Glyphosate poisoning - a case report.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicide in the world. The toxicity is supposed to be due to uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and the surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA)- mediated cardiotoxicity. Clinical features of this herbicide poisoning are varied, ranging from asymptomatic to even death. There is no antidote and aggressive supportive therapy is the mainstay of treatment for glyphosate poisoning. We present a 69-year-old female patient with suicidal consumption of around 500 ml of Glycel®. Initially, gastric lavage was done and intravenous fluids were given. Within two hours of presentation, the patient developed respiratory distress needing intubation, hypotension needing vasopressor support, and severe lactic acidosis. She also developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, hypokalemia, hypernatremia, and aspiration pneumonia. Our patient was critically ill with multiple poor prognostic factors, but with timely aggressive supportive management, the patient gradually recovered.

The effect of cefoperazone sulbactam and piperacillin tazobactam on mortality in Gram-negative nosocomial infections.

Cefoperazone-sulbactam (CS) and piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) are used in the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial infections (NIs). We aimed to compare the effects of these two antibiotics on mortality and treatment success. Patients treated with CS or TZP empirically for at least three days with suspicion of NI were included in this retrospective study. In total, 308 (154 patients in both treatment arms) patients were analyzed. Treatment success rate in CS and TZP group respectively (50% vs 51.2%, p = 0.18), 28-day mortality rate (46.1% vs 42.8%, p = 0.56) and antibiotic-related side effects (50.6% vs 46.1%, p = 0.42) were similar except prolonged prothrombin time (19.4% vs 6.4%; p = 0.001). According to this study results, CS and TZP have equal effectivity and safety for the empirical treatment of Gram-negative NIs. CS may be an appropriate alternative to TZP for antibiotic cycling or mixing strategy to reduce antibiotic resistance.

Comparison of the treatment efficacy between tigecycline plus high-dose cefoperazone-sulbactam and tigecycline monotherapy against ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the effect of high-dose cefoperazone-sulbactam combined with tigecycline against ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii(XDR-AB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 patients with VAP due to XDR-AB infection were randomized into two groups: the TIG group (received tigecycline injection) and the TIG+CFS group (received tigecycline and cefoperazone-sulbactam (1 : 1) injection). Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was used for genotyping the isolated XDR-AB. The microdilution method was used to test the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of cefoperazone-sulbactam or tigecycline in vitro and the combined effect was determined with the checkerboard method. RESULTS: The total combined effectiveness rate (including all patients who demonstrated an improved condition) was significantly higher in the TIG+CFS group (85.7%) compared with the TIG group (47.6%) (p = 0.010). No significant differences were noted with regard to the adverse reactions between the two groups. The 42 isolated XDR-AB strains were classified into four types. The MIC of the two drugs in combination was significantly lower than that of each drug used alone (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: High dose of cefoperazone-sulbactam can improve the antimicrobial activity of tigecycline against XDR-AB.
.

[Use of systemic antibacterial agents at a university emergency clinic in Bucharest, in the year 2008]. / Observatii privind utilizarea agentilor antibacterieni sistemici într-o clinica universitara de urgenta din municipiul Bucuresti în anul 2008.

OBJECTIVE: use of ATC/DDD (Anatomic Therapeutic Classification/Daily Defined Dose) methodology promoted by World Health Organization for calculating and analysis of systemic antimicrobial agents' annual rates of usage among the adult patients hospitalized in Bucharest municipality. METHODS: descriptive retrospective study conducted in the main university clinic for medical emergencies from Bucharest municipality. Consumption of systemic antimicrobial agents, taken from the clinic pharmacy's records, regarding the 2008 year, has been transformed in defined daily doses and aggregated by ATC subgroups. The number of patient days from 2008 was obtained from clinic administrative service. Antimicrobial agents' usage was expressed as consumption density rate by dividing the defined daily doses counts to the correspondent number of patient days. Analysis of consumption rates has been performed both by whole clinic and also stratified by departments of medical specialties: surgery, internal medicine and intensive care. RESULTS: In the year 2008, the patients carried in the clinic totalized 255,600 days of hospitalization; during the respective time in clinic there were used 36 of individual antibacterial agents that made up 184,857 defined daily doses. At the level of entire clinic the consumption rate of all systemic antimicrobial agents was 72.6 defined daily doses per 100 de patient days (DDD/PD); by medical specialties the indicator's values were 61.2 DDD/100 PD in the department of internal medicine specialties, 62.8 DDD/100 PD in the departament of surgical specialties and 126 DDD/100 PD in the medical/surgical intensive care unit, respectively. Almost 70% of the defined daily doses' total included five antimicrobial agents: co-amoxiclav, cefuroxim, cefoperazone + sulbactam, ciprofloxacine si metronidazol. By ATC subgroups, the top three consumption rates included penicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitors, 2nd generation cefalosporines and fluorochinolons, respectively. Comparing the own rate with the distributions of NNIS (National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance) system form USA, demonstrated that the usage was into the expected limits for the majority of antimicrobial agents groups considered, excess usage being detected only in the case of 2nd generation cefalosporins (in non-intensive care sector) and in the case of carbapenems in the intensive care units, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the whole clinic level, the study detected a rate of systemic antimicrobial agents' usage similar with the correspondent values recently reported even from the South European states or form USA. Excessive usage (against the NNIS standard) might be mitigated through augmentation of the compliance with guidelines for prudent utilization of antimicrobial agents.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous moxifloxacin versus cefoperazone with azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia.

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intravenous moxifloxacin with those of a commonly used empirical antibiotic regimen, cefoperazone and azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients requiring initial parenteral therapy, 40 patients with CAP were divided into two groups, a moxifloxacin group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 20), which were treated for 7 to 14 days. The patients in the moxifloxacin group were intravenously given 400 mg of moxifloxacin (Avelox) once a day. Patients in the control group were administered 2.0 g of cefoperazone twice a day and azithromycin 0.5 g once a day. Clinical, bacteriological, and laboratory examinations were performed before the treatment, and at the end of the treatment. Our results showed that there was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy rate between two treatment groups at end of therapy (90% for moxifloxacin, 95% for cefoperazone plus azithromycin) (P > 0.05). The bacteriologic eradication rate at the end of treatment was 90% in the moxifloxacin group and 80% in the cefoperazone-plus-azithromycin group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). In addition, both drugs were well-tolerated in this trial, with the number of drug-related adverse events being comparable. It is concluded that moxifloxacin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for CAP and was equivalent to the commonly used empirical treatment of cefoperazone plus azithromycin. Moxifloxacin is likely to offer clinicians an alternative for reliable empirical CAP treatment in the face of increasing antibiotic resistance.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of major pathogens of orofacial odontogenic infections to 11 beta-lactam antibiotics.

In this study, we evaluated the current effectiveness of 11 beta-lactam antibiotics for treatment of orofacial odontogenic infections by determining the antimicrobial susceptibility of the major pathogens. The antimicrobial susceptibilities of viridans streptococci (n = 47), Peptostreptococcus (n = 67), Porphyromonas (n = 18), Fusobacterium (n = 57), black-pigmented Prevotella (n = 59) and non-pigmented Prevotella (n = 47) isolated from pus specimens of 93 orofacial odontogenic infections to penicillin G, cefmetazole, flomoxef, cefoperazone, cefoperazone/sulbactam, ceftazidime, cefpirome, cefepime, cefoselis, imipenem and faropenem were determined using the agar dilution method. Penicillin G, most cephalosporins, imipenem and faropenem worked well against viridans streptococci, Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas and Fusobacterium. Penicillin G and most cephalosporins, including fourth-generation agents, were not effective against beta-lactamase-positive Prevotella, though they were effective against beta-lactamase-negative strains. Cefmetazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and faropenem expressed powerful antimicrobial activity against beta-lactamase-positive Prevotella. In conclusion, penicillins have the potential to be first-line agents in the treatment of orofacial odontogenic infections. Most of the other beta-lactam antibiotics, including fourth-generation cephalosporins, were not found to have greater effectiveness than penicillins. In contrast, cefmetazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and faropenem were found to have greater effectiveness than penicillins.

[Antibacterial activity in vitro and clinical use of sulperazon].

In order to approach antibacterial activity in vitro and the efficacy of Sulperazon (SPZ) (sulbactam/cefoperazone), the sensitivity tests of 1,372 strains from clinical isolated bacteria to 17 antibiotics including SPZ were determined. The Gram negative bacteria occupied 1,035 strains (75.4) and Gram positive 337 strains (24.6%). 50 episodes of infections of major respiratory system in 43 patients were treated by SPZ. 58% of bacterial infections occurred in hematologic malignant diseases and solid tumors patients. 24% of 50 episodes were in neutropenia status. The positive rate of bac-terial cluteres was 56% in the series. 1.0-2.0 g SPZ was administered twice a day for 5-18 days, 56% of them was more than seven days (28/50 episodes). The results of susceptibility tests showed that sensitive rates were most high and the nesistant rates of SPZ were lower than these of to common Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria in third-generation cephalosporins. The efficacy rate of SPZ in clinical use was 84% (42/50 episodes), bacterial clearance rate was 89% (25/28 episodes). Three cases (6%) had temporary elevation and other adverse reactions of SPZ were not seen.

Comparison of cefoperazone plus sulbactam with clindamycin plus gentamicin as treatment for intra-abdominal infections.

This study compared the safety and efficacy of cefoperazone plus sulbactam with that of clindamycin plus gentamicin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. Seventy-six patients were included in the analysis of an open, randomized, comparative, single-site trial. Forty-seven patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam, and 29 patients received clindamycin plus gentamicin. Thirty-three patients (70%) who received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 15 patients (52%) who received clindamycin plus gentamicin were cured of infection, did not suffer a relapse within one month after the end of treatment, and did not receive any other antibiotics during the follow-up period (P = 0.17). In patients treated with cefoperazone-sulbactam there were four cases of superinfection, one patient had a prolonged prothrombin time, six patients had a poor response, two patients received antibiotics during follow-up, and one patient died during follow-up because of cancer. Treatment with clindamycin plus gentamicin was associated with five cases of superinfection, four patients had a poor response, four patients had a drug reaction, and one patient required antibiotics in the follow-up period. Serum levels of cefoperazone-sulbactam measured at one and three hours after dosing were consistent with earlier findings in normal volunteers. Two hundred and one pathogens were isolated, and 17 of 122 aerobic isolates (14%) were resistant to cefoperazone-sulbactam, and 17 of 122 (14%) were resistant to both clindamycin and gentamicin. Eleven of 79 (14%) anaerobic isolates were resistant to cefoperazone, none was resistant to cefoperazone-sulbactam, and 10 of 79 (13%) were resistant to clindamycin. The results of this study show that cefoperazone-sulbactam is an effective and safe alternative to clindamycin plus gentamicin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

Empiric monotherapy versus combination therapy of nosocomial pneumonia in trauma patients.

Combination therapy for nosocomial pneumonia with a beta-lactam and aminoglycoside is widely accepted because of synergy and reduction of resistant bacteria. This prospective study of 109 trauma patients (94 blunt, 15 penetrating) with nosocomial pneumonia was performed in consecutive phases. In phase 1, patients were randomized to an anti-pseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin--cefoperazone or ceftazidime. Gentamicin was added to each regimen in phase 2. The mean age of the patients was 37 years, the mean ISS was 31, and there were no differences among the four treatment groups relative to associated injuries. Patients receiving monotherapy had a 56% cure rate compared with 31% for combination therapy (p < 0.04). Persistence rates were similar in these two groups (15% and 20%), but superinfection was significantly higher in the combination group (49% vs. 28%; p < 0.04). The predominant superinfecting organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Nine patients died (5% monotherapy, 10% combination), and eight had a superinfection. We conclude that monotherapy had a higher cure rate than combination therapy for empiric therapy of pneumonia in our trauma patients. Combination therapy failed because of superinfection (primarily MRSA). Emergence of MRSA may be from host overgrowth or plasmid-mediated induction of resistance, possibly caused by gentamicin.

Vitamin K supplementation during prophylactic use of cefoperazone in urologic surgery.

