SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Meropenem”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed1997

Prospective, randomised, multicentre study of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin as empiric monotherapy in severe nosocomial infections.

The clinical and bacteriological efficacy and the tolerability of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin (both 1 g t.i.d.) in severe nosocomial infections were compared in a multicentre, randomised, nonblinded study. A total of 151 patients were recruited; 133 (66 meropenem, 67 imipenem/cilastatin) were clinically evaluable and 84 (42 meropenem, 42 imipenem/cilastatin) bacteriologically evaluable. Most clinically evaluable patients (90%) were in intensive care units, required mechanical ventilation (72%), and had received previous antibiotic therapy (62%). The mean (+/- SD) APACHE II score was 15.2 (+/- 6.6) in the meropenem group and 17.8 (+/- 6.8) in the imipenem/cilastatin group. The primary infections were nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (56% of patients), intra-abdominal infections (15%), septicaemia (21%), skin/skin structure infections (5%), and complicated urinary tract infections (3%); 35% of the patients had two or more infections. There was no significant difference between the meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin groups in the rates of satisfactory clinical (weighted percentage 87% vs. 74%) or bacteriological (weighted percentage 79% vs. 71%) response. There was a slightly higher rate of clinical success with meropenem against primary or secondary lower respiratory tract infection (89% vs. 76%). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 17% and 15% of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin patients, respectively. Meropenem (1 g t.i.d.) was as efficacious as the same dose of imipenem/cilastatin in this setting, and both drugs were well tolerated.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Empirical monotherapy with meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.

In a nonblind, randomised, parallel-group study, initial empirical monotherapy with meropenem 1 g intravenously every 8 h was compared to an identical dosage of imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of 66 febrile episodes in 61 adult neutropenic patients. 25/31 episodes treated with meropenem and 24/30 imipenem/cilastatin-treated episodes were still receiving unmodified therapy at 72 h (primary endpoint); this difference was not statistically significant. By the end of the treatment courses, 18/31 meropenem-treated episodes had responded clinically (cured or improved) compared with 18/30 episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Another ten episodes initially treated with meropenem and six episodes treated with imipenem/cilastatia were cured after an additional antimicrobial agent had been administered (cured with modification). Satisfactory bacteriological responses (eradication plus presumed eradication) at the end of unmodified therapy was 9/11 in the meropenem group and 14/16 in the comparator group. Both regimes were well tolerated; however, there were more reports of nausea and/or vomiting in the impenem/cilastatin group (7/33 vs. 2/33 in the meropenem group). The carbapenems meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin appear to be suitable agents for empirical monotherapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Meropenem may be better tolerated than imipenem/cilastatin, allowing optimal dosing in this patient population.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Meropenem pharmacokinetics in a patient with multiorgan failure from Meningococcemia undergoing continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration.

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibiotic with a broad antibacterial spectrum of activity. Its main route of elimination is through the kidneys, with 63% of the drug excreted unchanged in the urine. Meropenem clearance is diminished in renal impairment; therefore, doses need to be adjusted in patients with varying degrees of renal function. An appropriate dose of meropenem for patients undergoing continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) is unknown. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of meropenem in a patient with fulminant meningococcemia undergoing CVVHDF. Meropenem concentrations in serial venous, arterial, and ultrafiltrate samples after a 1 g intravenous dose were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Meropenem clearance was found to be 129.36 mL/min and 141.29 mL/min for every 8- and 12-hour dosing, respectively. Trough levels were above the MIC90 for Neisseria meningitidis and most anaerobic pathogens. We recommend that meropenem 1 g intravenously every 12 hours be used as the initial dose in patients undergoing CVVHDF. Differences between meropenem clearance during CVVHDF and other forms of renal replacement therapy are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Comparative in vitro activity of meropenem versus other extended-spectrum antimicrobials against randomly chosen and selected resistant clinical isolates tested in 26 North American centers.

