ライフサイエンスコーパス: cefepime

1 s would have been regarded as susceptible to cefepime.

2 were susceptible to the carbapenems than to cefepime.

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

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

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

6 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 The cefepime-clavulanate combination provided 88% sensitivit

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

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

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

47 The CLSI reduced the cefepime Enterobacteriaceae susceptibility breakpoint an

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

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

50 Cefepime has a similar efficacy as carbapenems for the t

51 The role of cefepime, however, remains unclear.

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

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

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

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

56 Cefepime is a fourth generation cephalosporin with the g

57 Cefepime is a potentially useful antibiotic for treatmen

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

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

60 Cefepime may be a reasonable option for the treatment of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

93 95% CI, 1.5-12.6; P = .006), and definitive cefepime therapy (OR 9.9; 95% CI, 2.8-31.9; P < .001) we

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 Cefepime was the most common agent with previous exposur

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

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