Cefepime-Taniborbactam in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa are global health threats. Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational ß-lactam and ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa expressing serine and metallo-ß-lactamases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned hospitalized adults with complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours for 7 days; this duration could be extended up to 14 days in case of bacteremia. The primary outcome was both microbiologic and clinical success (composite success) on trial days 19 to 23 in the microbiologic intention-to-treat (microITT) population (patients who had a qualifying gram-negative pathogen against which both study drugs were active). A prespecified superiority analysis of the primary outcome was performed after confirmation of noninferiority. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who underwent randomization, 436 (66.0%) were included in the microITT population. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years, and 38.1% were 65 years of age or older. In the microITT population, 57.8% of the patients had complicated UTI, 42.2% had acute pyelonephritis, and 13.1% had bacteremia. Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009). Differences in treatment response were sustained at late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and clinical success. Adverse events occurred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, respectively, with headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea the most frequently reported; the frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem. (Funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals and others; CERTAIN-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03840148.).

In complicated UTIs, cefepime-taniborbactam increased treatment success vs. meropenem at 19 to 23 d.

SOURCE CITATION: Wagenlehner FM, Gasink LB, McGovern PC, et al; CERTAIN-1 Study Team. Cefepime-taniborbactam in complicated urinary tract infection. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:611-622. 38354140.

Effect modification of dosing strategy (AUC or trough) on AKI associated with vancomycin in combination with piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime and meropenem.

Piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), cefepime (FEP), or meropenem (MEM) and vancomycin (VAN) are commonly used in combination for sepsis. Studies have shown an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) with TZP and VAN compared to FEP or MEM. VAN guidelines recommend area under the curve (AUC) monitoring over trough (Tr) to minimize the risk of AKI. We investigated the association of AKI and MAKE-30 with the two VAN monitoring strategies when used in combination with TZP or FEP/MEM. Adult patients between 2015 and 2019 with VAN > 72 hours were included. Patients with AKI prior to or within 48 hours of VAN or baseline CrCl of ≤30 mL/min were excluded. Four cohorts were defined: FEP/MEM/Tr, FEP/MEM/AUC, TZP/Tr, and TZP/AUC. A Cox Proportional Hazard Model was used to model AKI as a function of the incidence rate of at-risk days, testing monitoring strategy as a treatment effect modification. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model MAKE-30. Overall incidence of AKI was 18.6%; FEP/MEM/Tr = 115 (14.6%), FEP/MEM/AUC = 52 (14.9%), TZP/Tr = 189 (26%), and TZP/AUC = 96 (17.1%) (P < 0.001). Both drug group [(TZP; P = 0.0085)] and monitoring strategy [(Tr; P = 0.0007)] were highly associated with the development of AKI; however, the effect was not modified with interaction term [(TZP*Tr); 0.085)]. The odds of developing MAKE-30 were not different between any group and FEP/MEM/AUC. The effect of VAN/TZP on the development of AKI was not modified by the VAN monitoring strategy (AUC vs trough). MAKE-30 outcomes were not different among the four cohorts.

The metallo-ß-lactamases strike back: emergence of taniborbactam escape variants.

Metallo-ß-lactamases (MBLs) have evolved relatively rapidly to become an international public health threat. There are no clinically available ß-lactamase inhibitors with activity against MBLs. This may change with the introduction of cefepime-taniborbactam. Herein, we review three manuscripts (S. I. Drusin, C. Le Terrier, L. Poirel, R. A. Bonomo, et al., Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e01168-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01168-23; C. Le Terrier, C. Viguier, P. Nordmann, A. J. Vila, and L. Poirel, Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e00991-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00991-23; D. Ono, M. F. Mojica, C. R. Bethel, Y. Ishii, et al., Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e01332-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01332-23) in which investigators describe elegant experiments to explore MBL/taniborbactam interactions and modifications to MBLs, in response, to reduce the affinity of taniborbactam. Challenges with MBL inhibition will not disappear; rather, they will evolve commensurate with advancements in medicinal chemistry.

Patient outcomes by baseline pathogen resistance phenotype and genotype in CERTAIN-1, a Phase 3 study of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infection.

CERTAIN-1 was a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study of the efficacy and safety of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. We determined susceptibility of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa baseline pathogens to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators and characterized ß-lactam resistance mechanisms. Microbiologic response and clinical response were assessed in patient subsets defined by baseline pathogens that were of cefepime-, multidrug-, or carbapenem-resistant phenotype or that carried ß-lactamase genes. Among Enterobacterales baseline pathogens, 26.8%, 4.1%, and 3.0% carried genes for extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, and carbapenemases, respectively. Within each treatment group, while composite success rates at Test of Cure in resistant subsets by pathogen species were similar to those by pathogen overall, composite success rates in meropenem patients were numerically lower for cefepime-resistant Escherichia coli (9/19; 47.4%) and ESBL E. coli (13/25; 52.0%) compared with E. coli overall (62/100; 62.0%). Cefepime-taniborbactam achieved composite success in 7/8 (87.5%) patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and 8/9 (88.9%) patients with Enterobacterales with a carbapenemase gene (5 OXA-48-group; 2 KPC-3; 2 NDM-1). Cefepime-taniborbactam also achieved composite success in 8/16 (50.0%) patients and clinical success in 13/16 (81.3%) patients with P. aeruginosa; corresponding rates were 4/7 (57.1%) and 6/7 (85.7%) for meropenem. Cefepime-taniborbactam demonstrated efficacy in adult cUTI patients with cefepime-, multidrug-, and carbapenem-resistant pathogens including pathogens with ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase genes. CLINICAL TRIALS: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03840148.

