Ceftolozane/Tazobactam treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilatory-associated bacterial pneumonia in Canada in 2022-2024: results from the CLEAR registry.

BACKGROUND: We report results from the national CLEAR (Canadian Leadership on Antimicrobial Real-Life Usage) registry on the usage of ceftolozane/tazobactam in Canada from 2022 to 2024. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors reviewed the final data using the national ethics approved CLEAR study. Thereafter, the literature is surveyed regarding the usage of ceftolozane/tazobactam to treat patients with HABP and VABP via PubMed (up to May 2024). RESULTS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam was primarily used as directed therapy to treat HABP and VABP caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It was primarily used alone, or in combination with another agent, to treat resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa infections. Despite primarily being used to treat severely ill patients in intensive care units, its use was associated with relatively high microbiological/clinical cure rates, along with an excellent safety profile. Several reports attest to the microbiological/clinical efficacy and safety of using ceftolozane/tazobactam to treat HABP and VABP. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, ceftolozane/tazobactam is primarily used as directed therapy alone, or in combination, to treat MDR P. aeruginosa infections. Though mostly used to treat severely ill patients in the ICU, ceftolozane/tazobactam use in HABP and VABP is associated with relatively high microbiological/clinical cure rates and an excellent safety profile.

Cefepime-Taniborbactam: A Novel Cephalosporin/ß-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination.

Taniborbactam (formerly known as VNRX-5133) is a novel bicyclic boronate ß-lactamase inhibitor of serine ß-lactamases (SBLs) [Ambler classes A, C, and D] and metallo-ß-lactamases (MBLs) [Ambler class B], including NDM and VIM, but not IMP. Cefepime-taniborbactam is active in vitro against most isolates of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), including both carbapenemase-producing and carbapenemase-non-producing CRE and CRPA, as well as against multidrug-resistant (MDR), ceftazidime-avibactam-resistant, meropenem-vaborbactam-resistant, and ceftolozane-tazobactam-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. The addition of taniborbactam to cefepime resulted in a > 64-fold reduction in MIC90 compared with cefepime alone for a 2018-2021 global collection of > 13,000 clinical isolates of Enterobacterales. In the same study, against > 4600 P. aeruginosa, a fourfold MIC reduction was observed with cefepime-taniborbactam, compared with cefepime alone. Whole genome sequencing studies have shown that resistance towards cefepime-taniborbactam in Enterobacterales arises due to the presence of multiple resistance mechanisms, often in concert, including production of IMP, PBP3 alterations, permeability (porin) defects, and upregulation of efflux pumps. In P. aeruginosa, elevated cefepime-taniborbactam MICs are also associated with the presence of multiple, concurrent mechanisms, most frequently IMP, PBP3 mutations, and upregulation of efflux pumps, as well as AmpC (PDC) overexpression. The pharmacokinetics of taniborbactam are dose proportional, follow a linear model, and do not appear to be affected when combined with cefepime. Taniborbactam's approximate volume of distribution (Vd) at steady state is 20 L and the approximate elimination half-life (t½) is 2.3 h, which are similar to cefepime. Furthermore, like cefepime, taniborbactam is primarily cleared renally, and clearance corresponds with renal function. Pharmacodynamic studies (in vitro and in vivo) have reported that cefepime-taniborbactam has bactericidal activity against various ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli that are not susceptible to cefepime alone. It has been reported that antimicrobial activity best correlated with taniborbactam exposure (area under the curve). A phase III clinical trial showed that cefepime-taniborbactam (2 g/0.5 g administered as an intravenous infusion over 2 h) was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis, caused by Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa while demonstrating similar safety compared with meropenem. The safety and tolerability of taniborbactam and cefepime-taniborbactam has been reported in one pharmacokinetic trial, and in two pharmacokinetic trials and one phase III clinical trial, respectively. Cefepime-taniborbactam appears to be well tolerated in both healthy subjects and patients. Headache and gastrointestinal upset are the most common drug-related adverse effects associated with cefepime-taniborbactam use. Cefepime-taniborbactam will likely have a role in the treatment of infections proven or suspected to be caused by MDR Gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. In particular, it may be useful in the treatment of infections caused by isolates that harbor an MBL (NDM, VIM) enzyme, although further clinical data are needed. Additional safety and efficacy studies may support indications for cefepime-taniborbactam beyond cUTI.

