Background:The purpose of this study was to analyze and classify adverse drug events(ADEs)related to ceftazidime/avibactam reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System(FAERS)database and...Background:The purpose of this study was to analyze and classify adverse drug events(ADEs)related to ceftazidime/avibactam reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System(FAERS)database and to evaluate their potential safety signals since the drug’s market introduction.Methods:This analysis systematically extracted and filtered FAERS data for ceftazidime/avibactam from its market launch in 2015 to the last quarter of 2024,utilizing the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities(MedDRA)terminology for ADE recoding.The analysis employed the reporting odds ratio(ROR)method to assess the strength of ADE signals and to identify significant diseases associated with infections,the hepatobiliary system,the urinary system,and the nervous system.Results:A review of 540 adverse reaction reports revealed significant signals of adverse effects related to infections,hepatobiliary disorders,urinary system issues,and neurological impairments,including pathogen resistance,liver and kidney function impairment,encephalopathy,thrombocytopenia,and toxic epidermal necrolysis.However,these issues require further clinical attention.Conclusion:Ceftazidime/avibactam is associated with a range of adverse reactions,necessitating enhanced clinical monitoring,particularly in patients with underlying liver or kidney dysfunction.Continuous risk assessment and vigilant monitoring are critical for its clinical use.However,this study is limited by inherent reporting biases and confounders associated with the spontaneous reporting database(FAERS).Future research should validate these signals through prospective cohort and mechanistic studies and explore personalized risk management strategies for high-risk populations.展开更多
A reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatographic (RP-HPLC) method wasdeveloped and validated for the simultaneous deteimination of ceftazidime and tazobactam ininject-able powder. Methods Chromatography was ca...A reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatographic (RP-HPLC) method wasdeveloped and validated for the simultaneous deteimination of ceftazidime and tazobactam ininject-able powder. Methods Chromatography was carried out on Zorbax 300SB-C_(18) column using amixture of methanol and aqueous solution of phosphate buffer (pH = 5.6) as mobile phase. The UVdetection wavelength was 220 run. Results The linear ranges of ceftazidime and tazobactam were 0.62- 631.8 μg·mL^(-1) and 0.66 - 677.50 μg·mL^(-1), respectively. The average recoveries were 98.8%- 101.4% for ceftazidime, and 99,1% - 100.2% for tazobactam. The RSD values of inter-day andintra-day assays were lower than 1.5% for ceftazidime and 2.6% for tazobactam. Conclusion Thismethod is reproducible, simple, precise, and rapid for the quality control of ceftazidime andtazobactam in injectable powder.展开更多
Melioidosis,a disease of public health importance in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia,of late has shown an increasing trend in India,particularly Southern India.We describe a ease of a 39-year-old diabetic patien...Melioidosis,a disease of public health importance in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia,of late has shown an increasing trend in India,particularly Southern India.We describe a ease of a 39-year-old diabetic patient with left elbow septic arthritis,multiple liver,splenic abscesses, pneumonia,pleural effusion,followed by sepsis syndrome.Blood cultures and culture of the joint aspirate yielded pure growth of Burkholderia psettdomallei(B.pesudomallei),sensitive to carbapenem,co-trimoxazole and resistant to ceftazidime.The patient was successfully treated with imipenem- cilastin.He was discharged on co-trimoxazole to complete the 24 weeks course and follow-up has continued to date.The patient continues to remain asymptomatic.The case re-emphasizes the need to monitor the trend of B.pseudomallei in India,particularly the development of ceftazidime resistance,which incidentally is the drug of choice.展开更多