Cefoperazone, an antibiotic commonly used for prophylaxis of infection, has been associated with hypoprothrombinemia and bleeding. To reduce the risk of bleeding, co-administration of vitamin K has been advised. We reassessed the need for vitamin K use in a retrospective analysis of 50 patients undergoing urologic procedures and who had received cefoperazone for three days to prevent infection. Eleven of 50 patients were given vitamin K because of liver or renal disease. Prothrombin time was not elevated in any of the 50 patients analyzed. We conclude that routine use of vitamin K with cefoperazone for perioperative prophylaxis of infection may be unwarranted in patients without identified risk for bleeding.

[Effect of TFX (Polfa) on the course of experimental bacterial infections in mice treated with ciprofloxacin, amikacin and cefoperazone]. / Wplyw preparatu TFX (Polfa) na przebieg doswiadczalnych zakazen bakteryjnych u myszy leczonych cyprofloksacyna, amikacyna i cefoperazonem.

The effect of TFX-Polfa administered alone or with three antibiotics on the survival time in mice infected with E.coli and S.aureus was estimated. TFX has been administered 48, 24, 2 hours before and 24, 48 and 72 hours after infection, in doses of 10 mg/kg of body weight. Ciprobay has been administered 2 hours after infection, and every 24 hours during the experiment in dose of 15, 7.5 and 3.75 mg/kg of body weight. Amikin has been used in doses of 7.5, 3.75 and 1.87 mg/kg of body weight, Cefobid in doses of 30, 15 and 7.5 mg/kg of body weight. The antibiotics have been administered 2 hours after infection and every 12 hours to the end of experiment. Animals have been observed 10 days after infection. The positive effect of TFX on the survival time in mice infected with E.coli has been observed, but this preparation has given a little effect on the tested parameter in mice infected with S.aureus. Best antibacterial effect of Ciprobay and Amikin has been observed after administration of clinical doses. However, simultaneous therapy with TFX and tested antibiotics resulted in various (positive and negative) effects on the survival time during 10 days of observation.

Comparative efficacy of cefoperazone, cefoperazone plus sulbactam, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, metronidazole, and penicillin G against anaerobic bacteria in an animal model.

Treatment efficacy of various antimicrobial regimens against anaerobes was studied in semipermeable chambers simulating a closed-space, locally neutropenic infection site in rabbits. Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides melaninogenicus, Clostridium perfringens, and Peptostreptococcus anaerobius were inoculated (at a mean of 5.3 log10 CFU/ml in prereduced pooled rabbit serum) into the chambers (one isolate per chamber) in triplicate. Antimicrobial therapy consisted of cefoperazone, cefoperazone plus sulbactam, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, metronidazole (against the gram-negative anaerobes), or penicillin G (against the gram-positive anaerobes), beginning 4 hours after organism inoculation and continuing every 6 hours for 16 doses. With the use of anaerobic techniques for specimen acquisition, transport, and culture, quantitative bacterial findings were measured at the start of therapy and at various time points thereafter. Antibiotic concentrations were measured in blood and chamber fluid by liquid chromatography or bioassay methods. At the end of the study in vivo organisms were reduced by at least 3 log10 CFU/ml from drug-free growth control chambers by all the antimicrobial regimens tested except for cefoperazone against B. fragilis and ciprofloxacin against the three isolates tested. The addition of sulbactam to cefoperazone inhibited B. fragilis beta-lactamase activity and eradicated B. fragilis in vivo. In vivo results with this model confirmed in vitro susceptibilities of all tested antimicrobials except ciprofloxacin and should provide useful indications of the potential clinical efficacy of other new agents against anaerobes.

Comparison of cefoperazone and mezlocillin with imipenem as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

Seventy-eight patients with cancer experienced 88 episodes of fever while neutropenic and were randomly assigned to receive empiric antibiotic therapy with cefoperazone 2 g intravenously every 12 hours and mezlocillin 4 g intravenously every six hours or imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg intravenously over 30 to 60 minutes every six hours. Within 96 hours of starting antibiotic treatment, 24 patients (57 percent) treated with cefoperazone and mezlocillin and 34 patients (74 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin became afebrile. One half of the patients in each arm required changes in the antibiotic regimen because of side effects, persistent fever with a site suspicious for infection, resistant organisms, or breakthrough bacteremias. Forty patients (95 percent) receiving cefoperazone and mezlocillin and 43 patients (93 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin recovered from the neutropenic episode. Two patients in each regimen group died of their underlying disease. One patient in the imipenem/cilastatin arm died of Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis. Although the two regimens are comparable in efficacy, the incidence of side effects favored the cefoperazone and mezlocillin group. No seizures or bleeding were seen in either arm; however, 19 patients (41 percent) receiving imipenem/cilastatin required pretreatment antiemetic drugs for nausea.

