Non-KPC Attributes of Newer ß-lactamase/ß-lactamase Inhibitors, Part 1: Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Gram-negative antibiotic resistance continues to grow as a global problem due to the evolution and spread of ß-lactamases. The early ß-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) are characterized by spectra limited to class A ß-lactamases and ineffective against carbapenemases and most extended spectrum ß-lactamases. In order to address this therapeutic need, newer BLIs were developed with the goal of treating carbapenemase producing, carbapenem resistant organisms (CRO), specifically targeting the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC). These BL/BLI combination drugs, ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, and imipenem/relebactam, have proven to be indispensable tools in this effort. However, non-KPC mechanisms of resistance are rising in prevalence and increasingly challenging to treat. It is critical for clinicians to understand the unique spectra of these BL/BLIs with respect to non-KPC CRO. In Part 1of this two-part series, we describe the non-KPC attributes of the newer BL/BLIs with a focus on utility against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comparison of BD Phoenix and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for determining cefepime susceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

There are increasing reports of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) that test as cefepime-susceptible (S) or susceptible-dose dependent (SDD). However, there are no data to compare the cefepime testing performance of BD Phoenix automated susceptibility system (BD Phoenix) and disk diffusion (DD) relative to reference broth microdilution (BMD) against carbapenemase-producing (CPblaKPC-CRE) and non-producing (non-CP CRE) isolates. Cefepime susceptibility results were interpreted according to CLSI M100Ed32. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor errors (miEs), major errors (MEs), and very major errors (VMEs) were calculated for BD Phoenix (NMIC-306 Gram-negative panel) and DD relative to BMD. Correlates were also analyzed by the error rate-bounded method. EA and CA for CPblaKPC-CRE isolates (n = 64) were <90% with BD Phoenix while among non-CP CRE isolates (n = 58), EA and CA were 96.6%, and 79.3%, respectively. CA was <90% with DD for both cohorts. No ME or VME was observed for either isolate cohort; however, miEs were >10% for CPblaKPC-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix and DD tests. For error rate-bounded method, miEs were <40% for IHigh + 1 to ILow - 1 ranges for CPblaKPC-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix. Regarding disk diffusion, miEs were unacceptable for all MIC ranges among CPblaKPC-CRE. For non-CP CRE isolates, only IHigh + 1 to ILow - 1 range was acceptable at 37.2%. Using this challenge set of genotypic-phenotypic discordant CRE, the BD Phoenix MICs and DD susceptibility results trended higher (toward SDD and resistant phenotypes) relative to reference BMD results yielding lower CA. These results were more prominent among CPblaKPC-CRE than non-CP CRE.

Effects of clinically achievable pulmonary antibiotic concentrations on the recovery of bacteria: in vitro comparison of the BioFire FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel versus conventional culture methods in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.

Empiric antibiotics may affect bacterial pathogen recovery using conventional culture methods (CCMs), while PCR-based diagnostics are likely less affected. Herein, we conducted an in vitro study of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) inoculated with bacteria and clinically relevant antibiotic concentrations to compare the recovery between the BioFire FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel (Pn Panel) and CCMs. Remnant clinical BAL specimens were inoculated to ~105 cfu/mL using 12 clinical isolates. Isolates consisted of one wild-type (WT) and one or more resistant strains of: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Staphylococcus aureus. Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, meropenem, levofloxacin, or vancomycin was added to achieve pulmonary epithelial lining fluid peak and trough concentrations. Post-exposure cfu/mL was quantified by CCMs and simultaneously tested by the PN Panel for identification and semi-quantitative genetic copies/mL. CCM results were categorized as significant growth (SG) (≥1 × 104), no significant growth (NSG) (≥1 × 103, <1 × 104), or no growth (NG) (<1 × 103). The PN Panel accurately identified all isolates, resistance genes, and reported ≥106 genetic copies/mL regardless of antibiotic exposure. The CCM also identified all S. aureus strains exposed to vancomycin. For WT Gram-negative isolates exposed to antibiotics, SG, NSG, and NG were observed in 7/52 (13%), 18/52 (35%), and 27/52 (52%) of CCM experiments, respectively. For resistant Gram-negatives isolates, SG, NSG, and NG were observed in 62/88 (70%), 17/88 (19%), and 9/88 (10%), respectively. These in vitro data demonstrate that the PN Panel is able to identify Gram-negative pathogens in the presence of clinically significant antibiotic concentrations when CCM may not.

