Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17283197›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2007

Bactericidal activities of meropenem and ertapenem against extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neutropenic mouse thigh model.

C Andrew DeRyke, Mary Anne Banevicius, Hong Wei Fan, David P Nicolau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Multidrug-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

C Andrew DeRykeCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT 06102, USA, and Department of Infectious Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Mary Anne Banevicius
Hong Wei Fan
David P Nicolau

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the in vivo efficacies of meropenem and ertapenem against extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing isolates with a wide range of MICs. Human-simulated dosing regimens in mice were designed to approximate the free drug percent time above the MIC (fT>MIC) observed for humans following meropenem at 1 g every 8 h and ertapenem at 1 g every 24 h. An in vivo neutropenic mouse thigh infection model was used to examine the bactericidal effects against 31 clinical ESBL Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates and 2 non-ESBL isolates included for comparison at a standard 10(5) inoculum. Three isolates were examined at a high 10(7) inoculum as well. Meropenem displayed greater in vitro potency, with a median MIC (range) (microg/ml) of 0.125 (0.03 to 32), than did ertapenem, with 0.5 (0.012 to 128). Seven of the 31 ESBL isolates were removed from the efficacy analysis due to their inability to establish infection in the mouse model. When MICs were<or=1.5 microg/ml for ertapenem (<or=0.5 microg/ml for meropenem), similar reductions in CFU (approximately 2-log kill) were observed for both ertapenem (fT>MIC>or=23%) and meropenem (fT>MIC>or=75%). Ertapenem showed bacterial regrowth for seven of eight isolates, with MICs of>or=2 microg/ml (fT>MIC<or=20%), while meropenem displayed antibacterial potency that varied from a static effect to a 1-log bacterial reduction in these isolates (fT>MIC=30 to 65%). At a 10(7) inoculum, both agents eradicated bacteria due to adequate exposures (fT>MIC=20 to 45%). Due to low MICs, no difference in bacterial kill was noted for the majority of ESBL isolates tested. However, for isolates with raised ertapenem MICs of>or=2 microg/ml, meropenem displayed sustained efficacy due to its greater in vitro potency and higher resultant fT>MIC.

Indexed as

Animalsbeta-Lactamasesbeta-LactamsDisease Models, AnimalErtapenemEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsKlebsiella InfectionsKlebsiella pneumoniaeMeropenemMiceMicrobial Sensitivity TestsThienamycinsbeta-Lactamasesbeta-LactamsErtapenemMeropenemThienamycins

Identifiers

PMID17283197
PMCPMC1855479

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.