Pantoea septica bacteremia in a 3-month-old infant with RAG2 severe combined immune deficiency: A case report.

We present the case of a 3-month-old immunocompromised infant who developed a vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by Pantoea septica. Susceptibility testing results for this isolate and 10 additional clinical strains are provided to help define the susceptibility profile of this infrequently recovered organism.

How is ceftobiprole used in Canada: the CLEAR study final results.

BACKGROUND: We report the final results of the clinical usage of ceftobiprole in patients in Canada from data in the national CLEAR (Canadian Le adership on Antimicrobial Real-Life Usage) registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors review the final data using the national ethics approved CLEAR study. Thereafter, the literature is surveyed regarding the usage of ceftobiprole to treat patients with infectious diseases via PubMed (up to March 2024). RESULTS: In Canada, ceftobiprole is primarily used as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA. It is primarily used in patients failing previous antimicrobials, is frequently added to daptomycin and/or vancomycin with high microbiological and clinical cure rates, along with an excellent safety profile. Several reports attest to the microbiological/clinical efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole. Ceftobiprole is also reported to be used empirically in select patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), as well as hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP). CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, ceftobiprole is used mostly as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA, in patients failing previous antimicrobials. It is frequently added to, and thus used in combination with daptomycin and/or vancomycin with high microbiological/clinical cure rates, and an excellent safety profile.

Real-life experience with IV dalbavancin in Canada; results from the CLEAR (Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage) registry.

OBJECTIVES: We report the use of IV dalbavancin in Canadian patients using data captured by the national CLEAR registry. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses the web-based data management program, REDCap™ (online survey https://rcsurvey.radyfhs.umanitoba.ca/surveys/?s=TPMWJX98HL) to facilitate clinicians entering details associated with their clinical experiences using IV dalbavancin. RESULTS: Data were available for 40 patients. The most common infections treated were acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) (62.5% of patients), bone/joint infection (22.5%), bloodstream/vascular infection (7.5%) and endocarditis (5.0%). Dalbavancin was used as directed (75.0%) and empiric therapy (25.0%). MRSA was the most common identified pathogen (70.0%). Dalbavancin was used both in outpatient (e.g., emergency department) (65.0%), and inpatient treatment settings (e.g., hospital ward) (35.0%). Dalbavancin was used due to the convenience of a single dose treatment (77.5%) as well as to facilitate hospital discharge (7.5%). Dalbavancin was primarily used alone (90.0%), and most commonly using a single 1500 mg dose (77.5%). Microbiological success (pathogen eradicated or presumed eradicated) occurred in 88.2% of known cases, while clinical success (cure and/or improvement) occurred in 93.3% of known cases. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, IV dalbavancin is used as both directed and empiric therapy to treat ABSSSI as well as off-label (bone/joint, bacteremia/vascular, endocarditis, device-related) infections. It is used in both outpatient and inpatient settings due primarily to its convenience as a single-dose treatment regimen and to facilitate early hospital discharge. Dalbavancin use is associated with high microbiological and clinical cure rates along with an excellent safety profile.

Real-life experience with IV fosfomycin in Canada: Results from the Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage (CLEAR) registry.

