Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1986 Jan;29(1):26–29. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.1.26

Imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections.

W Fan, R del Busto, M Love, N Markowitz, C Cendrowski, J Cardenas, E Quinn, L Saravolatz
PMCID: PMC180357  PMID: 3460521

Abstract

Imipenem-cilastatin was evaluated for efficacy and toxicity as an antistaphylococcal agent in 23 patients; 11 of these patients were infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and 12 were infected with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). There were 15 soft tissue, 5 endovascular, and 3 skeletal infections and a total of nine patients with bacteremia. As determined by in vitro susceptibility testing, the MICs for 90% of the MRSA and MSSA isolates tested were 6.25 and 0.39 micrograms/ml, respectively. Two MRSA isolates were resistant to a concentration of greater than 16 micrograms/ml. When 11 MRSA isolates and 7 MSSA isolates were incubated for 48 h the MICs for 90% of the isolates increased to greater than 50 micrograms/ml for the MRSA isolates and 6.25 micrograms/ml for the MSSA isolates. Three S. aureus isolates emerged resistant. Ten of 11 (91%) MRSA infections and 11 of 12 (92%) MSSA infections were clinically cured. Adverse reactions occurred in 25% of the imipenemcilastatin-treated patients. These reactions included gastrointestinal intolerance (7% of the patients), rash or pruritis (6%), eosinophilia (6%), thrombocytosis (4%), and a positive, direct Coomb test without hemolysis (3%). One of the two patients for whom therapy was discontinued because of gastrointestinal intolerance had antibiotic-associated colitis. Imipenem appears to be an effective antistaphylococcal agent against both MRSA and MSSA infections.

Full text

PDF
26

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Acar J. F., Goldstein F. W., Kitzis M. D., Gutmann L. Activity of imipenem on aerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):37–45. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumgartner J. D., Glauser M. P. Comparative imipenem treatment of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in the rat. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):79–87. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cherubin C. E., Corrado M. L., Sierra M. F., Gombert M. E., Shulman M. Susceptibility of gram-positive cocci to various antibiotics, including cefotaxime, moxalactam, and N-formimidoyl thienamycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Oct;20(4):553–555. doi: 10.1128/aac.20.4.553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Díez Enciso M., Mateos Lindemann M., Gutiérrez Altés A. In vitro evaluation of N-formimidoyl thienamycin (MK0787) combined with amikacin against gram-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Dec;22(6):1064–1066. doi: 10.1128/aac.22.6.1064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Eron L. J., Hixon D. L., Park C. H., Goldenberg R. I., Poretz D. M. Imipenem versus moxalactam in the treatment of serious infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Dec;24(6):841–846. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.6.841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Haley R. W., Hightower A. W., Khabbaz R. F., Thornsberry C., Martone W. J., Allen J. R., Hughes J. M. The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in United States hospitals. Possible role of the house staff-patient transfer circuit. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Sep;97(3):297–308. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-97-3-297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Imipenem/cilastatin versus gentamicin/clindamycin for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Report from a Scandinavian Study Group. Lancet. 1984 Apr 21;1(8382):868–871. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kahan F. M., Kropp H., Sundelof J. G., Birnbaum J. Thienamycin: development of imipenen-cilastatin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):1–35. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Levine D. P., Cushing R. D., Jui J., Brown W. J. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in the Detroit Medical Center. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Sep;97(3):330–338. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-97-3-330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Marier R. L., McCloskey R. V., Dickenson G., Sanders C. V., Aldridge K. E., Hoffman T., Gutterman D., Janney A. Comparative clinical trial of imipenem-cilastatin (N-formimidoyl-thienamycin-dehydropeptidase inhibitor) and cefazolin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):133–139. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Markowitz N., Pohlod D. J., Saravolatz L. D., Quinn E. L. In vitro susceptibility patterns of methicillin-resistant and-susceptible Staphylococcus auerues strains in a population of parenteral drug abusers from 1972 to 1981. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Mar;23(3):450–457. doi: 10.1128/aac.23.3.450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mitsuhashi S. In-vitro and in-vivo antibacterial activity of imipenem against clinical isolates of bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):53–64. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Saravolatz L. D., Markowitz N., Arking L., Pohlod D., Fisher E. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Epidemiologic observations during a community-acquired outbreak. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Jan;96(1):11–16. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-96-1-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Scheld W. M., Keeley J. M. Imipenem therapy of experimental Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus faecalis endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):65–78. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V. Susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to imipenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 Dec;12 (Suppl 500):47–51. doi: 10.1093/jac/12.suppl_d.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Thompson R. L., Fisher K. A., Wenzel R. P. In vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin and other beta-lactam antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Feb;21(2):341–343. doi: 10.1128/aac.21.2.341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Verbist L., Verhaegen J. In vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin in comparison with cefotaxime, moxalactam, and ceftazidime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Mar;19(3):402–406. doi: 10.1128/aac.19.3.402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wise R., Andrews J. M., Patel N. N-formimidoyl-thienamycin a novel beta-lactam: an in-vitro comparison with other beta-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1981 May;7(5):521–529. doi: 10.1093/jac/7.5.521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Witte J. L., Sapico F. L., Canawati H. N. In vitro susceptibility of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains to N-formimidoyl thienamycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Nov;22(5):906–908. doi: 10.1128/aac.22.5.906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES