ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2012
Comparative pharmacodynamics and antimutant potentials of doripenem and imipenem with ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro model.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Antibiotic Exposures Are Required to Suppress the Emergence of Resistance for Gram-Negative Bacteria? A Systematic Review.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2019Pooled it
- Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with meropenem: In vitro model study with OXA-48-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Doripenem in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infections-A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Antibiotic Development and the Evolving Role of Pharmacodynamics - As Good as It Gets?EBioMedicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the antipseudomonal efficacy of doripenem and imipenem as well as their abilities to restrict the enrichment of resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, multiple-dosing regimens of each drug were simulated at comparable values of the cumulative percentages of a 24-h period that the drug concentration exceeds the MIC under steady-state pharmacokinetic conditions (T(>MIC)) and ratios of the 24-hour area under the curve (AUC(24)) to the MIC. Three clinical isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant P. aeruginosa (MIC of doripenem, 1 μg/ml; MICs of imipenem, 1, 2, and 2 μg/ml) were exposed to thrice-daily doripenem or imipenem for 3 days at AUC(24)/MIC ratios of from 50 to 170 h (doripenem) and from 30 to 140 h (imipenem). The antimicrobial effects for susceptible and resistant subpopulations of bacteria were expressed by the areas between control growth and time-kill curves (I(E)s) and areas under the bacterial mutant concentration curves (AUBC(M)s), respectively. With each antibiotic, the I(E) and AUBC(M) versus log AUC(24)/MIC relationships were bacterial strain independent. At similar AUC(24)/MIC ratios, doripenem was slightly less efficient than imipenem against susceptible and resistant subpopulations of bacteria. However, doripenem appeared to be somewhat more efficient than imipenem at clinically achievable AUC(24)s related to the means of the MICs for the three studied strains and had higher antimutant potentials for two of the three strains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.