The in vitro antibacterial activity of meropenem and up to nine other antimicrobials was compared in studies at 26 North American centers from 1989 to 1992 with use of standardized and controlled procedures for determining minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against 12,483 recent clinical isolates and additional drug-resistant strains. Overall, carbapenems were the most active drugs. The antibacterial activity of meropenem was consistent against random isolates in all centers; however, inclusion of large proportions of multidrug-resistant gram-negative aerobes by some centers did increase MICs of meropenem and the comparators. Meropenem was 4-64 times more active than imipenem against gram-negatives, including Enterobacteriaceae organisms, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia, Neisseria meningiditis, and Haemophilus influenzae. Imipenem was up to 2-4 times more active than meropenem against some gram-positive cocci, including Enterococcus faecalis. Carbapenems were similarly active against anaerobes, and resistant strains were rarely encountered. Meropenem, unlike imipenem or ceftazidime, was bactericidal for all strains of Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, and gram-positive cocci tested at < or = 8 times the MIC. A lack of antibiotic cross-resistance was frequently observed between comparator-resistant strains and meropenem. These data suggest the potential utility of meropenem as a monotherapeutic agent against a broad range of pathogens.

Aminoglycosides↗

PubMed1989

The disposition and metabolism of meropenem in laboratory animals and man.

The disposition and metabolism of meropenem were studied in rats, dogs and cynomolgus monkeys following intravenous administration of [14C]-meropenem, and also in man following intravenous infusion of meropenem. Following intravenous administration to rats and dogs, radioactive material was very rapidly and widely distributed in the tissues, with highest levels detected in the kidney and other highly perfused organs. Concentrations in all tissues decreased rapidly with time. The plasma elimination half-life of meropenem was approximately 6 min in rats, 30 min in monkeys, 45 min in dogs and 1h in man. In all species 90-100% of the dose was excreted via the urine within 24 h. Analysis of the radioactive material in urine from animal studies showed that the major components were unchanged compound (36-43%) and a metabolite corresponding to a beta-lactam ring-opened form (34-51%). In man, approximately 65% of the dose was excreted in urine as unchanged meropenem and most of the remainder as the ring-opened metabolite. As part of the preclinical safety evaluation programme of meropenem, the distribution, metabolism and excretion of [14C]-meropenem were studied in the rat, dog and cynomolgus monkey after single intravenous administration at dose levels corresponding to the lower doses used in toxicity studies. In addition, the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of meropenem in human volunteers were studied.

Animals↗

PubMed1991

Pharmacokinetics of meropenem and its metabolite ICI 213,689 in healthy subjects with known renal metabolism of imipenem.

Six healthy male subjects who had received imipenem without cilastatin in previous studies, were given 500 mg meropenem as single 30 min intravenous infusions. Plasma and urine samples were collected for 12 h and meropenem and its metabolite were assayed by HPLC and RIA, respectively. The mean plasma half-life of meropenem was 0.8 h, mean plasma clearance 277 ml/min and the mean volume of distribution 20.4 l. The metabolite reached mean peak plasma concentrations of 1.5 mg/l. Renal clearance of meropenem averaged 200 ml/min. The mean urinary recovery of the metabolite was 20% and of unchanged drug 72% of the dose given. The recovery of meropenem ranged from 62.2% to 78.2% and was correlated to the urinary recovery of imipenem when given without cilastatin to the same subjects in previous studies (range 15.2-32.2%, rank correlation coefficient = 0.934). The results indicate that meropenem is much less susceptible to renal metabolism than imipenem. The inter-subject variability observed with meropenem correlates with the extent of urinary recovery of imipenem observed in previous studies with imipenem alone, indicating some susceptibility of meropenem to renal dehydropeptidase-I.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Meropenem: a microbiological overview.