Assessing the in vivo impact of novel ß-lactamase inhibitors on the efficacy of their partner ß-lactams against serine carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa using human-simulated exposures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of human-simulated regimens (HSRs) of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam, imipenem, imipenem/relebactam, meropenem and meropenem/vaborbactam in a murine thigh infection model against serine carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: Nine P. aeruginosa clinical isolates harbouring GES-5 (n = 1), GES-20 (n = 1), GES-5/20 (n = 1), GES-19, GES-20 (n = 3) and KPC (n = 3) were evaluated. Six mice were administered HSRs of ceftazidime 2 g q8h (2 h infusion), ceftazidime/avibactam 2.5 g q8h (2 h infusion), meropenem 2 g q8h (3 h infusion), imipenem 0.5 g q6h (0.5 h infusion), imipenem/relebactam 1.25 g q6h (0.5 h infusion) and meropenem/vaborbactam 4 g q8h (3 h infusion). Change in bacterial burden relative to baseline and the percent of isolates meeting the 1 log10 kill endpoint were assessed. RESULTS: The addition of avibactam to ceftazidime increased the percentage of isolates meeting 1 log10 kill from 33% to 100% of GES- or KPC-harbouring isolates. Imipenem/relebactam HSR produced ≥1 log10 of kill against 83% and 100% of GES- and KPC-harbouring isolates, respectively, while imipenem alone failed to reach 1 log10 kill for any isolates. Vaborbactam resulted in variable restoration of meropenem activity as 1 log10 kill was achieved in only 33% and 66% of GES- and KPC-harbouring isolates, respectively, compared with no isolates for meropenem alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam were active against 100% and 89% of KPC- or GES-harbouring isolates tested in vivo. The activity of meropenem/vaborbactam was variable, suggesting this may be an inferior treatment option in this setting. Further studies to evaluate clinical outcomes in GES- and KPC-producing P. aeruginosa are warranted given their increasing prevalence worldwide.

In vitro activity of cefiderocol against a global collection of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with a high level of carbapenemase diversity.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the in vitro activity of cefiderocol in a global collection of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa including >200 carbapenemase-producing isolates. METHODS: Isolates (n = 806) from the ERACE-PA Surveillance Program were assessed. Broth microdilution MICs were determined for cefiderocol (iron-depleted CAMHB) and comparators (CAMHB). Susceptibility was interpreted by CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints and reported as percent of isolates. The MIC distribution of cefiderocol in the entire cohort and by carbapenemase status was assessed. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, cefiderocol was the most active agent (CLSI 98% susceptible; EUCAST 95% susceptible; MIC50/90, 0.25/2 mg/L). Amikacin (urinary only breakpoint) was the second most active, with 70% of isolates testing as susceptible. The percentage of isolates susceptible to all other agents was low (<50%) including meropenem/vaborbactam, imipenem/relebactam, piperacillin/tazobactam and levofloxacin. Cefiderocol maintained significant activity against the most commonly encountered carbapenemases including VIM- (CLSI 97% susceptible; EUCAST 92% susceptible) and GES (CLSI 100% susceptible; EUCAST 97% susceptible)-harbouring isolates. The cefiderocol MIC distribution was similar regardless of carbapenemase status, with MIC50/90 values of 0.5/4 mg/L, 0.5/2 mg/L and 0.25/1 mg/L for MBL, serine carbapenemase and molecular carbapenemase-negative isolates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cefiderocol displayed potent in vitro activity in this global cohort of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa including >200 carbapenemase-harbouring isolates. Cefiderocol was highly active against MBL-producing isolates, where treatment options are limited. These data can help guide empirical therapy guidelines based on local prevalence of carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa or in response to rapid molecular diagnostics.

