillin/tazobactam (between-group difference, 21.2%

224 mipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confiden

225 profloxacin/Metronidazole (n = 12, P = .01), Piperacillin/Tazobactam (n = 52, P = .01), Meropenem/Van

226 ere associated with preferring cefepime over piperacillin/tazobactam (OR 1.14 95% CI [1.01-1.27], p =

227 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) in pediatric patients with

228 otics that have a high risk for CDI during a piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZO) shortage and hospital

229 coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) but susceptible to carbape

230 re continues to be uncertainty about whether piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) increases the risk of AKI

231 f ertapenem 1 g once a day was equivalent to piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g every 6 hours in the tre

232 ilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every

233 g every 12 hrs, ceftazidime 2 g every 8 hrs, piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 6 hrs and 3.375 g ev

234 tients were available with susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam 94% and meropenem 100%.

235 afe, well tolerated, and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam alone in febrile, high-risk, neu

236 This study aims to assess the association of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem minimum inhibitory

237 ty in susceptibility testing performance for piperacillin/tazobactam and the high prevalence of OXA c

238 The combination of piperacillin/tazobactam and tigecycline is safe, well to

239 Cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam are antimicrobials recommended b

240 re the safety and efficacy of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam as therapy following adequate su

241 phrotoxins, and hospital, IV vancomycin plus piperacillin/tazobactam combination therapy was associat

242 ents (11.7%) who received IV vancomycin plus piperacillin/tazobactam combination therapy.

243 ded or continuous infusion of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam compared to those receiving shor

244 r 30-day mortality for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam compared with meropenem was 9% (

245 actam and 0.8% (4/518) of those who received piperacillin/tazobactam did not complete the assigned th

246 tin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-c

247 the efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for foot infections.

248 eus, a second drug was added (ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam for P. aeruginosa and vancomycin

249 cefepime, ceftazidime (2 g every 8 hrs), and piperacillin/tazobactam have high probabilities of achie

250 Piperacillin/tazobactam increased AKI risk, which was ex

251 Concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with increased

252 Coadministration of IV vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam may increase the risk of AKI in

253 % CI -1% - 10%) after excluding strains with piperacillin/tazobactam MIC values > 16 mg/L.

254 nd OXA-1 genes were associated with elevated piperacillin/tazobactam MICs and the highest risk increa

255 The piperacillin/tazobactam non-susceptible breakpoint (MIC

256 etween AKI and receipt of IV vancomycin plus piperacillin/tazobactam or vancomycin plus 1 other antip

257 d 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated H

258 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatme

259 y prosthesis who do not need intensive care, piperacillin/tazobactam represents a regimen with an exp

260 ncreased AKI with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam should be considered when determ

261 h exposure arm, the use of ciprofloxacin and piperacillin/tazobactam was 51% and 75% higher than in t

262 Concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with AKI in unadj

263 ded or continuous infusion of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with lower mortal

264 18.4), 105.0 (74.4-204.0)/3.8 (3.4-21.8) for piperacillin/tazobactam, 12.0 (9.8-16.0) for vancomycin,

265 Other antibiotics, such as meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and cefuroxime, were not associ

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

267 crobials examined were vancomycin, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and meropenem.

268 otic (4.6%), the adjusted hazards ratios for piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 1.

269 gens, cefepime/enmetazobactam, compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, met criteria for noninferiority

270 quivalent to those for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, suggesting that this once-daily

271 rbapenems in >90% of cases; however, against piperacillin/tazobactam, susceptibility was identified i

272 icity with the combination of vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam, the "workhorse" regimen at many

273 at include specific antibiotics (vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, tobramycin) further appear to c

274 ynamic (PK/PD) properties of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam, when the duration of infusion i

275 A total of (68%) received cefepime and (32%) piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatment.

276 running the TMLE, we found that cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam-based treatments have comparable

277 injury (AKI) compared to vancomycin without piperacillin/tazobactam.

278 ibed empiric antibiotics were vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam.

279 (20-60 minutes) infusions of carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam.

280 a similar safety and tolerability profile to piperacillin/tazobactam.

281 ured, as were 232 of 304 (76.2) treated with piperacillin/tazobactam.

282 as were 157 of the 193 (81.2%) treated with piperacillin/tazobactam.

283 rom the MERINO trial was less pronounced for piperacillin/tazobactam.

284 and meropenem increased CDI risk relative to piperacillin/tazobactam.

285 rom the MERINO trial was less pronounced for piperacillin/tazobactam.

286 d faster in patients receiving ciprofloxacin-piperacillin than in patients receiving tobramycin-piper

287 In combination with piperacillin, their in vitro activities enhanced suscept

288 dren with P. aeruginosa bacteremia receiving piperacillin therapy who met inclusion criteria.

289 ntrations of the beta-lactams cephalexin and piperacillin to specifically inhibit FtsI (PBP3), an enz

290 lity would expose the critically ill to both piperacillin under and overdosing.

291 likely than nonobese patients to experience piperacillin underdosing when facing high minimal inhibi

292 -tazobactam were 5.9 to 13.9% higher than to piperacillin using disk diffusion, MicroScan, and Vitek

293 penicillin G, penicillin V, amoxicillin, and piperacillin, using histone H1 as a carrier.

294 l (96.2% of patients receiving ciprofloxacin-piperacillin versus 94.1% of patients receiving tobramyc

295 am (VM error, 9.8%; minor [m] error, 16.1%), piperacillin (VM error, 5.7%; m error, 13.5%), piperacil

296 tory constant [K(i) (app)] = 0.5 muM), while piperacillin was found to inhibit AmpC1 (K(i) (app) = 2.

297 LN-1-255 combined with piperacillin was more potent against Escherichia coli DH

298 Susceptibility to piperacillin was similar to that to piperacillin-tazobac

299 MICs for aztreonam and piperacillin were higher, with MICs for some strains of

300 ly to be related to tazobactam but rather to piperacillin, which is a component in VAN-TZP but not in