Impact of Different Carbapenems and Regimens of Administration on Resistance Emergence for Three Isogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strains with Differing Mechanisms of Resistance

ABSTRACT We compared drugs (imipenem and doripenem), doses (500 mg and 1 g), and infusion times (0.5 and 1.0 [imipenem], 1.0 and 4.0 h [doripenem]) in our hollow-fiber model, examining cell kill and resistance suppression for three isogenic strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. The experiments ran for 10 days. Serial samples were taken for total organism and resistant subpopulation counts. Drug concentrations were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Free time above the MIC (time > MIC) was calculated using ADAPT II. Time to resistance emergence was examined with Cox modeling. Cell kill and resistance emergence differences were explained, in the main, by differences in potency (MIC) between doripenem and imipenem. Prolonged infusion increased free drug time > MIC and improved cell kill. For resistance suppression, the 1-g, 4-h infusion was able to completely suppress resistance for the full period of observation for the wild-type isolate. For the mutants, control was ultimately lost, but in all cases, this was the best regimen. Doripenem gave longer free time > MIC than imipenem and, therefore, better cell kill and resistance suppression. For the wild-type organism, the 1-g, 4-h infusion regimen is preferred. For organisms with resistance mutations, larger doses or addition of a second drug should be studied.

[1]  G. Arlet,et al.  Mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in non-metallo-beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a Tunisian hospital. , 2009, Pathologie-biologie.

[2]  D. Andes,et al.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling to support doripenem dose regimen optimization for critically ill patients. , 2009, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[3]  L. Rice,et al.  Impact of short-course quinolone therapy on susceptible and resistant populations of Staphylococcus aureus. , 2009, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[4]  Ian Friedland,et al.  Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: A multicenter, randomized study* , 2008, Critical care medicine.

[5]  D. Landman,et al.  Interplay of Efflux System, ampC, and oprD Expression in Carbapenem Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Clinical Isolates , 2006, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[6]  Vincent H. Tam,et al.  Optimization of Meropenem Minimum Concentration/MIC Ratio To Suppress In Vitro Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa , 2005, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[7]  D. Livermore,et al.  Doripenem versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa In Vitro: Activity against Characterized Isolates, Mutants, and Transconjugants and Resistance Selection Potential , 2004, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[8]  G L Drusano,et al.  Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. , 2003, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[9]  E. Bruck,et al.  National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. , 1980, Pediatrics.

[10]  Mary Jane Ferraro,et al.  Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically : approved standard , 2000 .

[11]  J. Waitz Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically , 1990 .