Imipenem/relebactam pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving modality but has the potential to alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) of antimicrobials. Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an antibiotic with utility in treating certain multi-drug resistant Gram-negative infections. Herein, we describe the population pharmacokinetics of imipenem and relebactam in critically ill patients supported on ECMO. METHODS: Patients with infection supported on ECMO received 4-6 doses of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam per current prescribing information based on estimated creatinine clearance. Blood samples were collected following the final dose of the antibiotic. Concentrations were determined via LC-MS/MS. Population PK models were fit with and without covariates using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations of 1000 patients assessed joint PTA of fAUC0-24/MIC ≥ 8 for relebactam, and ≥40% fT > MIC for imipenem for each approved dosing regimen. RESULTS: Seven patients supported on ECMO were included in PK analyses. A two-compartment model with creatinine clearance as a covariate on clearance for both imipenem and relebactam fitted the data best. The mean ±â€Šstandard deviation parameters were: CL0, 15.21 ±â€Š6.52 L/h; Vc, 10.13 ±â€Š2.26 L; K12, 2.45 ±â€Š1.16 h-1 and K21, 1.76 ±â€Š0.49 h-1 for imipenem, and 6.95 ±â€Š1.34 L/h, 9.81 ±â€Š2.69 L, 2.43 ±â€Š1.13 h-1 and 1.52 ±â€Š0.67 h-1 for relebactam. Simulating each approved dose of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam according to creatinine clearance yielded PTAs of ≥90% up to an MIC of 2 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam dosed according to package insert in patients supported on ECMO is predicted to achieve exposures sufficient to treat susceptible Gram-negative isolates, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Assessing the impact of meropenem exposure on ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistance development in Pseudomonas aeruginosa using in vitro serial passage.

BACKGROUND: Patients infected with difficult-to-treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa are likely to receive meropenem (MEM) empirically before escalation to ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T). We assessed whether pre-exposure to MEM affected C/T resistance development on C/T exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine clinical P. aeruginosa isolates were exposed to MEM 16 mg/L for 72 h. Then, isolates were serially passaged in the presence of C/T (concentration of 10 mg/L) for 72 h as two groups: an MEM-exposed group inoculated with MEM pre-exposed isolates and a non-MEM control group. At 24 h intervals, samples were plated on drug-free and drug-containing agar (C/T concentration 16/8 mg/L) and incubated to quantify bacterial densities (log10 cfu/mL). Growth on C/T agar indicated resistance development, and resistant population was calculated by dividing the cfu/mL on C/T plates by the cfu/mL on drug-free agar. RESULTS: At 72 h, resistant populations were detected in 6/9 isolates. In five isolates, MEM exposure significantly increased the prevalence of ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistance development; the percentages of resistance population were 100%, 100%, 53.5%, 31% and 3% for the MEM-exposed versus 0%, 0%, 2%, 0.35% and ≤0.0003% in the unexposed groups. One isolate had a similar resistant population at 72 h between the two groups. The remaining isolates showed no development of resistance, regardless of previous MEM exposure. CONCLUSIONS: MEM exposure may pre-dispose to C/T resistance development and thus limit the therapeutic utility of this ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor. Resistance may be a result of stress exposure or molecular-level mutations conferring cross-resistance. Further in vivo studies are needed to assess clinical implications of these findings.

Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam and cefiderocol against carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Türkiye.

PURPOSE: Carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PA) is escalating worldwide and leaves clinicians few therapeutic options in recent years, ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations (ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam) and a new siderophore cephalosporin (cefiderocol) have been approved for the treatment of P. aeruginosa infection and have shown potent activity against isolates defined as carbapenem resistant. The aim of this study was to determine the phenotypic profile of these agents against CR-PA in the emerging setting of carbapenemases. METHODS: CR-PA clinical isolates were collected from three teaching hospitals in different geographical regions between January 2017-December 2021. All isolates were subjected to phenotypic carbapenemase testing using modified carbapenem inactivation method. MICs were determined by reference broth microdilution and evaluated according to EUCAST standards, while genotypic profiling was determined using PCR methods. RESULTS: 244 CR-PA sourced most frequently from the respiratory tract (32.2%), blood (20.4%) and urine (17.5%) were evaluated. Of all isolates, 32 (13.1%) were phenotypically and 38 (15.6%) were genotypically defined as carbapenemase-positive. The most common carbapenemase was GES (63.1%), followed by VIM (15.8%). The MIC50/90(S%) of ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and cefiderocol in all CR-PA isolates were 4 and 32 (80%), 1 and > 64 (69%) and 0.25 and 1 mg/L (96%), respectively. Cefiderocol was also the most active agent in carbapenemase-positive isolates (90%). CONSLUSION: While ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam remained highly active against CR-PA devoid of carbapenemases, cefiderocol provided potent in vitro activity irrespective of carbapenemase production. When considering the potential clinical utility of newer agents against CR-PA, regional variations in carbapenemase prevalence must be considered.

In Vivo Pharmacodynamic Profile of EVER206, a Novel Polymyxin Antimicrobial, against Gram-Negative Bacteria in the Murine Thigh Infection Model.