Meropenem is a parenteral carbapenem antibiotic which has excellent bactericidal activity in vitro against almost all clinically significant aerobes and anaerobes. Its high activity is explained by ease of entry into bacteria combined with good affinity for essential penicillin binding proteins, including those associated with cell lysis. Breadth of spectrum is due, in part, to stability to all serine-based beta-lactamases, including those which hydrolyse third-generation cephalosporins. Meropenem has an antibacterial spectrum which is broadly similar to that of imipenem but, whilst slightly less active against staphylococci and enterococci, it is more active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, all Enterobacteriaceae and Haemophilus influenzae. Amongst common human pathogens, only methicillin-resistant staphylococci and Enterococcus faecium are uniformly resistant to meropenem. The meropenem MICs for penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae are higher than for penicillin-susceptible strains but the organisms remain susceptible. Clinical susceptibility in vitro to meropenem is defined by MICs of < or = 4 mg/L, intermediate susceptibility by MICs of 8 mg/L and MICs of > or = 16 mg/L define resistance; equivalent figures for zones of growth inhibition are > or = 14 (susceptible), 12-13 (intermediate) and < or = 11 (resistant) mm. Studies in guinea pig models of systemic infection and infections localised to the lungs, urinary tract and the central nervous system, some of which used immunocompromised animals, confirm the potential of meropenem demonstrated in vitro. These factors, combined with the human plasma, tissue or urinary concentrations of meropenem which exceed modal MICs for the pathogens isolated in clinical trials for most or all of the recommended 8 h dosing interval, predict that meropenem should be efficacious in the treatment of infections at many body sites.

Animals↗

PubMed1995

Clinical evaluation of meropenem versus ceftazidime for the treatment of Pseudomonas spp. infections in cystic fibrosis patients.

Cystic fibrosis patients (children and young adults) with Pseudomonas spp. chest infections were treated with meropenem or ceftazidime. This study was the first to investigate the use of meropenem in cystic fibrosis. Meropenem was well tolerated with only transient elevations of serum transaminases. No patient experienced nausea and vomiting, even when meropenem was administered as a bolus injection. This allowed home therapy to be used. Meropenem appeared to be at least as active as ceftazidime even at the low doses used. Patients showed a greater improvement in respiratory function on meropenem than ceftazidime. Only one patient (out of 60 courses) failed to respond to meropenem (98% success rate) compared with two failures out of 21 episodes with ceftazidime (90% success rate). There was little emergence of resistance to meropenem even though some patients were treated up to eight times over a 2 year period.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1995

Safety and efficacy of meropenem in patients with septicaemia: a randomised comparison with ceftazidime, alone or combined with amikacin.

Meropenem is a new broad spectrum carbapenem antibiotic which can be administered as monotherapy for serious infections. The efficacy and safety of meropenem was compared with that of ceftazidime (alone or in combination with amikacin) in 153 patients with septicaemia who were enrolled into identical, prospective, randomised studies. Forty-five patients with infections arising from the urinary or lower respiratory tracts were given either meropenem 500 mg or ceftazidime 250-1000 mg intravenously every 8 h; 108 patients with more serious infections were given meropenem 1 g or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h +/- amikacin 15 mg/kg/day. Overall, 71 patients received meropenem, 47 ceftazidime and 35 ceftazidime plus amikacin. Comparable clinical response rates were achieved in the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin groups (92% vs 94% at the end of therapy respectively). Furthermore, a satisfactory bacteriological response was obtained in all evaluable patients. The most common pathogens isolated were Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Relapse occurred in one patient in the ceftazidime/amikacin group, who had a mixed infection of E. coli and P. aeruginosa. There were no relapses in the meropenem group. Both treatments were well tolerated and only one patient had to withdraw from the trial because of an adverse effect (rash associated with ceftazidime). In conclusion, these data confirm that meropenem monotherapy is well tolerated and is as effective as ceftazidime (alone or combined with amikacin) in the empirical treatment of septicaemia. It should prove to be a useful addition to the drugs currently available for this life-threatening disease.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.

Meropenem is a new carbapenem antibiotic shown to resist degradation by renal dehydropeptidase I. In a multicenter, open-label, prospective trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of meropenem with imipenem/cilastatin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Patients received either 500 mg of meropenem every 8 hours (n = 184) or 500 mg of imipenem/cilastatin every 6 hours (n = 193), by intravenous infusion for an average of 6 to 7 days. Satisfactory clinical responses were achieved in 120 (98%) of 123 assessable meropenem-treated patients and in 120 (95%) of 126 assessable imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients. Satisfactory bacteriologic responses were achieved in 120 (98%) of 123 assessable meropenem-treated patients and in 120 (95%) of 126 assessable imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients. Satisfactory bacteriologic response rates were high as well: 94% with meropenem and 91% with imipenem/cilastatin. Between-group differences in satisfactory response rates were not significant (95% confidence interval, -2.29 to 6.93 [clinical]; -2.73 to 10.39 [bacteriologic]). Overall pathogen eradication rates (for aerobes and anaerobes) were slightly higher for meropenem. Elevated liver enzymes were the most frequent adverse events in each treatment group. Meropenem was well tolerated and as effective as imipenem/cilastatin in treatment of hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.

