Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 29, 2026

One-day Workflow Scheme for Bacterial Pathogen Detection and Antimicrobial Resistance Testing from Blood Cultures
Published on: July 9, 2012
Resistance of Uropathogens to Tebipenem: An Analysis of the Evidence from In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Matthew E Falagas1,2,3, Christina-Maria Asimotou1, Dimitrios S Kontogiannis1
1Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences, 15123 Athens, Greece.
Abstract:
Tebipenem is a new carbapenem antibiotic that binds to penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Given the need for effective antibiotics against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, this review evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial activity of tebipenem against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, focusing on uropathogens. Five resources (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed) were used to identify relevant articles. Of the 1322 articles identified, 9 relevant studies were included, which evaluated 12,501 Gram-negative and 122 Gram-positive pathogens. All nine studies (100%) assessed the activity of tebipenem against Escherichia coli, with an MIC90 value range of 0.015->4 mg/L. Seven studies (77.8%) included Klebsiella pneumoniae, with an MIC90 value range of 0.015-0.5 mg/L. Six studies (66.7%) reported data on Proteus mirabilis, with an MIC90 value range of ≤0.125-0.5 mg/L. Two studies (22.2%) evaluated the activity of tebipenem against Enterococcus faecalis, with MIC90 of 1 mg/L among vancomycin-susceptible isolates and 32 mg/L in isolates with not-reported mechanisms of resistance. Two studies (22.2%) evaluated the activity of tebipenem against Enterococcus faecium, with MIC90 of >4 mg/L among both vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant isolates and MIC90 of 128 mg/L among isolates with no resistance mechanism reported. Tebipenem demonstrated good activity against Enterobacterales, such as E. coli and K. pneumoniae. The antimicrobial agent exhibited higher MICs and a higher proportion of resistance among P. mirabilis isolates. Tebipenem could be effective for outpatient treatment of infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens. However, given its potential to exert selective pressure for the development of antimicrobial resistance, it should be considered for patients with cUTIs when none of the first-line treatment options demonstrate in vitro antimicrobial activity.
Related Concept Videos
Mechanism of Antibiotic Resistance in MRSA
Development of Antibiotic Resistance
Urine Studies II: Urine Culture and Sensitivity Test
Antimicrobial Effectiveness
Clinical Significance of Antibiotic Resistance
Inhibitors of Gram-positive Cell Wall Synthesis