Cefoperazone plus mezlocillin for empiric therapy of febrile cancer patients.

Two dosing regimens of cefoperazone plus mezlocillin were compared in a prospective, randomized trial for therapy of febrile cancer patients. The two regimens were 5 g mezlocillin plus 2 g cefoperazone intravenously every four hours (higher dose) or 3 g mezlocillin plus 1 g cefoperazone intravenously every four hours (lower dose). Although the overall response rate was higher with the higher dose regimen (78 percent versus 66 percent, p = 0.04), the two regimens were comparable in patients with documented infections (72 percent versus 68 percent). Likewise, the two regimens were equally effective against those infections in which the pathogen could be determined (82 percent versus 82 percent). Serum bactericidal titers of at least 1:32 against a known pathogen were associated with a higher response rate than were titers of less than 1:32, but the higher dose regimen did not result in higher serum bactericidal titers. Hypoprothrombinemia was a side effect, especially with the higher dose regimen, before prophylactic vitamin K was routinely administered to patients. Since there were no major benefits with the use of the higher dose regimen of mezlocillin plus cefoperazone, the lower dose regimen is more appropriate for routine usage.

Cefoperazone plus piperacillin versus mezlocillin plus tobramycin as empiric therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.

The double beta-lactam combination of cefoperazone plus piperacillin was compared with an aminoglycoside-containing regimen of mezlocillin plus tobramycin in a prospective, randomized trial of empiric therapy for febrile neutropenic patients (neutrophils no more than 1,000/mm3). Thirty febrile episodes were treated with cefoperazone plus piperacillin and mezlocillin plus tobramycin, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to age, sex, pretherapy neutrophil count, and mean duration of therapy. The majority of patients had neutrophil counts of no more than 200/mm3 at the initiation of therapy. Only microbiologically and clinically documented infections were evaluated for efficacy. The cefoperazone plus piperacillin regimen appeared to have a comparable response rate with the mezlocillin plus tobramycin regimen (20 of 24 patients [83 percent] versus 16 of 23 patients [70 percent]). Gram-positive micro-organisms were seen predominantly in this study, with the cefoperazone plus piperacillin regimen achieving a bacteriologic response in 84 percent, as opposed to 60 percent for those organisms treated with the mezlocillin plus tobramycin regimen. Neither regimen was totally effective against coagulase-negative staphylococci. Eight superinfections occurred in the cefoperazone plus piperacillin arm, whereas 11 superinfections occurred in the mezlocillin plus tobramycin arm. Although fungal superinfections were most common, the number of gram-positive superinfections in the mezlocillin plus tobramycin arm exceeded those seen in the cefoperazone plus piperacillin arm. The incidence of antibiotic-related side effects was similar in the two groups. Hypokalemia was most frequently seen. Both skin rashes and nephrotoxicity were more common with mezlocillin plus tobramycin. Cefoperazone plus piperacillin was found to be effective empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. This double beta-lactam combination may be particularly useful for patients who have or are at high risk for the development of renal insufficiency.

Evaluation of cefoperazone in the treatment of bacterial infections in patients with hematological diseases.

This study was conducted as a multicenter trial in 12 institutions in the Kyushu region of Japan. The clinical effects of cefoperazone were evaluated in 101 patients with 112 infections complicated by hematological disease. In about half of the patients, the baseline neutrophil count was below 1,000/mm3. Results were excellent in 23 of 101 cases and good in 48, with an efficacy rate of 70.3%. Cefoperazone alone or in combination with other antibiotics was effective in 60.7% of patients who had not responded to previous antibiotic therapy. No serious side effects attributable to cefoperazone were noted. The results indicate that cefoperazone is a useful antibiotic for the treatment of severe infections in patients with hematological diseases.