OBJECTIVES: Data on the use of intravenous (IV) fosfomycin in Canada are limited. Using data captured by the Canadian LEadership on Antimicrobial Real-life usage (CLEAR) registry, we report the use of IV fosfomycin in Canadian patients. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses the web-based data management program, REDCapTM (https://rcsurvey.radyfhs.umanitoba.ca/surveys/?s=F7JXNDFXEF) to facilitate clinicians' entering of details associated with their clinical experiences using IV fosfomycin. RESULTS: Data were available for 59 patients treated with IV fosfomycin. The most common infections treated were: bacteraemia or sepsis (25.4% of patients), complicated urinary tract infection (20.3%), ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (18.6%), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (13.6%). IV fosfomycin was used to treat Gram-negative (88.1%) and Gram-positive (10.2%) infections. The most common pathogens treated were carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (44.1%), multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.6%), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (5.1%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (3.4%). IV fosfomycin was primarily used due to resistance to initially prescribed therapies (69.5%), frequently in combination with other agents (86.4%). Microbiological success (eradication/presumed eradication) occurred in 77.4% of patients, and clinical success (clinical cure/improvement) occurred in 62.5%. Overall, 15.3% of patients died because of their infection. Adverse effects were not documented in 73.1% of patients, and no patient discontinued therapy because of an adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, IV fosfomycin is used primarily as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. It is primarily used in patients infected with bacteria resistant to other agents and as part of combination therapy. Its use is associated with relatively high microbiological and clinical cure rates, and it has an excellent safety profile.

Antimicrobial resistance patterns of bacterial pathogens recovered from the urine of patients at Canadian hospitals from 2009 to 2020.

Objectives: To investigate in vitro susceptibility patterns of bacterial pathogens recovered from the urine of outpatients (isolates from outpatient clinics or emergency departments) and hospital inpatients across Canada from 2009 to 2020 as part of the CANWARD study. Methods: Canadian hospital microbiology laboratories submitted bacterial pathogens cultured from urine to the CANWARD study coordinating laboratory on an annual basis (January 2009 to December 2020). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by CLSI broth microdilution, with MICs interpreted by current CLSI breakpoints. Results: In total, 4644 urinary pathogens were included in this study. Escherichia coli was recovered most frequently (53.3% of all isolates), followed by Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Together, these six species accounted for 84.2% of study isolates. Nitrofurantoin demonstrated excellent in vitro activity versus E. coli, with 97.6% of outpatient and 96.1% of inpatient isolates remaining susceptible. In contrast, E. coli susceptibility rates were lower for ciprofloxacin (outpatient 79.5%, inpatient 65.9%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (outpatient 75.2%, inpatient 73.5%). The percentage of E. coli isolates that were phenotypically positive for ESBL production significantly increased from 4.2% (2009-11) to 11.3% (2018-20). A similar although less pronounced temporal trend was observed with ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae. Conclusions: E. coli was the pathogen most frequently recovered from the urine of Canadian patients, and the proportion of isolates that were ESBL producers increased over time. Susceptibility data presented here suggest that ciprofloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole may be suboptimal for the empirical treatment of complicated urinary infections.

In vitro activity of sulopenem against 1880 bacterial pathogens isolated from Canadian patients with urinary tract infections (CANWARD, 2014-21).

INTRODUCTION: There are limited oral antimicrobial options for the treatment of urinary infections caused by ESBL-producing and MDR Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is an investigational thiopenem antimicrobial that is being developed as both an oral and IV formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro activity of sulopenem versus bacterial pathogens recovered from the urine of patients admitted to or assessed at hospitals across Canada (CANWARD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The in vitro activity of sulopenem and clinically relevant comparators was determined for 1880 Gram-negative and Gram-positive urinary isolates obtained as part of the CANWARD study (2014 to 2021) using the CLSI broth microdilution method. RESULTS: Sulopenem demonstrated excellent in vitro activity versus members of the Enterobacterales, with MIC90 values ranging from 0.06 to 0.5 mg/L for all species tested. Over 90% of ESBL-producing, AmpC-producing and MDR (not susceptible to ≥1 antimicrobial from ≥3 classes) Escherichia coli were inhibited by ≤0.25 mg/L of sulopenem. Sulopenem had an identical MIC90 to meropenem for ESBL-producing and MDR E. coli. The MIC90 of sulopenem and meropenem versus MSSA was 0.25 mg/L. Sulopenem was not active in vitro versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa (similar to ertapenem), and it demonstrated poor activity versus Enterococcus faecalis (similar to meropenem). CONCLUSIONS: Sulopenem demonstrated excellent in vitro activity versus bacterial pathogens recovered from the urine of Canadian patients. These data suggest that sulopenem may have a role in the treatment of urinary infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales, but additional clinical studies are required.