Abscess↗

PubMed1996

Serum bactericidal activities and comparative pharmacokinetics of meropenem and imipenem-cilastatin.

The pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activities (SBAs) of imipenem and meropenem were investigated in a randomized crossover study. Twelve healthy male volunteers received a constant 30-min infusion of either 1 g of imipenem plus 1 g of cilastatin or 1 g of meropenem. The concentrations of the drugs in serum and urine were determined by bioassay and high-pressure liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic parameters were based on an open two-compartment model and a noncompartmental technique. At the end of infusion, the mean concentrations of imipenem and meropenem measured in serum were 61.2 +/- 9.8 and 51.6 +/- 6.5 mg/liter, respectively; urinary recoveries were 48.6% +/- 8.2% and 60.0% +/- 6.5% of the dose in 12 h, respectively; and the areas under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity were 96.1 +/- 14.4 and 70.5 +/- 10.3 mg.h/liter, respectively (P < or = 0.02). Imipenem had a mean half-life of 66.7 +/- 10.4 min; that of meropenem was 64.4 +/- 6.9 min. The volumes of distribution at steady state of imipenem and meropenem were 15.3 +/- 3.3 and 18.6 +/- 3.0 liters/70 kg, respectively, and the mean renal clearances per 1.73 m2 were 85.6 +/- 17.6 and 144.6 +/- 26.0 ml/min, respectively. Both antibiotics were well tolerated in this single-dose administration study. The SBAs were measured by the microdilution method of Reller and Stratton (L. B. Reller and C. W. Stratton, J. Infect. Dis. 136:196-204, 1977) against 40 clinically isolated strains. Mean reciprocal bactericidal titers were measured 1 and 6 h after administration. After 1 and 6 h the median SBAs for imipenem and meropenem, were 409 and 34.9 and 97.9 and 5.8, respectively, against Staphylococcus aureus, 19.9 and 4.4 and 19.4 and 4.8, respectively, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 34.3 and 2.2 and 232 and 15.5, respectively, against Enterobacter cloacae, and 13.4 and 2.25 and 90.7 and 7.9, respectively, against Proteus mirabilis. Both drugs had rather short biological elimination half-lives and a predominantly renal route of elimination. Both carbapenems revealed high SBAs against clinically important pathogens at 1 h; meropenem had a higher SBA against E. cloacae and P. mirabilis, and the SBA of imipenem against S. aureus was greater than the SBA of meropenem.

Adult↗

PubMed1994

Comparison of sensititre broth microdilution and agar dilution susceptibility testing techniques for meropenem to determine accuracy, reproducibility, and predictive values.

The stability, accuracy, reproducibility, and predictive value of Sensititre MIC panels containing meropenem (Merrem) were evaluated by using National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS)-recommended American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) strains and 110 selected strains of rapidly growing and fastidious aerobes and anaerobes with various degrees of susceptibility to meropenem. The NCCLS-recommended agar dilution method was used as a standard reference method. Meropenem-containing Sensititre MIC panels were monitored for their stabilities at room temperature and reproducibilities over 24 months by using six ATCC strains. Ninety-nine percent of the MICs of both meropenem and imipenem obtained for NCCLS-recommended ATCC strains were within the established ranges after 2 years. The overall agreement (+/- 1 twofold dilution) between the Sensititre and the agar dilution meropenem MICs was greater than 93%. The predictive value of meropenem MICs for indicating suspeptibility or resistance obtained by the Sensititre method was greater than 90%. No major or very major interpretive errors were observed, and only 5% of meropenem MICs were associated with minor interpretive errors. Problematic organisms were not observed. The Sensititre MIC panels containing meropenem offer a convenient and valid alternative to the NCCLS reference method for the susceptibility testing of potential pathogens likely to be recovered from mixed infections.

Agar↗

PubMed2000

Meropenem: an updated review of its use in the management of intra-abdominal infections.

