assessment of cefoperazone-sulbactam based combination therapy for multidrug-resistant isolates in China.

Tao Li, Meiyan Sheng, Tengzhen Gu, Yan Zhang, Ailiyaer Yirepanjiang, Yu Li
Author Information
  1. Tao Li: Department of Respiratory Diseases, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
  2. Meiyan Sheng: Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shandong Chest Hospital, Jinan 250013, China.
  3. Tengzhen Gu: Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250001, China.
  4. Yan Zhang: Department of Respiratory Diseases, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
  5. Ailiyaer Yirepanjiang: Department of Respiratory Diseases, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
  6. Yu Li: Department of Respiratory Diseases, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant (MDRAB) has emerged as an important pathogen of nosocomial infections. Even though cefoperazone-sulbactam is frequently used to treat MDRAB infections, this single-drug therapeutic approach often results in antibiotic resistance. Thus, combination therapy is preferred over single-drug therapy, particularly in the case of carbapenemase-producing gram negative bacteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam combined with either tigecycline or rifampicin against clinical isolates of MDRAB.
METHODS: One hundred and three MDRAB bacteria were isolated from patients in two hospitals in China. The Epsilomer test (E test) was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for amikacin, ceftazidime, cefepime, levofloxacin, rifampicin, cefoperazone-sulbactam, meropenem, tigecycline, and gentamicin against MDRAB isolates. effects of various antibiotic combinations were measured and the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) was calculated for each drug combination.
RESULTS: Approximately 17.5% of the isolates were resistant to tigecycline, whereas more than 84.2% isolates were resistant to other antimicrobial agents tested in this study. Cefoperazone-sulbactam revealed remarkable synergistic effects when used in combination with either tigecycline or rifampicin. However, for the isolates with MICs lower than blood peak concentration after combination therapy, the ratio was lower in highly resistant isolates compared to the least resistant bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: cefoperazone-sulbactam in combination with tigecycline or rifampicin showed the highest synergistic or additive activity against MDRAB isolates. However, acquisition of highly antibiotic resistant bacteria may lessen the effectiveness of combination therapy.

Keywords

References

  1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Jun;46(6):1946-52 [PMID: 12019113]
  2. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):8135-40 [PMID: 26221381]
  3. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Sep;58(3):689-92 [PMID: 16870647]
  4. J Chemother. 2010 Apr;22(2):110-4 [PMID: 20435570]
  5. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009 Jan;33(1):33-9 [PMID: 18835761]
  6. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jul;25(3):450-70 [PMID: 22763634]
  7. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008 Jul;21(3):538-82 [PMID: 18625687]
  8. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Apr;17 (4):400-410 [PMID: 28139430]
  9. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2013;66(6):463-8 [PMID: 24270131]
  10. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Feb;16(2):102-11 [PMID: 20085604]
  11. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012 Nov;16(13):1834-9 [PMID: 23208968]
  12. Front Microbiol. 2016 Oct 21;7:1687 [PMID: 27818659]
  13. Microb Drug Resist. 2017 Jun;23 (4):437-446 [PMID: 27564414]
  14. BMC Infect Dis. 2014 Feb 24;14:102 [PMID: 24564226]
  15. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005 Jun;25(6):523-9 [PMID: 15885987]
  16. Tunis Med. 2016 Jun;94(6):336-337 [PMID: 28051225]
  17. Biol Neonate. 2004;85(4):263-8 [PMID: 14739554]
  18. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Mar;48(3):753-7 [PMID: 14982760]
  19. Med Mal Infect. 2015 Aug;45(8):337-9 [PMID: 26141128]
  20. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2006 Apr 21;5:10 [PMID: 16630352]
  21. Int J Infect Dis. 2015 Sep;38:32-5 [PMID: 26129972]
  22. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18(3):268-81 [PMID: 21793988]
  23. Pharmacotherapy. 2016 Nov;36(11):1138-1144 [PMID: 27726155]
  24. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Dec;30(6):537-40 [PMID: 17851050]
  25. J Med Assoc Thai. 2010 Feb;93(2):161-71 [PMID: 20301995]
  26. Open Microbiol J. 2017 Apr 28;11:63-71 [PMID: 28553417]
  27. World J Clin Cases. 2014 Dec 16;2(12):787-814 [PMID: 25516853]
  28. Ups J Med Sci. 2014 May;119(2):149-53 [PMID: 24666223]
  29. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 17;11(6):e0157757 [PMID: 27315107]
  30. J Chemother. 2015 Oct;27(5):271-6 [PMID: 25068186]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0isolatesMDRABcombinationcefoperazone-sulbactamtigecyclinetherapyrifampicinresistantbacteriausedantibioticconcentrationbaumanniiinfectionssingle-drugstudyeitherChinatestinhibitoryeffectssynergisticHoweverlowerhighlymultidrug-resistantAcinetobacterBACKGROUND:Multidrug-resistantemergedimportantpathogennosocomialEventhoughfrequentlytreattherapeuticapproachoftenresultsresistanceThuspreferredparticularlycasecarbapenemase-producinggramnegativeaiminvestigateefficacycombinedclinicalMETHODS:OnehundredthreeisolatedpatientstwohospitalsEpsilomerEdetermineminimumMICvaluesamikacinceftazidimecefepimelevofloxacinmeropenemgentamicinvariouscombinationsmeasuredfractionalindexFICIcalculateddrugRESULTS:Approximately175%whereas842%antimicrobialagentstestedCefoperazone-sulbactamrevealedremarkableMICsbloodpeakratiocomparedleastCONCLUSIONS:showedhighestadditiveactivityacquisitionmaylesseneffectivenessassessmentbased

Similar Articles

Cited By