Objective: to compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of cefoperazone sulbactam and ceftazidime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and to provide a theoretical basis for the clinical drug treat...Objective: to compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of cefoperazone sulbactam and ceftazidime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and to provide a theoretical basis for the clinical drug treatment of diseases. Methods: a retrospective study of 140 patients with complicated urinary tract infections admitted to the urology department of Hu’nan Provincial Peoples Hospital from January 2017 to December 2017: cefoperazone sulbactam group (71 patients, 1.0g / bid, 2 g/d) and (69 patients, 1.5g / bid, 3g / d), and PCT, CRP. Results: more cefoperazone subactam (70 / 71,94.29%) than ceftazidime (60 / 69,84.29%) were significant (P < 0.05). A total of 19 strains were detected in the cefoperazone and sulbactam group and 33 strains in the ceftazidime group, with a significant difference in the degree of bacterial clearance in the ceftazidim group (P < 0.05). Between groups, found that the bacterial clearance rate was higher in cefoperazone sulbactam group (84.21%) than in ceftazidime group (72.73%). Plasma PCT, CRP content were decreased compared to before treatment, and the difference between the groups was significant (P < 0.05). After treatment comparison, plasma PCT(0.21±0.15ng/m L) and CRP (0.68±5.24mg/L) content in cefoperazone sulbactam group were lower than those in ceftazidime group (0.87±0.32ng/m L), (20.49±6.81mg/L), and both differences were significant (P < 0.05). The cefoperazone sulbactam group (2.73 ± 0.95 days) and the treatment cost (1078.90 ± 375.44 yuan) were less than the ceftazidime group (6.97 ± 2.25 days) and (1141.69 ± 368.55 yuan), all statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions between cefoperazone and sulbactam (1.40%) and ceftazidime (2.89%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05), and no serious adverse drug reactions occurred. Conclusion: cefoperazone subactam has better efficacy than ceftazidime for complicated urinary tract infections, mainly in bacterial clearance, course control and treatment cost. Patients with cefoperazone subactatan treatment also have better inflammatory status control.展开更多
A surveillance study was undertaken to identify prominent β-lactamase encoding genes in 131 carbapenem non-susceptible gram-negative clinical isolates at a New York City community hospital. KPC carbapenemases were de...A surveillance study was undertaken to identify prominent β-lactamase encoding genes in 131 carbapenem non-susceptible gram-negative clinical isolates at a New York City community hospital. KPC carbapenemases were detected in 89% of Enterobacteriaceae as well as additional TEM, SHV, and CTX-M class A enzymes. OXA-23 and OXA-24 were the prevalent class D carbapenemases identified in Acinetobacter species. One OXA-23 in M. morganii and one OXA-48 in K. pneumoniae were also identified. Among class C β-lactamases CMY, ACT/MIR, DHA, and FOX were detected. The in vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam by E-test methodology was tested with minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of ≤3 μg/ml for 97.8% of all Enterobacteriaceae, MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of 16/>256 μg/ml for carbapenem non-susceptible Acinetobacter, and 3/6 μg/ml for carbapenem non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Periodic surveillance of isolates to characterize current and emerging β-lactamase genotypes present in local isolates may help identify outbreak situations, provide assistance to infection control and antibiotic stewardship programs, and potentially improve patient outcomes.展开更多
基金Intramural Project of The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine(2018QN008).
文摘Background:The purpose of this study was to analyze and classify adverse drug events(ADEs)related to ceftazidime/avibactam reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System(FAERS)database and to evaluate their potential safety signals since the drug’s market introduction.Methods:This analysis systematically extracted and filtered FAERS data for ceftazidime/avibactam from its market launch in 2015 to the last quarter of 2024,utilizing the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities(MedDRA)terminology for ADE recoding.The analysis employed the reporting odds ratio(ROR)method to assess the strength of ADE signals and to identify significant diseases associated with infections,the hepatobiliary system,the urinary system,and the nervous system.Results:A review of 540 adverse reaction reports revealed significant signals of adverse effects related to infections,hepatobiliary disorders,urinary system issues,and neurological impairments,including pathogen resistance,liver and kidney function impairment,encephalopathy,thrombocytopenia,and toxic epidermal necrolysis.However,these issues require further clinical attention.Conclusion:Ceftazidime/avibactam is associated with a range of adverse reactions,necessitating enhanced clinical monitoring,particularly in patients with underlying liver or kidney dysfunction.Continuous risk assessment and vigilant monitoring are critical for its clinical use.However,this study is limited by inherent reporting biases and confounders associated with the spontaneous reporting database(FAERS).Future research should validate these signals through prospective cohort and mechanistic studies and explore personalized risk management strategies for high-risk populations.