In vitro activity of fosfomycin against bacterial pathogens isolated from urine specimens in Canada from 2007 to 2020: CANWARD surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple susceptible breakpoints are published to interpret fosfomycin MICs: ≤64 mg/L for Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis grown from urine (CLSI M100); ≤32 mg/L for Enterobacterales and staphylococci when parenteral fosfomycin is prescribed (EUCAST); and ≤8 mg/L for uncomplicated urinary tract infection with E. coli when oral fosfomycin is used (EUCAST). Clinical laboratories are frequently requested to test fosfomycin against antimicrobial-resistant urinary isolates not included in standard documents. METHODS: The in vitro activity of fosfomycin was determined using the CLSI agar dilution method for a 2007-20 collection of clinically significant Gram-negative (3656 Enterobacterales; 140 Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and Gram-positive (346 E. faecalis; 94 Staphylococcus aureus) urinary isolates from the CANWARD surveillance study. Comparator agents were tested using CLSI broth microdilution. RESULTS: Using the CLSI MIC breakpoint (≤64 mg/L), 99.2% of E. coli (n = 2871; MIC90, 4 mg/L), including 96.7% of ESBL-positive isolates, were fosfomycin susceptible. Similarly, 95.8% of E. coli, including 95.2% of ESBL-positive isolates, were fosfomycin susceptible at ≤8 mg/L (EUCAST oral susceptible MIC breakpoint). All other species of Enterobacterales (except Citrobacter freundii) and P. aeruginosa had higher fosfomycin MICs (MIC90s, 64 to >512 mg/L) than E. coli. Using published breakpoints, 88.4% of E. faecalis (MIC ≤64 mg/L) and 97.9% of S. aureus (MIC ≤32 mg/L) isolates were fosfomycin susceptible. CONCLUSIONS: Fosfomycin demonstrated in vitro activity against frequently encountered Gram-positive and Gram-negative urinary pathogens; however, the extrapolation of current CLSI and EUCAST MIC breakpoints to pathogens not specified by standard methods requires further study and is currently not recommended.

In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against Extensively Drug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: CANWARD, 2007 to 2019.

Cefiderocol was evaluated by broth microdilution versus 1,050 highly antimicrobial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from the CANWARD study (2007 to 2019). Overall, 98.3% of isolates remained cefiderocol susceptible (MIC, ≤4 µg/mL), including 97.4% of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) (n = 235) and 97.9% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) (n = 771) isolates. Most isolates testing not susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and imipenem-relebactam remained susceptible to cefiderocol. In vitro data suggest that cefiderocol may be a treatment option for infections caused by MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa. IMPORTANCE After testing cefiderocol against a large collection of clinical isolates of highly antimicrobial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, we report that cefiderocol is active versus 97.4% of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and 97.9% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) (n = 771) isolates. These data show that cefiderocol may be a treatment option for infections caused by MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa.

Effect of clinical versus administrative data definitions on the epidemiology of C. difficile among hospitalized individuals with IBD: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization admissions and discharge databases (DAD) using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes are often used to describe the epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) among those with Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), even though DAD CDI definition can miss many cases of CDI. There are no data comparing the assessment of the epidemiology of CDI among those with IBD by DAD versus laboratory diagnosis. We used a population-based dataset to determine the effect of using DAD versus laboratory CDI diagnosis on CDI assessment among those with IBD. METHODS: We linked the University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiology Database to the provincial CDI laboratory dataset for the years 2005-2014. Time trends of CDI were assessed using joinpoint analyses. We used stratified logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with CDI among individuals with IBD. RESULTS: Time trends of CDI among hospitalized individuals with IBD were similar when using DAD or the laboratory CDI diagnosis. Prior hospital admission and antibiotic exposure were associated with CDI using either of the CDI definitions, 5-ASA use was associated with CDI using DAD but not laboratory diagnosis, whereas corticosteroid exposure was associated with laboratory-based CDI diagnosis. Using laboratory results as gold standard, DAD had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.4% and 99.6% for CDI among those with IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Using ICD codes in the DAD for CDI provides similar epidemiological time trend patterns as identifying CDI in the laboratory dataset. Hence, ICD codes are reliable to determine CDI epidemiology among hospitalized individuals with IBD.

