The changing pattern in fungal infections has driven the need to expand the targets of antifungal activity. The echinocandins are the newest addition to the arsenal against fungal infections. Three echinocandins have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration: caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin. These agents have a broad spectrum of activity and are similar to each other with respect to in vitro activity against Candida sp, with micafungin and anidulafungin having similar minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) that are generally lower than the MIC of capsofungin. The MICs of the echinocandins are highest against Candida parapsilosis; however, whether this will affect clinical outcomes is unknown. Several case reports have identified clinical failure due to elevated MICs with caspofungin or micafungin against Candida albicans, Candida krusei, and C. parapsilosis. Resistance to the echinocandin class was present in some but not all of the isolates. Empiric therapy with one of the echinocandins for candidemia or invasive candidiasis in patients with neutropenia and those without neutropenia appears to be appropriate when one factors in mortality rate, the increasing frequency of non-albicans Candida infections, and the broad spectrum, safety, and fungicidal effect of the echinocandins. After speciation of the organism, continued therapy with an echinocandin can and should be reevaluated. The echinocandins demonstrate similar in vitro and in vivo activity against Aspergillus sp, but only caspofungin is approved for treatment in patients who are intolerant of or refractory to other therapies. Voriconazole and amphotericin B have demonstrated synergy with the echinocandins. The clinical response to combination therapy has been variable; however, the mortality rate appears to be lower with combination therapy than monotherapy. Large controlled trials are needed to determine the role of combination therapy for invasive aspergillosis. Micafungin and anidulafungin generally have a lower frequency of adverse reactions compared with caspofungin. Phlebitis (3.5-25% of patients) and elevated liver enzyme levels (1-15%) occur more often with caspofungin compared with micafungin and anidulafungin (< 8%). Overall, the three echinocandins are relatively safe and effective agents for the treatment of Candida infections.

Pharmacodynamic dosing using extended-infusion piperacillintazobactam demonstrated favorable outcomes, including mortality, when compared with nonextended-infusion, similar-spectrum [H9252]-lactams in the treatment of patients with documented gram-negative infections. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to further corroborate these findings.

The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion and intermittent bolus over a 4-day period were compared. We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover study of 12 critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections. The patients were randomized to receive ceftazidime either as a 2-g intravenous (i.v.) loading dose followed by a 3-g continuous infusion (CI) over 24 h or as 2 g i.v. every 8 h (q8h), each for 2 days. After 2 days, the patients were crossed over and received the opposite regimen. Each regimen also included tobramycin (4 to 7 mg/kg of body weight, given i.v. q24h). Eighteen blood samples were drawn on study days 2 and 4 to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime and its pharmacodynamics against a clinical isolate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (R288). The patient demographics (means +/- standard deviations) were as follows: age, 57 +/- 12 years; sex, nine males and three females; APACHE II score, 15 +/- 3; diagnosis, 9 of 12 patients with pneumonia. The mean pharmacokinetic parameters for ceftazidime given as an intermittent bolus (IB) (means +/- standard deviations) were as follows: maximum concentration of drug in serum, 124.4 +/- 52.6 micrograms/ml; minimum concentration in serum, 25.0 +/- 17.5 micrograms/ml; elimination constant, 0.268 +/- 0.205 h-1; half-life, 3.48 +/- 1.61 h; and volume of distribution, 18.9 +/- 9.0 liters. The steady-state ceftazidime concentration for CI was 29.7 +/- 17.4 micrograms/ml, which was not significantly different from the targeted concentrations. The range of mean steady-state ceftazidime concentrations for the 12 patients was 10.6 to 62.4 micrograms/ml. Tobramycin peak concentrations ranged between 7 and 20 micrograms/ml. As expected, the area under the curve for the 2-g q8h regimen was larger than that for CI (P = 0.003). For IB and CI, the times that the serum drug concentration was greater than the MIC were 92 and 100%, respectively, for each regimen against the P. aeruginosa clinical isolate. The 24-h bactericidal titers in serum, at which the tobramycin concentrations were < 1.0 microgram/ml in all patients, were the same for CI and IB (1:4). In the presence of tobramycin, the area under the bactericidal titer-time curve (AUBC) was significantly greater for IB than CI (P = 0.001). After tobramycin was removed from the serum, no significant difference existed between the AUBCs for CI and IB. We conclude that CI of ceftazidime utilizing one-half the IB daily dose was equivalent to the IB treatment as judged by pharmacodynamic analysis of critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections. No evaluation comparing the clinical efficacies of these two dosage regimens was performed.

The activities of the oxazolidinone antibacterial agents eperezolid (PNU-100592) and linezolid (PNU-100766) were compared with that of vancomycin against clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus (n = 200), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 100), and vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant Enterococcus faecalisand Enterococcus faecium (n = 50). Eperezolid and linezolid demonstrated good in vitro inhibitory activity, regardless of methicillin susceptibility for staphylococci (MIC at which 90% of the isolates are inhibited [MIC90] range, 1 to 4 μg/ml) or vancomycin susceptibility for enterococci (MIC90 range, 1 to 4 μg/ml). In time-kill studies, eperezolid and linezolid were bacteriostatic in action. A postantibiotic effect of 0.8 ± 0.5 h was demonstrated for both eperezolid and linezolid against S. aureus, S. epidermidis, E. faecalis, and E. faecium.