The objective was to determine the magnitude of the EVER206 free-plasma area under the concentration time curve (fAUC)/MIC target associated with bacteriostasis and 1-log10 kill against clinically relevant Gram-negative bacteria in the murine thigh model. Twenty-seven clinical isolates (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, n = 10; Escherichia coli, n = 9; Klebsiella pneumoniae, n = 5; Enterobacter cloacae, n = 2; and Klebsiella aerogenes, n = 1) were tested. Mice were pretreated with cyclophosphamide (induce neutropenia) and uranyl nitrate (increase the exposure of test compound through predictable renal dysfunction). Two hours postinoculation, five doses of EVER206 were administered subcutaneously. EVER206 pharmacokinetics were determined in infected mice. Data were fit using maximum effect (Emax) models to elucidate the fAUC/MIC targets for stasis and 1-log10 bacterial kill (reported as mean [range] by species). EVER206 MICs (mg/L) ranged from 0.25 to 2 mg/L (P. aeruginosa), 0.06 to 2 mg/L (E. coli), 0.06 to 0.125 mg/L (E. cloacae), 0.06 mg/L (K. aerogenes), and 0.06 to 2 mg/L (K. pneumoniae). In vivo, the mean 0-h baseline bacterial burden was 5.57 ± 0.39 log10 CFU/thigh. Stasis was achieved in 9/10 P. aeruginosa (fAUC/MIC, 88.13 [50.33 to 129.74]), 9/9 E. coli (fAUC/MIC, 112.84 [19.19 to 279.38]), 2/2 E. cloacae (fAUC/MIC, 259.28 [124.08 to 394.47]), 0/1 K. aerogenes, and 4/5 K. pneumoniae (fAUC/MIC, 99.26 [62.3 to 144.43]) isolates tested. 1-log10 kill was achieved in 9/10 for P. aeruginosa (fAUC/MIC, 106.43 [55.22 to 152.08]), 3/9 for E. coli (fAUC/MIC, 258.96 [74.08 to 559.4]), and 1/2 for E. cloacae (fAUC/MIC, 255.33). Using the murine thigh model, the fAUC/MIC targets of EVER206 were assessed across a broad MIC distribution. Integrating these data with microbiologic and clinical exposure data will aid in determining the clinical dose of EVER206.

In vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a common multidrug-resistant pathogen in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The in vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam and imipenem was compared with other antipseudomonal antibiotics against 105 isolates from patients with CF from three US hospitals. Imipenem/relebactam, imipenem, meropenem, ceftazidime/avibactam, and ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptibilities were 77%, 55%, 58%, 90%, and 92%, respectively. Relebactam potentiates imipenem against CF P. aeruginosa by fourfold leading imipenem/relebactam to retain susceptibility against most isolates in this cohort.

In vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of cefepime/taniborbactam combination against cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a murine pneumonia model.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime/taniborbactam is a cephalosporin/bicyclic boronate ß-lactamase inhibitor combination in clinical development for nosocomial pneumonia due to MDR Gram-negative bacteria. A murine pneumonia model was used to characterize cefepime/taniborbactam in vivo pharmacodynamics against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. METHODS: Clinical cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa strains expressing serine carbapenemases and/or other cefepime-hydrolysing ß-lactamases with cefepime/taniborbactam combination MICs of 0.12-16 mg/L were used. Cefepime and taniborbactam human-simulated regimens equivalent to clinical doses (i.e. 2/0.5 g q8h) were established in the pneumonia model. The in vivo activity of the cefepime human-simulated regimen given alone or concomitantly with escalating taniborbactam exposures against eight Enterobacterales and four P. aeruginosa strains was assessed. Taniborbactam pharmacokinetics were evaluated to determine systemic exposures of regimens used; taniborbactam fAUC0-24/MIC values required for efficacy were estimated using the Hill equation. In addition, the in vivo activity of the cefepime/taniborbactam combination human-simulated regimen was assessed against 18 strains. RESULTS: Among Enterobacterales, median taniborbactam fAUC0-24/MIC values associated with stasis and 1 log kill were 0.96 and 4.03, respectively, while for P. aeruginosa, requirements were 1.35 and 3.02 for stasis and 1 log kill, respectively. The cefepime/taniborbactam human-simulated regimen produced >2 log kill in 14/18 strains and >1 log kill in 18/18 strains. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime/taniborbactam produced marked in vivo bactericidal activity against cefepime-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates with cefepime/taniborbactam MICs up to and including 16 mg/L in the pneumonia model. Assessments of the probability of clinical attainment of the identified targets should be undertaken to support the selected cefepime/taniborbactam dose for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Assessing the in vivo efficacy of rational antibiotics and combinations against difficult-to-treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing GES ß-lactamases.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the in vivo efficacy of human-simulated regimens (HSRs) of cefiderocol, ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem and ceftazidime/avibactam/meropenem combination against Guiana-extended spectrum (GES)-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. METHODS: Eighteen P. aeruginosa isolates producing GES-1 (n = 5), GES-5 (n = 5) or miscellaneous GESs (combinations of GES-19, GES-20 and/or GES-26; n = 8) were evaluated. In vitro MIC testing was determined using broth microdilution. In a validated murine thigh infection model, HSRs of cefiderocol 2 g q8h as a 3 h IV infusion, ceftazidime/avibactam 2.5 g q8h as a 2 h IV infusion, meropenem 2 g q8h as a 3 h IV infusion or ceftazidime/avibactam/meropenem were administered. Change in bacterial burden relative to baseline and the proportion of isolates in each genotypic group meeting 1-log10 kill endpoint were assessed. RESULTS: Modal MICs (mg/L) ranged from 0.125 to 1 for cefiderocol, 4 to >64 for ceftazidime/avibactam and 2 to >64 for meropenem. Cefiderocol produced >1-log10 of kill against all 18 tested isolates. Meropenem was active against all GES-1 isolates whereas activity against GES-5 and miscellaneous GESs was lacking, consistent with the MICs. Ceftazidime/avibactam was active against all GES-1 and GES-5 isolates and retained activity against 62.5% of miscellaneous GESs including isolates with elevated MICs. For isolates where ceftazidime/avibactam failed, the addition of meropenem restored the in vivo efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: As monotherapy, cefiderocol was active in vivo against all tested isolates. The activities of meropenem or ceftazidime/avibactam alone were variable; however, a combination of both was active against all isolates. Cefiderocol and ceftazidime/avibactam/meropenem could be valuable therapeutic options for GES-producing P. aeruginosa infections. Clinical confirmatory data are warranted.

In vitro synergy of the combination of sulbactam-durlobactam and cefepime at clinically relevant concentrations against A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Sulbactam-durlobactam is a potent combination active against Acinetobacter baumannii; however, it lacks activity against other nosocomial pathogens. Cefepime is a common first-line therapy for hospital/ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales. With increasing resistance to cefepime, and the significant proportion of polymicrobial nosocomial infections, effective therapy for infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii, P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales is needed. This study investigated the in vitro synergy of sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime against relevant pathogens. METHODS: Static time-kills assays were performed in duplicate against 14 cefepime-resistant isolates (A. baumannii, n = 4; P. aeruginosa, n = 4; Escherichia coli, n = 3; Klebsiella pneumoniae, n = 3). One WT K. pneumoniae isolate was included. Antibiotic concentrations simulated the free-steady state average concentration of clinically administered doses in patients. RESULTS: Sulbactam-durlobactam alone showed significant activity against A. baumannii consistent with the MIC values. Sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime showed synergy against one A. baumannii isolate with an elevated MIC to sulbactam-durlobactam (32 mg/L). Against all P. aeruginosa isolates, synergy was observed with sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime. For the Enterobacterales, one E. coli isolate demonstrated synergy while the others were indifferent due to significant kill from sulbactam-durlobactam alone. The combination of sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime showed synergy against one of the K. pneumoniae and additive effects against the other two K. pneumoniae tested. No antagonism was observed in any isolates including the WT strain. CONCLUSIONS: Synergy and no antagonism was observed with a combination of sulbactam-durlobactam and cefepime; further in vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics data and clinical correlation are necessary to support our findings.

Phenotypes, genotypes and breakpoints: an assessment of ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations against OXA-48.

