Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:38:18.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Penicillins With Antipseudomonal Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sandra M. Norris
Sandra M. Norris*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Medical Center, School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The escalating role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a nosocomial pathogen, the relatively high mortality rate associated with pseudomonal infections, the intrinsic antibiotic resistance of this versatile, ubiquitous organism, and the growing number of reports of multiple antibiotic resistance developing during therapy of Pseudomonas infections prompt a review of currently available penicillins with antipseudomonal activity. Ticarcillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin and azlocillin have upstaged carbenicillin, the first antipseudomonal, β-lactam agent clinically used, with other products “in the wings.”

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , April 1985 , pp. 165 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Morrison, AJ Jr, Wenzel, RP: Epidemiology of infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6(suppl):627–642.Google Scholar
2.Sanders, CC, Sanders, WE Jr: Emergence of resistance during therapy with the newer β-lactam antibiotics: Role of inducible β-lactamases and implications for the future. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5:639–648.Google Scholar
3.Sutherland, R, Barnett, J, Rolinson, GN: α carboxy-3-thienylmethyl penicillin (BRL 2288), a new semisynthetic penicillin in in vitro evaluation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1970; 10:390–395.Google Scholar
4.Fu, KP. Neu, HC: Piperacillin, a new penicillin active against many bacteria resistant to other penicillins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 13:358–367.Google Scholar
5.Fu, HP, Neu, HC: Azlocillin and mezlocillin: New ureido penicillins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 13:930–938.Google Scholar
6.Knudson, ET, Rolinson, GN, Sutherland, R: Carbenicillin. A new semisynthetic penicillin active against Pseudomonas pyocyanea. Br Med J 1967; 3:75–78.Google Scholar
7.Fleming, A: History and development of penicillin, in Fleming, A (ed): Penicillin: Its Practical Application. Philadelphia, The Blakiston Co, 1946, pp 1–23.Google Scholar
8.Chain, EB: The development of bacterial chemotherapy. Antibiot Chemother 1954;4:215–241.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Florey, HW: The use of micro-organisms for therapeutic purposes. Yale J Biol Med 1946; 19:101–118.Google Scholar
10.Neu, HC: Structure-activity relations of new β-lactam compounds and in vitro activity against common bacteria. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5(suppl):319–336.Google Scholar
11.Spratt, BG: Distinct penicillin-binding proteins involved in the division, elongation and shape of Escherichia coli k 12. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1975; 72:2999–3003.Google Scholar
12.Spratt, BG: Properties of penicillin-binding proteins of Escherichia coli k 12. Eur J Biochem 1977; 72:341–352.Google Scholar
13.Spratt, BG: Escherichia coli resistance to β-lactam antibiotics through a decrease in the affinity of a target for lethality. Nature 1978; 274:713–715.Google Scholar
14.Noguchi, H, Matsuhashi, M, Matsuhashi, S: Comparative studies of penicillin-binding proteins in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. Eur J Biochem 1979; 100:41–49.Google Scholar
15.Blumbert, PM, Strominger, JL: Interaction of penicillin with the bacterial cell: Penicillin-binding proteins and penicillin sensitive enzymes. Bacteriological Reviews 1974; 38:291–335.Google Scholar
16.Tomasz, A: Penicillin-binding proteins in bacteria. Ann Intern Med 1982; 96:502–504.Google Scholar
17.Washington, JA II: Microbial resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. Mayo Clin Proc 1982; 57:781–783.Google Scholar
18.Tausk, F, Patterson, LS, Evans, ME, et al: Increased minimal inhibitory concentration of antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa caused by subinhibitory concentrations on N formimidoyl thienamycin (poster). 84th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, St. Louis, March 4-9, 1984.Google Scholar
19.Basker, MJ, Edmondson, RAE, Sutherland, R: Comparative antibacterial activity of azlocillin, mezlocillin, carbenicillin and ticarcillin and relative stability to beta-lactamases of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella aerogenes. Infection 1979; 7:67–73.Google Scholar
20.Sanders, CC: Novel resistance selected by the new expanded spectrum cephalosporins: A concern. J Infect Dis 1983; 147:585–589.Google Scholar
21.Sanders, CC, Sanders, WE Jr, Goering, RV, et al: Selection of multiple antibiotic resistance by quinolones, β-lactams, and aminoglycosides with special reference to cross-resistance between unrelated drug classes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:797–801.Google Scholar
22.Neu, HC: Changing mechanisms of bacterial resistance. Am J Med 1984; 77:11–23.Google Scholar
