Comparison of antibacterial activity in vitro of two pharmaceutical products of meropenem injection
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2397.2018.02.007
- VernacularTitle:两种注射用美罗培南对革兰阴性菌体外抗菌活性比较研究
- Author:
Zhengcai XU
1
;
Jingjing QUAN
;
Keren SHI
;
Yanfei WANG
;
Haiping WANG
;
Yan CHEN
;
Yunsong YU
Author Information
1. 324000,浙江省衢州市人民医院检验科
- Keywords:
Enterobacteriaceae;
Acinetobacter baumannii;
Pseudomonas aeruginosa;
Meropenem;
Haizhengmeite;
Mepem;
Microbial sensitivity tests
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases
2018;11(2):108-111
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the antibacterial activity in vitro of Haizhengmeite and Mepem. Methods Four hundreds and eighteen bacteria isolated were collected from clinical settings in different area,including 104 strains of Escherichia coli(52 strains of ESBLs +and 52 strains of ESBLs -), 104 strains of Klebsiella pneumonia(52 strains of ESBLs +and 52 strains of ESBLs -),56 strains of Proteus spp. (28 strains of ESBLs +and 28 strains of ESBLs -), 52 strains of other Enterobacteriaceae, 51 strains of Acinetobacter baumanii and 51 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Two pharmaceutical products of meropenem injection were Mepem from Japan Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd and Haizhengmeite from Zhejiang Haizheng Pfizer pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd in China, respectively.Minimum inhibitory concentrations(MIC)of two products of meropenem were determined by broth microdilution method and agar dilution method according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute(CLSI,2016).Results The sensitive rates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus spp.to Haizhengmeite and Mepem were >85%,while the rates of the sensitivity to Acinetobacter baumanii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were lower,with the rates of 33.3%,31.4% and 58.8%,52.9%,respectively.Conclusions Haizhengmeite and Mepem both show good antibacterial activity against Enterobacteriaceae, but lower activity against Acinetobacter baumanii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Both products are stable to ESBLs,and no significant difference is observed between the two products in antibacterial activity in vitro.