Sulopenem: An Intravenous and Oral Penem for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections Due to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Sulopenem (formerly known as CP-70,429, and CP-65,207 when a component of a racemic mixture with its R isomer) is an intravenous and oral penem that possesses in vitro activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant, extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is being developed to treat patients with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) as well as intra-abdominal infections. This review will focus mainly on its use in UTIs. The chemical structure of sulopenem shares properties of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Sulopenem is available as an oral prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, which is hydrolyzed by intestinal esterases, resulting in active sulopenem. In early studies, the S isomer of CP-65,207, later developed as sulopenem, demonstrated greater absorption, higher drug concentrations in the urine, and increased stability against the renal enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 compared with the R isomer, which set the stage for its further development as a UTI antimicrobial. Sulopenem is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive microorganisms. Sulopenem's ß-lactam ring alkylates the serine residues of penicillin-binding protein (PBP), which inhibits peptidoglycan cross-linking. Due to its ionization and low molecular weight, sulopenem passes through outer membrane proteins to reach PBPs of Gram-negative bacteria. While sulopenem activity is unaffected by many ß-lactamases, resistance arises from alterations in PBPs (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), expression of carbapenemases (e.g., carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), reduction in the expression of outer membrane proteins (e.g., some Klebsiella spp.), and the presence of efflux pumps (e.g., MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), or a combination of these mechanisms. In vitro studies have reported that sulopenem demonstrates greater activity than meropenem and ertapenem against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as similar activity to carbapenems against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes. With some exceptions, sulopenem activity against Gram-negative aerobes was less than ertapenem and meropenem but greater than imipenem. Sulopenem activity against Escherichia coli carrying ESBL, CTX-M, or Amp-C enzymes, or demonstrating MDR phenotypes, as well as against ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, was nearly identical to ertapenem and meropenem and greater than imipenem. Sulopenem exhibited identical or slightly greater activity than imipenem against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous sulopenem appear similar to carbapenems such as imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and doripenem. In healthy subjects, reported volumes of distribution (Vd) ranged from 15.8 to 27.6 L, total drug clearances (CLT) of 18.9-24.9 L/h, protein binding of approximately 10%, and elimination half-lives (t½) of 0.88-1.03 h. The estimated renal clearance (CLR) of sulopenem is 8.0-10.6 L/h, with 35.5% ± 6.7% of a 1000 mg dose recovered unchanged in the urine. An ester prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, has been developed for oral administration. Initial investigations reported a variable oral bioavailability of 20-34% under fasted conditions, however subsequent work showed that bioavailability is significantly improved by administering sulopenem with food to increase its oral absorption or with probenecid to reduce its renal tubular secretion. Food consumption increases the area under the curve (AUC) of oral sulopenem (500 mg twice daily) by 23.6% when administered alone and 62% when administered with 500 mg of probenecid. Like carbapenems, sulopenem demonstrates bactericidal activity that is associated with the percentage of time that free concentrations exceed the MIC (%f T > MIC). In animal models, bacteriostasis was associated with %f T > MICs ranging from 8.6 to 17%, whereas 2-log10 kill was seen at values ranging from 12 to 28%. No pharmacodynamic targets have been documented for suppression of resistance. Sulopenem concentrations in urine are variable, ranging from 21.8 to 420.0 mg/L (median 84.4 mg/L) in fasted subjects and 28.8 to 609.0 mg/L (median 87.3 mg/L) in those who were fed. Sulopenem has been compared with carbapenems and cephalosporins in guinea pig and murine systemic and lung infection animal models. Studied pathogens included Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, B. fragilis, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, and Serratia marcescens. These studies reported that overall, sulopenem was non-inferior to carbapenems but appeared to be superior to cephalosporins. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-1) reported that sulopenem was not non-inferior to ciprofloxacin in women infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible pathogens, due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sulopenem-treated patients at the test-of-cure visit. However, the researchers reported superiority of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid over ciprofloxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in women infected with fluoroquinolone/non-susceptible pathogens, and non-inferiority in all patients with a positive urine culture. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-2) compared intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid with ertapenem in the treatment of complicated UTIs. No difference in overall success was noted at the end of therapy. However, intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil was not non-inferior to ertapenem followed by oral stepdown therapy in overall success at test-of-cure due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem arm. After a meeting with the US FDA, Iterum stated that they are currently evaluating the optimal design for an additional phase III uncomplicated UTI study to be conducted prior to the potential resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA). It is unclear at this time whether Iterum intends to apply for EMA or Japanese regulatory approval. The safety and tolerability of sulopenem has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase III clinical trials. Sulopenem (intravenous and oral) appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects, with and without the coadministration of probenecid, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported to date. Reported TEAEs affecting ≥1% of patients were (from most to least common) diarrhea, nausea, headache, vomiting and dizziness. Discontinuation rates were low and were not different than comparator agents. Sulopenem administered orally and/or intravenously represents a potentially well tolerated and effective option for treating uncomplicated and complicated UTIs, especially in patients with documented or highly suspected antimicrobial pathogens to commonly used agents (e.g. fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli), and in patients with documented microbiological or clinical failure or patients who demonstrate intolerance/adverse effects to first-line agents. This agent will likely be used orally in the outpatient setting, and intravenously followed by oral stepdown in the hospital setting. Sulopenem also allows for oral stepdown therapy in the hospital setting from intravenous non-sulopenem therapy. More clinical data are required to fully assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sulopenem, especially in patients with complicated UTIs caused by resistant pathogens such as ESBL-producing, Amp-C, MDR E. coli. Antimicrobial stewardship programs will need to create guidelines for when this oral and intravenous penem should be used.