BACKGROUND: Two of the three recently approved ß-lactam agent (BL)/ß-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) combinations have higher CLSI susceptibility breakpoints (ceftazidime/avibactam 8 mg/L; meropenem/vaborbactam 4 mg/L) compared with the BL alone (ceftazidime 4 mg/L; meropenem 1 mg/L). This can lead to a therapeutic grey area on susceptibility reports depending on resistance mechanism. For instance, a meropenem-resistant OXA-48 isolate (MIC 4 mg/L) may appear as meropenem/vaborbactam-susceptible (MIC 4 mg/L) despite vaborbactam's lack of OXA-48 inhibitory activity. METHODS: OXA-48-positive (n = 51) and OXA-48-negative (KPC, n = 5; Klebsiella pneumoniae wild-type, n = 1) Enterobacterales were utilized. Susceptibility tests (broth microdilution) were conducted with ceftazidime/avibactam, imipenem/relebactam and meropenem/vaborbactam, as well as their respective BL partner. Antimicrobial activity of all six agents was evaluated in the murine neutropenic thigh model using clinically relevant exposures. Efficacy was assessed as the change in bacterial growth at 24 h, compared with 0 h controls. RESULTS: On average, the three BL/BLI agents resulted in robust bacteria killing among OXA-48-negative isolates. Among OXA-48-positive isolates, poor in vivo activity with imipenem/relebactam was concordant with its resistant phenotypic profile. Variable meropenem/vaborbactam activity was observed among isolates with a 'susceptible' MIC of 4 mg/L. Only 30% (7/23) of isolates at meropenem/vaborbactam MICs of 2 and 4 mg/L met the ≥1-log bacterial reduction threshold predictive of clinical efficacy in serious infections. In contrast, ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in marked bacterial density reduction across the range of MICs, and 96% (49/51) of isolates exceeded the ≥1-log bacterial reduction threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Data demonstrate that current imipenem/relebactam and ceftazidime/avibactam CLSI breakpoints are appropriate. Data also suggest that higher meropenem/vaborbactam breakpoints relative to meropenem can translate to potentially poor clinical outcomes in patients infected with OXA-48-harbouring isolates.

Activity of novel ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations against serine carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is complex and multifaceted. While the novel ß-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) avibactam, relebactam and vaborbactam inhibit serine-based ß-lactamases, the comparative potency of the novel ß-lactam (BL)/BLI combinations against serine carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the in vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftazidime, imipenem/relebactam, imipenem, meropenem/vaborbactam and meropenem against serine ß-lactamase-producing P. aeruginosa. METHODS: Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa were collated through the Enhancing Rational Antimicrobials against Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (ERACE-PA) Global Surveillance. Isolates positive for serine-based carbapenemases were assessed. MICs were determined by broth microdilution to each novel BL/BLI and BL alone. RESULTS: GES was the most common carbapenemase identified (n = 59) followed by KPC (n = 8). Ceftazidime/avibactam had MIC50/MIC90 values of 4/8 mg/L and 91% of isolates were susceptible. Conversely, ceftazidime alone was active against only 3% of isolates. The MIC50/MIC90 of imipenem/relebactam were 16/>16 mg/L and 13% of all isolates were defined as susceptible. Of the KPC-producing isolates, 38% were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam, compared with 0% to imipenem. The meropenem/vaborbactam MIC50/MIC90 were >16/>16 mg/L, and 6% of isolates were susceptible, which was similar to meropenem alone (MIC50/90, >8/>8 mg/L; 3% susceptible) suggesting the addition of vaborbactam cannot overcome co-expressed, non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Among the novel BL/BLIs, ceftazidime/avibactam displayed better in vitro activity and thus is a rational treatment option for serine carbapenemase-harbouring P. aeruginosa. While imipenem/relebactam displayed some activity, particularly against isolates with blaKPC, meropenem/vaborbactam exhibited poor activity, with MICs similar to meropenem alone.

In vivo efficacy & resistance prevention of cefiderocol in combination with ceftazidime/avibactam, ampicillin/sulbactam or meropenem using human-simulated regimens versus Acinetobacter baumannii.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the in vivo efficacy and resistance prevention of cefiderocol in combination with ceftazidime/avibactam, ampicillin/sulbactam and meropenem using human-simulated regimens (HSR) in the murine infection model. METHODS: In total, 15 clinical A. baumannii were assessed: cefiderocol MICs, 2 mg/L (previously developed resistance on therapy), n = 3; 8 mg/L, n = 2; ≥32 mg/L, n = 10 (including VEB and PER-harbouring isolates). Mice received inactive control, cefiderocol, cefiderocol + ceftazidime/avibactam (C-CZA), cefiderocol + ampicillin/sulbactam (C-SAM) or cefiderocol + meropenem (C-MEM) HSRs. The mean change in log10 cfu/thigh compared with starting inoculum was assessed. Resistance development on treatment was a >4-fold increase in MIC relative control animals. In vitro activities of combinations were assessed by disc stacking. RESULTS: Against cefiderocol-non-susceptible isolates, combinations produced significant kill with C-CZA -3.75 ±â€Š0.37 reduction in log10 cfu/thigh, C-SAM produced -3.55 ±â€Š0.50 and C-MEM produced -2.18 ±â€Š1.75 relative to baseline. Elevated MICs in cefiderocol treated animals occurred in three out of three isolates with MICs of 2 mg/L. Of these isolates, one developed elevated MICs with C-MEM compared with none treated with C-CZA or C-SAM. Disc stacking with C-CZA or C-SAM returned all isolates to at least the CLSI intermediate breakpoint, which may correlate with in vivo efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Against cefiderocol-non-susceptible isolates, cefiderocol + ceftazidime/avibactam or ampicillin/sulbactam HSR produced in vivo kill against all 12 cefiderocol-non-susceptible isolates. Cefiderocol with ceftazidime/avibactam or ampicillin/sulbactam prevented the development of resistance during treatment against cefiderocol-high-end-susceptible isolates with a propensity for resistance on therapy. These data support the clinical evaluation of cefiderocol with ceftazidime/avibactam or ampicillin/sulbactam against A. baumannii, including multi-drug-resistant isolates.