23.White, GW, Malow, JB, Zimelis, VM, et al: Comparative in vitro activity of azlocillin, ampicillin, mezlocillin, piperacillin, and ticarcillin, alone and in combination with an aminoglycoside. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 15:540–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Verbist, L: Comparison of the activities of the new ureidopenicillins piperacillin, mezlocillin, azlocillin and Bay K 4999 against gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 16:115–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Neu, HC, Garvey, GC: Comparative in vitro activity and clinical pharmacology of ticarcillin and carbenicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1975; 8:457–462.Google Scholar
26.Coppens, L, Klastersky, J: Comparative study of antipseudomonas activity of azlocillin, mezlocillin and ticarcillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 15:396–399.Google Scholar
27.Wise, R, Andrews, JM, Bedford, KA: Comparison of the in vitro activity of Bay K 4999 and piperacillin, two new antipseudomonal broad-spectrum penicillins, with other β-lactam drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 14:549–552.Google Scholar
28.Drusano, GL, Schimpff, SC, Hewitt, WL: The acylampicillins: Mezlocillin, piperacillin and azlocillin. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6:13–32.Google Scholar
29.Pancoast, S, Prince, AS, Francke, El, et al: Clinical evaluation of piperacillin for infection. Arch Intern Med 1981; 141:1447–1450.Google Scholar
30.Simon, GL, Snydman, DR, Tally, FP, et al: Clinical trial of piperacillin with acquisition of resistance by Pseudomonas and clinical relapse. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 18:167–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Winston, DJ, Murphy, W, Young, LS, et al: Piperacillin therapy for serious bacterial infections. Am J Med 1980; 69:255–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Monif, GRG, Clark, PR, Shuster, JJ, et al: Susceptibility of the anaerobic bacteria, group D streptococci, Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas to semi-synthetic penicillins: Carbenicillin, piperacillin and ticarcillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 14:643–649.Google Scholar
33.Sutter, VL, Finegold, SM: Susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to 23 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1976; 10:736–752.Google Scholar
34.Trestman, I, Kaye, D, Levinson, ME: Activity of semisynthetic penicillins and synergism with mecillinam against Bacteroides species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 16:283–286.Google Scholar
35.Baker, CN, Thornsberry, C, Jones, RN: In vitro antimicrobial activity of cefoperazone, cefotaxime, moxalactam (LY 127935), azlocillin, mezlocillin, and other β-lactam antibiotics against Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Haemophilus influenzae including β-lactamase-producing strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17:757–761.Google Scholar
36.Barry, AL, Thornsberry, C, Jones, RN, et al: In vitro activity of mezlocillin and azlocillin compared with that of four other penicillins and two aminoglycosides. Cleve Clin Q 1980; 47:311–319.Google Scholar
37.Kurtz, TO, Winston, DJ, Bruckner, DA, et al: Comparative in vitro synergistic activity of the new beta-lactam antimicrobial agents and amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Serratia marcescens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 20:239–243.Google Scholar
38.Anderson, ET, Young, LS, Hewitt, WL: Antimicrobial synergism in the therapy of gram-negative rod bacteremia. Chemotherapy 1978; 24:45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Gillet, AP: Antibiotics against Pseudomonas. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 9(suppl):41–48.Google Scholar
40.Knirsch, AK, Hobbs, DC, Korst, JJ: Pharmacokinetics, toleration and safety of indanyl carbenicillin in man. J Infect Dis 1973; 127(suppl):105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Wright, AJ, Wilkowske, CJ: The penicillins. Mayo Clin Proc 1983; 58:21–32.Google Scholar
42.Neu, HC: Carbenicillin and ticarcillin. Med Clin North Am 1982; 66:61–77.Google Scholar
43.Rahal, JJ, Simberkoff, MS: Host defense and antimicrobial therapy in gram-negative bacillary meningitis. Ann Intern Med 1982; 96:468–474.Google Scholar
44.Russo, J Jr, Russo, ME: Comparative review of two new wide-spectrum penicillins: Mezlocillin and piperacillin. Clin Pharm 1982; 1:207–216.Google Scholar
45.Bergan, T: Overview of acylureidopenicillin pharmacokinetics. Scand J Infect Dis 1981; 29(suppl):33–48.Google ScholarPubMed
46.Tjandramaga, TB, Mullie, A, Verbesselt, R, et al: Piperacillin: Human pharmacokinetics after intravenous and intramuscular administration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 14:829–837.Google Scholar
47.Norris, SM, Mandell, GL: Tables of antimicrobial pharmacology, in Mandell, GL, Douglas, RG Jr, Bennett, JE (eds): Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, ed 2. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1984, pp 308–332.Google Scholar
48.Thompson, MIB, Russo, ME, Saxon, BJ, et al: Gentamicin inactivation by piperacillin or carbenicillin in patients with end-stage renal disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 21:268–273.Google Scholar
49.Henderson, JL, Polk, RE, Kline, BJ: In vitro inactivation of gentamicin, tobramycin, and netilmicin by carbenicillin, azlocillin or mezlocillin. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981;38:1167–1170.Google ScholarPubMed