UNLABELLED: Meropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of activity which encompasses gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. Like other carbapenems, meropenem is stable against chromosomal and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. In patients with moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections, empirical monotherapy with meropenem achieved clinical response rates ranging from 91 to 100% in 7 randomised comparative trials. Efficacy rates were similar to those of imipenem/cilastatin (94 to 97%), clindamycin plus tobramycin (93%) and, overall, to cefotaxime plus metronidazole (75 to 100%), although there were differences between trials versus this combination regimen. According to limited data, meropenem also achieved clinical response rates of over 80% in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. Meropenem is well tolerated, the most common adverse events being diarrhoea, rash, nausea/vomiting and inflammation at the injection site which are reported in <2.5% of patients each. Meropenem also has an improved CNS tolerability profile compared with imipenem/cilastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive comparative clinical data demonstrate that meropenem can be used effectively as empirical monotherapy in moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections. It also shows potential in the most severe forms of infection, although experience in this infection type remains limited. Compared with standard combination regimens, meropenem offers the benefits of ease of administration without the need for monitoring. It also offers improved CNS tolerability compared with imipenem/cilastatin with the option of a higher maximum dosage, which may be a particular advantage in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections.

Abdomen↗

PubMed1998

Meropenem. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious infections.

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibiotic which is active against the majority of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria implicated in serious infections. Its therapeutic efficacy in a wide range of serious infections is similar to that of imipenem/cilastatin and standard combination drug regimens. Hence, meropenem is suitable for use as monotherapy. Although the acquisition cost of meropenem is likely to be higher than that of aminoglycoside- and metronidazole-containing combination regimens, the latter incur additional drug administration costs and potentially higher costs for treatment of adverse effects. In addition, aminoglycoside-containing regimens also incur assay and toxicity monitoring costs. Economic analyses are required to compare overall treatment costs with combination therapy and meropenem. Cost analyses indicate that the ability to give meropenem, but not imipenem/cilastatin, by rapid intravenous bolus injection results in lower drug administration costs than with the standard infusion method. More comprehensive pharmacoeconomic data on meropenem are required. However, assuming that meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin have similar acquisition costs, the option of administering meropenem by bolus injection and its lower epileptogenic potential at high dosages (thus permitting its use in meningitis) should be considered potentially important attributes when choosing a carbapenem antibiotic for inclusion in a hospital formulary.

Bacterial Infections↗

PubMed1999

Multicenter randomized trial comparing meropenem (1.5 g daily) and imipenem/cilastatin (2 g daily) in the hospital treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

An open, multicenter study with 144 patients, aged between 18 and 94 years, was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of meropenem with imipenem/cilastatin in the hospital treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous meropenem (500 mg every 8 h) or intravenous imipenem/cilastatin (1,000 mg every 12 h). The primary end point was considered to be clinical efficacy and the secondary end points were bacteriological response and safety assessment. At the end of therapy, cure or improvement in signs and symptoms as a satisfactory clinical response was observed in 57 of 64 (89.1%) meropenem-treated patients and in 60 of 66 (90.9%) imipenem/cilastatin patients. The mean duration of treatment was 10 days for meropenem and 9.7 days for imipenem/cilastatin. In patients who were followed up for weeks 2-4, the response was satisfactory (100%) for both treatments. A satisfactory bacteriological response, defined as either presumed or confirmed eradication of all pathogens, was found in eight patients who had received meropenem and in 14 patients who had received imipenem/cilastatin. Response was considered satisfactory in 100% of the meropenem group and in 92.9% of the imipenem/cilastatin group and at follow-up, it was 100% for both treatments. Drug-related adverse events were reported in three (4.2%) meropenem-treated patients and in eight (11.0%) imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients. None of these events was classified as serious. The results of this study show that the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and tolerability of meropenem (500 mg every 8 h) are similar to that of imipenem/cilastatin (1,000 mg every 12 h) in the hospital treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1997

Comparative in vitro Activity of Meropenem Versus Other Extended-Spectrum Antimicrobial Agents Against 2,085 Clinical Isolates Tested in 13 Brazilian Centers.

