Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15616309›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2005

Pharmacodynamics of cefepime alone and in combination with various antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model.

Vanthida Huang, Michael J Rybak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Incidence, microbiological findings, and clinical presentation of sternal wound infections after cardiac surgery with and without local gentamicin prophylaxis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2007
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vanthida HuangAnti-Infective Research Laboratory, Pharmacy Practice-4148, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Wayne State University, 259 Mack Ave., Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Michael J Rybak
Detroit Receiving Hospital · USEugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment options for gram-positive resistant bacteria are limited; therefore, efforts to evaluate therapy options in the critical care population are warranted. Cefepime has broad-spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive organisms. We have previously demonstrated that the combination of cefepime with vancomycin, linezolid, or quinupristin-dalfopristin had an improved or enhanced effect against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We investigated various regimens of cefepime alone and in combination against two clinical MRSA isolates (R2481 and R2484) in an established in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Human pharmacokinetic regimen simulations were as follows: cefepime, 2 g every 8 h (q8h) (C8) and 12 h (C12), continuous-infusion 2-g loading dose followed by 4 g alone or in combination with gentamicin and tobramycin (1.0 or 2.0 [G1 and G2 or TB1 and TB2] mg/kg of body weight q12h and 5.0 [G5 or TB5] mg/kg q24h), arbekacin (ARB) (100 mg q12h), linezolid (LIN) (600 mg q12h), tigecycline (TIG) (100 mg q24h), or daptomycin (DAP) (6 mg/kg q24h) for 48 h. The MICs for cefepime, gentamicin, tobramycin, ARB, LIN, TIG, and DAP for the two clinical MRSA isolates (R2481 and R2484) were 4 and 4, 0.25 and 0.5, 128 and 0.5, 0.5 and 0.125, 2 and 4, 0.25 and 0.25, and 0.0625 and 0.125 microg/ml, respectively. At 48 h, combinations of C12 and C8 plus ARB, G1, or G5 (range, -2.05- to -4.32-log(10) decrease) demonstrated enhanced lethality against R2481 (resistant to tobramycin) (P < 0.05). A similar relationship was demonstrated against R2484 with cefepime plus ARB, gentamicin, or tobramycin (range, -2.05- to -3.63-log(10) decrease) (P < 0.05). A 99.9% kill was achieved with cefepime plus aminoglycoside combinations as early as 2 h and maintained throughout the 48-h period. TIG was antagonistic when combined with C12 against both isolates. DAP alone achieved 99.9% kill for up to 48 h for both isolates and was the most active agent against R2481 and R2484 (-2.89- and -3.61-log(10) decrease at 48 h); therefore, combination therapy did not enhance lethality. Overall, the most potent combinations noted were cefepime in combination with low- and high-dose aminoglycosides. Further investigations with combination therapies are warranted.

Indexed as

Methicillin ResistanceModels, BiologicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCephalosporinsColony Count, MicrobialDrug Therapy, CombinationGentamicinsHalf-LifeHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcus aureusTobramycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCephalosporinsGentamicinsTobramycin

Identifiers

PMID15616309
PMCPMC538893
OpenAlexW2169655887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.