Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

In Vitro Activity of Doripenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia Isolates from both Cystic Fibrosis and Non-Cystic Fibrosis Patients

M. M. Traczewski, S. D. Brown
M. M. Traczewski
The Clinical Microbiology Institute, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mtrac@clinmicroinst.com
S. D. Brown
The Clinical Microbiology Institute, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.50.2.819-821.2006
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The in vitro activities of doripenem, imipenem, levofloxacin, piperacillin, ceftazidime, aztreonam, tobramycin, and cefepime were determined for 160 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (82 from cystic fibrosis [CF] patients) and 34 isolates of Burkholderia cepacia. Doripenem MIC90s were lower than those of all other comparative agents against all isolates combined and against all P. aeruginosa isolates. Doripenem was as active as levofloxacin and 2- to 32-fold more active than the other comparative agents against B. cepacia.

Chronic lung infection, repeated exacerbations, and progressive deterioration in lung function caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia are a major cause of mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients despite current antimicrobial therapy (1, 5). In approximately 25% of CF patients infected with B. cepacia (2) and 40 to 60% of cases with Pseudomonas pneumonia, the clinical course is ultimately fatal (6). Novel antibiotics may help improve patient survival and reduce healthcare resource utilization. Both the infections caused by P. aeruginosa and those caused by B. cepacia are often treated with difficulty due to emergence of resistance and lack of effective antibiotics. Doripenem is a new carbapenem currently under clinical investigation for treatment of a variety of infections in humans. This study was designed to help assess the in vitro activities of doripenem against B. cepacia and P. aeruginosa isolates from CF patients and non-CF patients.

(A portion of this work was presented at the 104th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, New Orleans, La., 24 to 27 May 2004.)

A total of 194 clinical strains from our frozen stock culture collection were tested. All stock isolates were stored at −70°C in defibrinated sheep blood. They included 160 stock isolates of P. aeruginosa (82 from CF patients and 78 from non-CF sources) and 34 isolates of B. cepacia. CF Pseudomonas isolates were collected from 1996 through 2001, and non-CF Pseudomonas isolates were collected from mid-1999 through mid-2002. B. cepacia isolates were all collected before 2001, and there are no records as to whether or not they were isolated from CF patients or other sources.

In addition, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were tested for quality control purposes.

All strains were tested by the broth microdilution method recommended by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (formerly NCCLS) (3). Doripenem was compared to a variety of antimicrobial compounds including imipenem, levofloxacin, piperacillin, ceftazidime, aztreonam, tobramycin, and cefepime.

The broth microdilution method outlined in the CLSI approved standard (M7-A6, 2003) (3) was used throughout. Each compound was dissolved and diluted according to CLSI specifications. Stock solutions of each agent were prepared immediately before use. Serial twofold dilutions of from 0.25 to 512 μg/ml were prepared for each drug except cefepime, for which dilutions of from 0.25 to 128 μg/ml were prepared. The 96-well microdilution plate susceptibility test panels were prepared at the Clinical Microbiology Institute and stored in a −70°C freezer until use. CLSI breakpoints were used for all comparative agents (4). No interpretive breakpoints were available for doripenem since there are no FDA- or CLSI-approved breakpoints at this time.

All MICs obtained when testing E. coli ATCC 25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were within the ranges recommended by the CLSI (M100-S13). The doripenem MICs for E. coli ATCC 25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were all ≤0.25 μg/ml (five replicates of each strain).

Table 1 summarizes the MICs (in micrograms per milliliter) of doripenem and comparative drugs against all bacterial isolates tested. Results for each group represented are arranged by geometric mean MIC in ascending order. Doripenem had the lowest geometric mean MIC of all antimicrobials tested against the entire collection of organisms. The doripenem MIC at which 50% of the isolates tested were inhibited (MIC50) was 4- to 32-fold lower than those of the other comparative agents, and the doripenem MIC90 was equal to that of levofloxacin (8 μg/ml) and 2- to 16-fold lower than those of the other agents under study.