Imipenem/funobactam (formerly XNW4107) in vivo pharmacodynamics against serine carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria: a novel modelling approach for time-dependent killing.

BACKGROUND: Imipenem/funobactam (formerly XNW4107) is a novel ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor with activity against MDR Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales strains. Using a neutropenic murine thigh infection model, we aimed to determine the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) index, relative to funobactam exposure, that correlated most closely with the in vivo efficacy of imipenem/funobactam combination and the magnitude of index required for efficacy against serine carbapenemase-producing clinical strains. METHODS: Dose-fractionation was conducted against three strains. Imipenem human-simulated regimen (HSR, 500 mg q6h 1 h infusion) efficacy in combination with escalating funobactam exposures against seven A. baumannii, four P. aeruginosa and four Klebsiella pneumoniae (imipenem/funobactam MICs 0.25-16 mg/L) was assessed as 24 h change in log10cfu/thigh. RESULTS: Increased funobactam fractionation enhanced efficacy, indicating time-dependent killing. Changes in log10cfu/thigh versus %fT > MIC were poorly predictive of efficacy; bactericidal activity was observed at %fT > MIC = 0%. Across different threshold plasma funobactam concentrations (CTs), %fT > CT(1 mg/L) had the highest correlation with efficacy. Normalizing the %fT > CT = 1 mg/L index to the respective isolate imipenem/funobactam MIC ([%fT > CT]/MIC) allowed integration of the isolate's susceptibility, which further enhanced the correlation. Median (%fT > CT[1 mg/L])/MIC values associated with 1-log reductions were 9.82 and 9.90 for A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa, respectively. Median (%fT > CT[1 mg/L])/MIC associated with stasis was 55.73 for K. pneumoniae. Imipenem/funobactam 500/250 mg q6h 1 h infusion HSR produced >1-log kill against 6/7 A. baumannii, 4/4 P. aeruginosa and stasis against 4/4 K. pneumoniae. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/funobactam showed potent in vivo efficacy against serine carbapenemase-producers. The novel PK/PD index (%fT > CT)/MIC appeared to best describe in vivo activity.

Cefepime in vivo activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales that test as cefepime susceptible or susceptible-dose dependent in vitro: implications for clinical microbiology laboratory and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are a public health concern. Among these isolates, there are reports of isolates that test as cefepime susceptible or susceptible-dose dependent (SDD) in vitro despite presence of a carbapenemase. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of cefepime against carbapenemase-producing (CP-CRE) and non-producing (non-CP-CRE) isolates with a range of cefepime MICs. METHODS: Reference broth microdilution and modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) were performed on genotypically characterized clinical CRE isolates. Ultimately, CP-CRE (n = 21; blaKPC) and non-CP-CRE (n = 19) isolates with a distribution of cefepime MICs (≤0.5 to >256 mg/L) were utilized in the murine thigh infection model. Mice were treated with cefepime human-simulated regimens (HSRs) representative of a standard dose (1 g q12h 0.5 h infusion) or the SDD dose (2 g q8h 0.5 h infusion). Efficacy was assessed as the change in bacterial growth at 24 h compared with 0 h control, where ≥1 log bacterial reduction is considered translational value for clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Among both cohorts of CRE isolates, i.e. CP-CRE and non-CP-CRE, that tested as SDD to cefepime in vitro, 1 log bacterial reduction was not attainable with cefepime. Further blunting of cefepime efficacy was observed among CP-CRE isolates compared with non-CP-CRE across both susceptible and SDD categories. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate to avoid cefepime for the treatment of serious infections caused by CRE isolates that test as cefepime susceptible or SDD. Data also provide evidence that isolates with the same antibiotic MIC may have different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles due to their antimicrobial resistance mechanism.