Meropenem is a parenteral carbapenem antibacterial agent with a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity. It is the second agent of its class to become available in Brazil. The in vitro antibacterial activity of meropenem was compared with imipenem and four other antimicrobial agents in a multicenter study. This study involved 13 clinical microbiology laboratories, 10 of which came from 8 Brazilian states. A total of 2,085 clinical isolates consecutively collected between December 1995 and March 1996 were susceptibility tested using the Etest and following the NCCLS procedures. Meropenem inhibited more than 90% of isolates of Enterobacteriaceae at 0.5 µg/mL, except for Citrobacter sp. (1 µg/ml). Generally, meropenem was slightly more active than imipenem against Gram-negative organisms and its spectrum of antimicrobial activity was broader than those of all other drugs tested. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, meropenem (MIC50, 0.38 µg/ml) was approximately 8-fold more active than imipenem (MIC 50,3 µg/mL). Imipenem was two-to eight-fold more active than meropenem against some Gram-positive specees oxacillin, including Enterococcus faecalis (MIC 50 of 0.75 µg/mL and 2 µg/mL respectively), oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MIC 50 of 0.47 &mul;g/mL and 0.094 µg/mL), oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis (MIC 50 of 0.064 µg/mL and 0.5mg/mL). Against Streptococcus sp. meropenem was slightly more active than imipenem (MIC 50, 0.016 µg/mL). The results of this study may be used to guide empiric therapy in Brazil and indicates that meropenem may have an important role in the treatment of infections caused by multiresistant strains of bacteria.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1991

In vitro synergistic activity between meropenem and other beta-lactams against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The in vitro activity of meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, combined with eight other beta-lactams against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was tested. The MICs of these antibiotics alone ranged from 12.5 to 1,600 micrograms/ml for the 25 clinical isolates of MRSA studied. All combinations with meropenem exhibited marked synergy as determined by the checkerboard method. The MICs in combinations of meropenem with other beta-lactams were reduced to 1/4-1/64 those of the antibiotics alone. No antagonism was observed for any of the combinations of meropenem with other beta-lactams. Synergism between meropenem and cefpiramide was the highest among the combinations tested, the geometric mean of the fractional inhibitory concentration index for this combination being 0.237. This combination also demonstrated strong bactericidal activity, the MBCs decreasing to 1/16-1/64 of those for the agents alone. In terms of the fractional inhibitory concentration index, this was the most effective combination against MRSA highly resistant to meropenem alone with synergism for 85% (81/95) of the strains. In addition, synergism of imipenem with cephalosporins against MRSA was demonstrated. The affinity of meropenem and cefpiramide for MRSA penicillin-binding protein (PBP) 2' was very low, and the combination of both antibiotics showed an additive increase in affinity for this protein, but not a synergistic increase. Thus, the mechanism of synergism did not seem to be related to affinity for PBP2'. It is possible that there is another factor besides PBP2' which increases the resistance that the combinations inhibit the unknown factor.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed1998

Antibacterial activity of meropenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, including antibiotic-induced morphological changes and endotoxin-liberating effects.

The in vitro effects of meropenem on Pseudomonas aeruginosa were examined by studying (i) the inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations of meropenem versus those of imipenem for clinical isolates; (ii) changes in bacterial morphology during in vitro culture; and (iii) release of endotoxin induced by meropenem compared with that induced by other antipseudomonal compounds. Meropenem MIC90 and MBC90 values for 108 clinical isolates were 2 and 4.8 mg/l compared to 4.5 and 9.6 mg/l for imipenem. Morphological studies using phase-contrast and scanning electron microscopy showed that meropenem induced the formation of indeterminate bacterial cell forms at drug concentrations of 1-2.5 mg/l (0.5- to 1.25-fold the MIC), while spheroplasts predominated at drug levels exceeding 5 mg/l (2.5-fold the MIC). Determination of free and EDTA-releasable endotoxin activity by means of the Limulus lysate test showed that both meropenem and imipenem liberated significantly less endotoxin than did ceftazidime. Therefore, although meropenem binds to penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) 2 and 3 (in contrast to imipenem, which binds to PBP2 only), endotoxin release should not be a cause of concern when treating systemic gram-negative infections with this drug.

Anti-Infective Agents↗