Pseudomonas (MICs)

Excellent antipseudomonal activity seen in large in vitro surveillance study*


During 2005-2006, 875 isolates of P aeruginosa were collected from
9 census regions across the US and centrally tested against DORIBAX®
and several other antibacterials, including imipenem and meropenem.1


MIC distribution of DORIBAX®, imipenem, and meropenem vs P aeruginosa1

* In vitro activity does not necessarily correlate with clinical results.


DORIBAX® demonstrated low MICs vs P aeruginosa*


In vitro activity against P aeruginosa1

* In vitro activity does not necessarily correlate with clinical results.


Isolates resistant to other carbapenems may be susceptible to DORIBAX®*

  • Although cross-resistance may occur, some isolates resistant to other carbapenems may be susceptible to DORIBAX®
  • Data from another large surveillance study showed that 32% (48/151) of P aeruginosa isolates nonsusceptible to imipenem (MIC >4 µg/mL) were still susceptible to DORIBAX® (MIC <2 µg/mL) †1
  • † In 2007, gram-negative isolates, including P aeruginosa isolates (n=866) were collected
    from 45 hospitals across the US and tested against DORIBAX® and several other antibacterials.1

Low emergence of P aeruginosa resistance in 2 separate in vitro studies*

  • A 2004 study by Mushtaq, Ge, and Livermore monitored the resistance-selection potential of 3 different carbapenems following exposure to mutant P aeruginosa isolates2
    • The authors found that, compared to other carbapenems, DORIBAX® was less likely to select for resistant mutants in vitro

Propensity to select for resistant isolates at 8x MIC2

Adapted from Mushtaq et al. 2004.
‡ Based on 8 strains.

  • A 2006 study by Sakyo, et al, examined the in vitro activity of 144 P aeruginosa strains subjected to various concentrations of carbapenems3
    • The authors concluded that DORIBAX® was associated with a lower emergence of in vitro resistance than either imipenem or meropenem3

* In vitro activity does not necessarily correlate with clinical results.