Pharmacodynamic activity of ertapenem versus genotypically characterized extended-spectrum -lactamase (ESBL)-, KPC- or NDM-producing Escherichia coli with reduced susceptibility or resistance to ertapenem using an in vitro model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the pharmacodynamic activity of ertapenem against Escherichia coli with reduced susceptibility (MIC 0.12-0.5 mg/L), intermediate resistance (MIC 1.0 mg/L) or resistance (MIC ≥ 2 mg/L) to ertapenem using an in vitro model. METHODS: Fifteen extended-spectrum β-lactamase- or carbapenemase-producing E. coli were studied. The in vitro pharmacodynamic model was inoculated with ∼1 × 10(6) cfu/mL and ertapenem was dosed once daily at 0 and 24 h to simulate free (ƒ) Cmax and t½ obtained after either 1 g or 2 g intravenous once-daily doses in healthy volunteers (1 g: ƒCmax 15 mg/L, t½ 4 h). Sampling was performed over 48 h to assess viable growth and resistance selection. RESULTS: An ertapenem T> MIC ≥ 75.4% (ertapenem MICs ≤ 0.5 mg/L) resulted in bactericidal (≥ 3 log10 killing) activity against all strains. An ertapenem T>MIC of 61% was bactericidal at 6 and 12 h but regrowth at 24 and 48 h occurred in some strains. An ertapenem T>MIC of 13%-43% was bactericidal at 6 h but regrowth (with MIC increases) occurred. No inhibition of an NDM strain with an ertapenem T>MIC of 0% (ertapenem MIC 256 mg/L) occurred at any timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily dosing with 1 g of ertapenem was bactericidal against ESBL-producing E. coli with ertapenem MICs ≤ 0.5 mg/L and was bactericidal against strains with MICs of 1.0 mg/L, with regrowth in some strains. Ertapenem MICs of 2-8 mg/L resulted in early bactericidal activity followed by regrowth. Once-daily dosing with 2 g of ertapenem was bactericidal against strains with an MIC of 1.0 mg/L, but regrowth occurred in some strains with an ertapenem MIC of 2 mg/L.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".