Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 10 ( 2017 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of doripenem, meropenem, and imipenem against respiratory isolates of Pseudomonas aeroginosa in a tertiary care hospital of north India

Arti Negi, Mridu Anand, Avinash Singh, Awadhesh Kumar, Kashi Prasad

Keywords : Doripenem, imipenem, meropenem, minimum inhibitory concentration, Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Citation Information : Negi A, Anand M, Singh A, Kumar A, Prasad K. Assessment of doripenem, meropenem, and imipenem against respiratory isolates of Pseudomonas aeroginosa in a tertiary care hospital of north India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2017; 21 (10):703-706.

DOI: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_341_17

License: CC BY-ND 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Objective: Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the leading pathogen causing healthcare-associated infections, particularly in immunocompromised and critically ill patients. The development of carbapenem resistance in P. aeruginosa infections is worrisome. Data specifically comparing the susceptibility of the three available carbapenems are lacking in the Indian subcontinent. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of the three commonly used carbapenems– imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem against, 435 P. aeruginosa isolates obtained from respiratory samples and compared their susceptibility patterns to determine the best possible carbapenem among those available that may be used in combination regimes. Results: Overall, 222 (51.0%) of isolates were susceptible to doripenem followed by imipenem 206 (47.3%) and meropenem 195 (44.8%), respectively. Two hundred and sixty-two (60.23%) strains were intermediate or resistant to at least one carbapenem. The MIC90of all three carbapenems was >32 μg/ml while the MIC50of meropenem was 16 μg/ml which was higher than MIC50of both imipenem (4 μg/ml) and doripenem (2 μg/ml). Conclusion: Our study revealed that doripenem exerted better in vitro activity against the tested bacteria compared to imipenem and meropenem, but the difference was not statistically significant.

PDF Share
  1. Hu YF, Liu CP, Wang NY, Shih SC.In vitro antibacterial activity of rifampicin in combination with imipenem, meropenem and doripenem against multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:444.
  2. Castanheira M, Deshpande LM, Costello A, Davies TA, Jones RN. Epidemiology and carbapenem resistance mechanisms of carbapenem-non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected during 2009-11 in 14 European and Mediterranean countries. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014;69:1804-14.
  3. Wolter DJ, Lister PD. Mechanisms of ß-lactam resistance among Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Curr Pharm Des 2013;19:209-22.
  4. Luyt CE, Aubry A, Lu Q, Micaelo M, Bréchot N, Brossier F, et al. Imipenem, meropenem, or doripenem to treat patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58:1372-80.
  5. Bretonnière C, Jacqueline C, Caillon J, Guitton C, Le Mabecque V, Miégeville AF, et al. Efficacy of doripenem in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa experimental pneumonia versus imipenem and meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:2423-7.
  6. Walsh F. Doripenem: A new carbapenem antibiotic a review of comparative antimicrobial and bactericidal activities. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2007;3:789-94.
  7. Collee JG, Fraser AG, Marmion BP, Simmons A. Tests for the identification of bacteria. In: Collee JG, Miles RS, Watt B, editors. Mackey and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology. 14th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2006. p. 131-49.
  8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Document; Twenty-Fifth International Supplement M100-S26. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2016.
  9. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Ver. 6.0, 2016. EUCAST; 2016.
  10. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:268-81.
  11. Bretonnière C, Maitte A, Caillon J, Potel G, Boutoille D, Jacqueline C, et al. MIC score, a new tool to compare bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics application to the comparison of susceptibility to different penems of clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 2016;69:806-810.
  12. Kakeya H, Yamada K, Nakaie K, Takizawa E, Okada Y, Fujita A, et al. Acomparison of susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates to carbapenem antibiotics in our hospital. Jpn J Antibiot 2014;67:241-8.
  13. Goyal K, Gautam V, Ray P. Doripenem vs. meropenem against Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter. Indian J Med Microbiol 2012;30:350-1.
  14. Hagihara M, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Predicting doripenem susceptibility based on meropenem and imipenem interpretation for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;72:258-62.
  15. Hojabri Z, Ahangarzadeh Rezaee M, Nahaei MR, Soroush MH, Ghojazadeh M, Pirzadeh T, et al. Comparison ofin vitro activity of doripenem versus old carbapenems against Pseudomonas aeruginos clinical isolates from both CF and burn patients. Adv Pharm Bull 2013;3:121-5.
  16. Li Y, Lv Y, Xue F, Zheng B, Liu J, Zhang J. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance of doripenem in China. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 2015;68:496-500.
  17. Pillar CM, Torres MK, Brown NP, Shah D, Sahm DF.In vitro activity of doripenem, a carbapenem for the treatment of challenging infections caused by gram-negative bacteria, against recent clinical isolates from the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:4388-99.
  18. Pragasam AK, Raghanivedha M, Anandan S, Veeraraghavan B. Characterization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with discrepant carbapenem susceptibility profile. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2016;15:12.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.