Activity of cefepime/taniborbactam and comparators against whole genome sequenced ertapenem-non-susceptible Enterobacterales clinical isolates: CANWARD 2007-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed in vitro activities of cefepime/taniborbactam and comparator antimicrobial agents against ertapenem-non-susceptible Enterobacterales (ENSE) clinical isolates collected from the CANWARD study 2007-19, and associations between MIC and various mechanisms of ß-lactam resistance identified using WGS. METHODS: A total of 179 ENSE (MIC ≥ 1 mg/L) isolates underwent susceptibility testing using reference CLSI broth microdilution. WGS was performed using the Illumina NextSeq platform. Carbapenemases, ESBLs and other ß-lactamases were identified using ResFinder 4.0. Alterations in ompC/F and ftsI (PBP3) were identified by comparing extracted sequences to the appropriate NCBI reference gene. Porin alterations were analysed with Provean v1.1.3. Specific alterations of interest in PBP3 included a YRIN or YRIK insertion after P333. RESULTS: Cefepime/taniborbactam was highly active (MIC50/MIC90, 0.5/2 mg/L; 177/179 isolates inhibited at ≤ 8 mg/L) against ENSE with various antimicrobial resistance phenotypes. Thirteen (7.3%) of the 179 ENSE isolates demonstrated cefepime/taniborbactam MIC values ≥ 4 mg/L and possessed combinations of ß-lactam resistance mechanisms, including a carbapenemase and/or ESBL and/or other ß-lactamase genes, as well as alterations in OmpC and/or OmpF and/or PBP3. Of the two Escherichia coli isolates that demonstrated a cefepime/taniborbactam MIC of 32 mg/L, one possessed NDM-5, OXA-181 and TEM-1B, an OmpC alteration and P333_Y334insYRIN in PBP3, while the second contained CTX-M-71, a truncated OmpF and a large alteration in OmpC (F182_R195delinsMTTNGRDDVFE). CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime/taniborbactam was highly active against ENSE with various antimicrobial resistance phenotypes/genotypes. ENSE isolates with cefepime/taniborbactam MIC values ≥ 4 mg/L possessed combinations of ß-lactam resistance mechanisms, including ß-lactamase genes, as well as alterations in OmpC and/or OmpF and/or PBP3.