Against 34 strains of B. cepacia, doripenem was 1 doubling dilution less active than levofloxacin (doripenem MIC50 of 2 μg/ml versus 1 μg/ml for levofloxacin) but 2- to 32-fold more active than the other antimicrobials tested (Table 1). The MIC90s for doripenem and levofloxacin were both 8 μg/ml (2- to 32-fold lower than those of the other antimicrobials).

As noted earlier, doripenem was the most active agent in terms of overall in vitro potency for all isolates tested, including P. aeruginosa strains isolated from both CF patients (MIC50/90, 0.25/2 μg/ml) and non-CF patients (MIC50/90, 0.25/1 μg/ml). The P. aeruginosa strains from CF patients tended to be slightly more resistant to all antimicrobials than were the non-CF isolates. The greatest differences in percent resistance between CF strains and non-CF strains were observed with aztreonam (22% versus 6.4%), piperacillin (13.4% versus 3.8%), and ceftazidime (13.4% versus 3.8%, respectively). The geometric mean doripenem MIC for CF isolates was 0.52 μg/ml versus 0.36 μg/ml for non-CF strains (Table 1). In both instances, the doripenem geometric mean MICs were substantially lower than those of any other antimicrobial compound tested.

Table 2 shows the MIC data for doripenem versus imipenem on 16 P. aeruginosa strains that were either resistant or intermediate to imipenem. Eleven of these strains were from CF patients, and five were from non-CF patients. Eight of the 16 strains (50%) had doripenem MICs that were 2- to 16-fold lower than the imipenem MICs for these strains.

In conclusion, the in vitro activity of doripenem against clinical strains of B. cepacia and P. aeruginosa was greater than that of all other antimicrobials tested. Doripenem was active against most B. cepacia strains (MIC50, 2 μg/ml, and MIC90, 8 μg/ml). Tobramycin was the least effective among those tested, with 76% of isolates being resistant. Strains of P. aeruginosa isolated from CF patients tended to be slightly more resistant to all antimicrobials than were strains recovered from non-CF patients. Of the 16 strains of P. aeruginosa that were resistant or intermediate to imipenem, 50% had doripemen MICs that were 2- to 16-fold lower than those of imipenem. If successfully developed, doripenem may be a useful agent against P. aeruginosa and B. cepacia infections.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Percent susceptible, intermediate, and resistant (CLSI breakpoints) for doripenem versus P. aeruginosa and B. cepaciaa

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Doripenem versus imipenem-resistant and -intermediate P. aeruginosa isolatesa

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work was funded by Peninsula Pharmaceuticals Inc.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 7 April 2005.
    • Returned for modification 9 August 2005.
    • Accepted 28 November 2005.
  • Copyright © 2006 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Isles, A., I. Maclusky, M. Corey, R. Gold, C. Prober, P. Fleming, and H. Levison. 1984. Pseudomonas cepacia infection in cystic fibrosis: an emerging problem. J. Pediatr.104:206-210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    LiPuma, J. J. 1998. Burkholderia cepacia. Management issues and new insights. Clin. Chest Med.19:473-486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2003. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard M7-A6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
  4. 4.↵
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2003. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. M100-S13. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
  5. 5.↵
    Richards, M. J., J. R. Edwards, and D. H. Culver. 1999. Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit. Care Med.27:887-892.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Todar, K. 2004. Todar's online textbook of bacteriology: Pseudomonas aeruginosa. [Online.] K. Todar, Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison. http://textbookofbacteriology.net/pseudomonas.html .
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activity of Doripenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia Isolates from both Cystic Fibrosis and Non-Cystic Fibrosis Patients
M. M. Traczewski, S. D. Brown
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2006, 50 (2) 819-821; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.50.2.819-821.2006

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro Activity of Doripenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia Isolates from both Cystic Fibrosis and Non-Cystic Fibrosis Patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
In Vitro Activity of Doripenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia Isolates from both Cystic Fibrosis and Non-Cystic Fibrosis Patients
M. M. Traczewski, S. D. Brown
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2006, 50 (2) 819-821; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.50.2.819-821.2006
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Burkholderia cepacia
carbapenems
cystic fibrosis
Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596