Bronchopulmonary disposition of IV cefepime/taniborbactam (2-0.5 g) administered over 2 h in healthy adult subjects.

INTRODUCTION: Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133) is an investigational ß-lactamase inhibitor in clinical development in combination with cefepime for the treatment of MDR Gram-negative pathogens. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety profile and pulmonary disposition of 2-0.5 g cefepime/taniborbactam administered as a 2 h IV infusion every 8 h following three doses in healthy adult subjects. METHODS: In this Phase 1 trial, open-label study, plasma samples were collected over the last dosing interval, and subjects (n = 20) were randomized to undergo bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) at four timepoints after the last dose. Drug concentrations in plasma (total and free as determined by protein binding), BAL fluid and alveolar macrophages (AM) were determined by LC-MS/MS, and the urea correction method was used to calculate epithelial lining fluid (ELF) drug concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by non-compartmental analysis. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) taniborbactam Cmax and AUC0-8 in plasma were 24.1 ±â€Š4.1 mg/L and 81.9 ±â€Š13.9 mg·h/L, respectively. Corresponding values for cefepime were 118.4 ±â€Š29.7 mg/L and 346.7 ±â€Š71.3 mg·h/L. Protein binding was 0% for taniborbactam and 22.4% for cefepime. Mean taniborbactam concentrations (mg/L) at 2, 4, 6 and 8 h were 3.9, 1.9, 1.0 and 0.3 in ELF and 12.4, 11.5, 14.3 and 14.9 in AM, with corresponding AUC0-8 ELF of 13.8 and AUC0-8 AM of 106.0 mg·h/L. Cefepime AUC0-8 ELF was 77.9 mg·h/L. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: The observed bronchopulmonary exposures of taniborbactam and cefepime can be employed to design optimal dosing regimens for clinical trials in patients with pneumonia.

Inhaled amikacin for pneumonia treatment and dissemination prevention: an experimental model of severe monolateral Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia is commonly treated with systemic antibiotics to ensure adequate treatment of multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria. However, intravenous (IV) antibiotics often achieve suboptimal pulmonary concentrations. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effect of inhaled amikacin (AMK) plus IV meropenem (MEM) on bactericidal efficacy in a swine model of monolateral MDR P. aeruginosa pneumonia. METHODS: We ventilated 18 pigs with monolateral MDR P. aeruginosa pneumonia for up to 102 h. At 24 h after the bacterial challenge, the animals were randomized to receive 72 h of treatment with either inhaled saline (control), IV MEM only, or IV-MEM plus inhaled AMK (MEM + AMK). We dosed IV MEM at 25 mg/kg every 8 h and inhaled AMK at 400 mg every 12 h. The primary outcomes were the P. aeruginosa burden and histopathological injury in lung tissue. Secondary outcomes included the P. aeruginosa burden in tracheal secretions and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, the development of antibiotic resistance, the antibiotic distribution, and the levels of inflammatory markers. RESULTS: The median (25-75th percentile) P. aeruginosa lung burden for animals in the control, MEM only, and MEM + AMK groups was 2.91 (1.75-5.69), 0.72 (0.12-3.35), and 0.90 (0-4.55) log10 CFU/g (p = 0.009). Inhaled therapy had no effect on preventing dissemination compared to systemic monotherapy, but it did have significantly higher bactericidal efficacy in tracheal secretions only. Remarkably, the minimum inhibitory concentration of MEM increased to > 32 mg/L after 72-h exposure to monotherapy in 83% of animals, while the addition of AMK prevented this increase (p = 0.037). Adjunctive therapy also slightly affected interleukin-1ß downregulation. Despite finding high AMK concentrations in pulmonary samples, we found no paired differences in the epithelial lining fluid concentration between infected and non-infected lungs. Finally, a non-significant trend was observed for higher amikacin penetration in low-affected lung areas. CONCLUSIONS: In a swine model of monolateral MDR P. aeruginosa pneumonia, resistant to the inhaled AMK and susceptible to the IV antibiotic, the use of AMK as an adjuvant treatment offered no benefits for either the colonization of pulmonary tissue or the prevention of pathogen dissemination. However, inhaled AMK improved bacterial eradication in the proximal airways and hindered antibiotic resistance.