Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25182633›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Evaluation of meropenem regimens suppressing emergence of resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii with human simulated exposure in an in vitro intravenous-infusion hollow-fiber infection model.

Xin Li, Lin Wang, Xian-Jia Zhang, Yang Yang, Wei-Tao Gong, Bin Xu, Ying-Qun Zhu, Wei Liu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xin LiClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Lin WangClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xian-Jia ZhangClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yang YangSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Wei-Tao GongClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Bin XuClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Ying-Qun ZhuClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Wei LiuClinical Application Research Center of Antibiotics, The Third Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China lwlwtg@163.com.
Third Hospital of Changsha · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of resistance to carbapenems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be suppressed by optimizing the administration of meropenem. However, whether the same is true for Acinetobacter baumannii is not fully understood. We assessed the bactericidal activity of meropenem and its potency to suppress the emergence of resistance in A. baumannii with human simulated exposure in an in vitro intravenous-infusion hollow-fiber infection model (HFIM). Two clinical strains of carbapenem-susceptible multidrug-resistant A. baumannii (CS-MDRAB), CSRA24 and CSRA91, were used, and their MICs and mutant prevention concentrations (MPCs) were determined. Six meropenem dosage regimens (0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 g given every 8 h [q8h] with a 0.5-h or 3-h infusion for seven consecutive days) were simulated and then evaluated in the HFIM. Both the total population and resistant subpopulations of the two strains were quantified. Drug concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. All dosage regimens, except for the lowest dosage (0.5 g for both the 0.5-h and 3-h infusions), showed 3-log CFU/ml bacterial killing. Dosage regimens of 2.0 g with 0.5-h and 3-h infusions exhibited an obvious bactericidal effect and suppressed resistance. Selective amplification of subpopulations with reduced susceptibility to meropenem was suppressed with a percentage of the dosage interval in which meropenem concentrations exceeded the MPC (T>MPC) of ≥20% or with a ratio of T>MPC to the percentage of the dosage interval in which drug concentrations are within the mutant selection window of ≥0.25. Our in vitro data support the use of a high dosage of meropenem (2.0 g q8h) for the treatment of severe infection caused by CS-MDRAB.

Indexed as

Acinetobacter baumanniiAcinetobacter InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialHumansMeropenemMicrobial Sensitivity TestsThienamycinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsMeropenemThienamycins

Identifiers

PMID25182633
PMCPMC4249358
OpenAlexW1980196020

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.