In vitro Activity of Ertapenem against Common Clinical Isolates in Relation to Human Pharmacokinetics

References

• Graham D, Lucasti C, Malafaia O, et al. Once-a-day ertapenem versus four daily doses of piperacillin-tazobactam for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections in adults: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1460–1468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz-Ruiz G, Caballero-Lopez J, Friedland I, et al. A prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, compara-tive study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ertapenem versus ceftriaxone in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 1076–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy S, Higareda I, Angel-Muller E, et al. Results of a phase III randomized, double-blind study of ertapenem vs piperacillin/tazobactam for acute pelvic infection in women [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 41” Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; Chicago, IL, December 2001; Washington, DC; American Society for Microbiology; abstract L888, p. 456.
   Google Scholar
• Solomkin JS, Yellin AE, Rotstein OD, et al. Results of a double-blind, randomized, comparative trial of ertapenem vs piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections. Ann Surg (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Tomera KM, Burdmann ES, Pamo OG, et al. Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind multi-center study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 2895–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Cruz F, Jasovich A, Cajigas J, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study com-paring ertapenem and ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for treatment of complicated urinary tract infec-tions in adults. Urology 2002; 60: 16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs PC, Barry AL, Brown SD. In vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against clinical bacterial isolates from 11 North American Medical Centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 1915–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein EJC, Citron DM, Merriam CV, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against 1,001 anaerobes isolated from human intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 2389-94.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar A, Musson D, Birk K, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Walker R, Andes D, Clinklin R, et al. Pharmacodynamic activities of meropenem in an animal model [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, September 1994. Washington, DC; American Society for Microbiology; abstract A91.
   Google Scholar
• van Ogtrop ML, Andes D, Craig WA. In vivo antimicro-bial activity of MK-0826, a new carbapenem, against various penicillin-resistant pneumococci [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; San Diego, CA, September 1998; Washington, DC; American Society for Microbiology; abstract F48.
   Google Scholar
• van Ogtrop ML, Andes D, Craig WA. In vivo antimicro-bial activity of MK-0826, a new carbapenem, against various gram-negative bacteria and Staphylococcus aureus [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; September 1999; Washington, DC; American Society for Microbiology; abstract 999.
   Google Scholar
• National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacte-ria that grow aerobically. 4th ed. Approved standard M7-A4. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Ninth Informational Supplement; NCCLS document M100-59. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria, 5th ed. Approved StandardM11-A4. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Musson DG, Birk KL, Cairns AM, et al. High-perfor-mance liquid chromatographic methods for the determination of a new carbapenem antibiotic, L-749,345, in human plasma and urine. J Chromatogr B 1998; 720: 99–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Physicians' Desk Reference. 56th ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Popick AC, Crouthamel WG, Bekersky I. Plasma pro-tein binding of ceftriaxone. Xenobiotica 1987; 17: 1139–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Occhipinti DJ, Pendland SL, Schoonover LL, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of two multiple-dose piperacillin-tazobactam regimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2511–2517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic para-meters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buie PS. Management of complicated intra-abdominal infections. J Chemother 1999; 11: 464–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, et al. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneu-monia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 347–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siami G, Christou N, Eiseman E, et al. Clinafloxacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of patients with severe skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 525–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamm WE, Hooton TM. Management of urinary tract infections in adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1328–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweet RL. Role of cephamycins in obstetrics and gyne-cology. J Reprod Med 1990; 11 (suppl): 1064-9.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett RJ, Haverstock DC, Dellinger EP, et al. Definition of the role of enterococcus in intraabdominal infec-tion: Analysis of a prospective randomized trial. Surgery 1995; 118: 716–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buie PS, Vogel SB, Dellinger EP, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing cefepime plus metronida-zole with imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Arch Surg 1997; 132: 1294–1302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buie PS. Enterococcus in perspective. Surg Infect 2000; 1: 91–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rohrborn A, Wacha H, Schoffel U, et al. Coverage of enterococci in community-acquired secondary peritonitis: results of a randomized trial. Surg Infect 2000; 1: 95–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teppler H, McCarroll K, Gesser RM, Woods GL. Surgical infections with Enterococcus: outcome in patients treated with ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam. Surg Infect (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Gall S. Therapeutic dilemmas in the treatment of pelvic infections. J Reprod Med 1990; 35 (11, suppl): 1092-4.
   Google Scholar