Use of Fosfomycin Etest To Determine In Vitro Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales Other than Escherichia coli, Nonfermenting Gram-Negative Bacilli, and Gram-Positive Cocci.

Clinical isolates of Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli (EOTEC), nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli, and Gram-positive cocci were tested for susceptibility to fosfomycin using Etest and reference agar dilution. Applying EUCAST (v. 11.0, 2021) intravenous fosfomycin breakpoints, Etest MICs for EOTEC showed essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) rates of 70.4%, 88.4%, 4.1%, and 32.1%, respectively. No species of EOTEC tested with acceptable rates for all of EA (≥90%), CA (≥90%), ME (≤3%), and VME (≤3%). Etest MICs for Enterococcus faecalis, interpreted using CLSI oral/urine criteria (M100, 2021) showed EA, CA, minor error, ME, and VME rates of 98.5%, 81.2%, 18.8%, 0%, and 0%. Against Staphylococcus aureus, EA, CA, and ME rates were 84.1%, 98.7%, and 1.3% (EUCAST intravenous criteria). S. aureus isolates with fosfomycin MICs of >32 µg/ml (resistant) were not identified by agar dilution. We conclude that performing fosfomycin Etest on isolates of S. aureus will reliably identify fosfomycin-susceptible isolates with low, acceptable rates of MEs and VMEs. Testing of urinary isolates of E. faecalis by Etest is associated with an unacceptably high rate of minor errors (18.8%) but low, acceptable rates of MEs and VMEs when results are interpreted using CLSI criteria. Isolates of EOTEC tested by Etest with resulting MICs interpreted by EUCAST criteria were associated with an unacceptably high VME rate (32.1%). In vitro testing of clinical isolates beyond E. coli, E. faecalis, and S. aureus to determine susceptibility to fosfomycin is problematic with current methods and breakpoints.

ESBL-positive Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from across Canada: CANWARD surveillance study, 2007-18.

OBJECTIVES: ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are pathogens of increasing importance in Canada and elsewhere in the world. The purpose of this study was to phenotypically and molecularly characterize ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae clinical isolates obtained from patients attending Canadian hospitals over a 12 year period. METHODS: Isolates were collected between January 2007 and December 2018 as part of an ongoing national surveillance study (CANWARD). ESBL production was confirmed using the CLSI (M100) phenotypic method. Susceptibility testing was carried out using custom broth microdilution panels, and all isolates underwent WGS. RESULTS: In total, 671 E. coli and 141 K. pneumoniae were confirmed to be ESBL producers. The annual proportion of ESBL-producing isolates increased for both E. coli (from 3.3% in 2007 to 11.2% in 2018; P < 0.0001) and K. pneumoniae (from 1.3% in 2007 to 9.3% in 2018; P < 0.0001). The most frequent STs were ST131 for E. coli [62.4% (419/671) of isolates] and ST11 [7.8% (11/141)] and ST147 [7.8% (11/141)] for K. pneumoniae. Overall, 97.2% of ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates were MDR. blaCTX-M-15 predominated in both ESBL-producing E. coli (62.3% of isolates) and ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae (48.9% of isolates). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of ESBL-producing E. coli, especially ST131, and K. pneumoniae, especially ST11 and ST147, in Canada increased significantly from 2007 to 2018. Continued prospective surveillance of these evolving MDR and at times XDR pathogens is imperative.