文摘A reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatographic (RP-HPLC) method wasdeveloped and validated for the simultaneous deteimination of ceftazidime and tazobactam ininject-able powder. Methods Chromatography was carried out on Zorbax 300SB-C_(18) column using amixture of methanol and aqueous solution of phosphate buffer (pH = 5.6) as mobile phase. The UVdetection wavelength was 220 run. Results The linear ranges of ceftazidime and tazobactam were 0.62- 631.8 μg·mL^(-1) and 0.66 - 677.50 μg·mL^(-1), respectively. The average recoveries were 98.8%- 101.4% for ceftazidime, and 99,1% - 100.2% for tazobactam. The RSD values of inter-day andintra-day assays were lower than 1.5% for ceftazidime and 2.6% for tazobactam. Conclusion Thismethod is reproducible, simple, precise, and rapid for the quality control of ceftazidime andtazobactam in injectable powder.
文摘Melioidosis,a disease of public health importance in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia,of late has shown an increasing trend in India,particularly Southern India.We describe a ease of a 39-year-old diabetic patient with left elbow septic arthritis,multiple liver,splenic abscesses, pneumonia,pleural effusion,followed by sepsis syndrome.Blood cultures and culture of the joint aspirate yielded pure growth of Burkholderia psettdomallei(B.pesudomallei),sensitive to carbapenem,co-trimoxazole and resistant to ceftazidime.The patient was successfully treated with imipenem- cilastin.He was discharged on co-trimoxazole to complete the 24 weeks course and follow-up has continued to date.The patient continues to remain asymptomatic.The case re-emphasizes the need to monitor the trend of B.pseudomallei in India,particularly the development of ceftazidime resistance,which incidentally is the drug of choice.
文摘Objective: to compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of cefoperazone sulbactam and ceftazidime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and to provide a theoretical basis for the clinical drug treatment of diseases. Methods: a retrospective study of 140 patients with complicated urinary tract infections admitted to the urology department of Hu’nan Provincial Peoples Hospital from January 2017 to December 2017: cefoperazone sulbactam group (71 patients, 1.0g / bid, 2 g/d) and (69 patients, 1.5g / bid, 3g / d), and PCT, CRP. Results: more cefoperazone subactam (70 / 71,94.29%) than ceftazidime (60 / 69,84.29%) were significant (P < 0.05). A total of 19 strains were detected in the cefoperazone and sulbactam group and 33 strains in the ceftazidime group, with a significant difference in the degree of bacterial clearance in the ceftazidim group (P < 0.05). Between groups, found that the bacterial clearance rate was higher in cefoperazone sulbactam group (84.21%) than in ceftazidime group (72.73%). Plasma PCT, CRP content were decreased compared to before treatment, and the difference between the groups was significant (P < 0.05). After treatment comparison, plasma PCT(0.21±0.15ng/m L) and CRP (0.68±5.24mg/L) content in cefoperazone sulbactam group were lower than those in ceftazidime group (0.87±0.32ng/m L), (20.49±6.81mg/L), and both differences were significant (P < 0.05). The cefoperazone sulbactam group (2.73 ± 0.95 days) and the treatment cost (1078.90 ± 375.44 yuan) were less than the ceftazidime group (6.97 ± 2.25 days) and (1141.69 ± 368.55 yuan), all statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions between cefoperazone and sulbactam (1.40%) and ceftazidime (2.89%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05), and no serious adverse drug reactions occurred. Conclusion: cefoperazone subactam has better efficacy than ceftazidime for complicated urinary tract infections, mainly in bacterial clearance, course control and treatment cost. Patients with cefoperazone subactatan treatment also have better inflammatory status control.
文摘A surveillance study was undertaken to identify prominent β-lactamase encoding genes in 131 carbapenem non-susceptible gram-negative clinical isolates at a New York City community hospital. KPC carbapenemases were detected in 89% of Enterobacteriaceae as well as additional TEM, SHV, and CTX-M class A enzymes. OXA-23 and OXA-24 were the prevalent class D carbapenemases identified in Acinetobacter species. One OXA-23 in M. morganii and one OXA-48 in K. pneumoniae were also identified. Among class C β-lactamases CMY, ACT/MIR, DHA, and FOX were detected. The in vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam by E-test methodology was tested with minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of ≤3 μg/ml for 97.8% of all Enterobacteriaceae, MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of 16/>256 μg/ml for carbapenem non-susceptible Acinetobacter, and 3/6 μg/ml for carbapenem non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Periodic surveillance of isolates to characterize current and emerging β-lactamase genotypes present in local isolates may help identify outbreak situations, provide assistance to infection control and antibiotic stewardship programs, and potentially improve patient outcomes.