Removal of common antimicrobial agents by sustained low-efficiency dialysis.

Adequate dosing of antimicrobials is paramount for treating infections in critically ill patients undergoing kidney replacement therapy; however, little is known about antimicrobial removal by sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED). The objective was to quantify the removal of cefepime, daptomycin, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin in patients undergoing SLED. Adult patients ≥18 years with acute kidney injury (AKI) or end-stage kidney disease receiving one of the select antimicrobials and requiring SLED were included. Blood and dialysate flow rates were maintained at 250 and 100 mL/min, respectively. Simultaneous arterial and venous blood samples for the analysis of antibiotic concentrations were collected hourly for 8 hours during SLED (on-SLED). Arterial samples were collected every 2 hours for up to 6 hours while not receiving SLED (off-SLED) for the calculation of SLED clearance, half-life (t1/2) on-SLED and off-SLED, and the fraction of removal by SLED (fD). Twenty-one patients completed the study: 52% male, mean age (±SD) 53 ± 13 years, and mean weight of 98 ± 30 kg. Eighty-six percent had AKI, and 4 patients were receiving cefepime, 3 daptomycin, 10 meropenem, 6 piperacillin-tazobactam, and 13 vancomycin. The average SLED time was 7.3 ± 1.1 hours, and the mean ultrafiltration rate was 95 ± 52 mL/hour (range 10-211). The t1/2 on-SLED was substantially lower than the off-SLED t1/2 for all antimicrobials, and the SLED fD varied between 44% and 77%. An 8-hour SLED session led to significant elimination of most antimicrobials evaluated. If SLED is performed, modification of the dosing regimen is warranted to avoid subtherapeutic concentrations.

ARGONAUT-III and -V: susceptibility of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa to the bicyclic boronate ß-lactamase inhibitor taniborbactam combined with cefepime.

Taniborbactam, a bicyclic boronate ß-lactamase inhibitor with activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC), Verona integron-encoded metallo-ß-lactamase (VIM), New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase (NDM), extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), OXA-48, and AmpC ß-lactamases, is under clinical development in combination with cefepime. Susceptibility of 200 previously characterized carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and 197 multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators was determined by broth microdilution. For K. pneumoniae (192 KPC; 7 OXA-48-related), MIC90 values of ß-lactam components for cefepime-taniborbactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam were 2, 2, and 1 mg/L, respectively. For cefepime-taniborbactam, 100% and 99.5% of isolates of K. pneumoniae were inhibited at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, while 98.0% and 95.5% of isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, respectively. For P. aeruginosa, MIC90 values of ß-lactam components of cefepime-taniborbactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam were 16, >8, >8, and >4 mg/L, respectively. Of 89 carbapenem-susceptible isolates, 100% were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤8 mg/L. Of 73 carbapenem-intermediate/resistant P. aeruginosa isolates without carbapenemases, 87.7% were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam, 79.5% to ceftazidime-avibactam, and 95.9% and 83.6% to cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively. Cefepime-taniborbactam at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, was active against 73.3% and 46.7% of 15 VIM- and 60.0% and 35.0% of 20 KPC-producing P. aeruginosa isolates. Of all 108 carbapenem-intermediate/resistant P. aeruginosa isolates, cefepime-taniborbactam was active against 86.1% and 69.4% at ≤16 mg/L and ≤8 mg/L, respectively, compared to 59.3% for ceftolozane-tazobactam and 63.0% for ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefepime-taniborbactam had in vitro activity comparable to ceftazidime-avibactam and greater than meropenem-vaborbactam against carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and carbapenem-intermediate/resistant MDR P. aeruginosa.

Effect of modification of penicillin-binding protein 3 on susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, and cefiderocol of Escherichia coli strains producing broad-spectrum ß-lactamases.

The impact of penicillin-binding protein 3 (PBP3) modifications that may be identified in Escherichia coli was evaluated with respect to susceptibility to ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations including ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, and to cefiderocol. A large series of E. coli recombinant strains producing broad-spectrum ß-lactamases was evaluated. While imipenem-relebactam showed a similar activity regardless of the PBP3 background, susceptibility to other molecules tested was affected at various levels. This was particularly the case for ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam-avibactam, and cefepime-taniborbactam.

In vitro development of resistance against antipseudomonal agents: comparison of novel ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations and other ß-lactam agents.

We subjected seven P. aeruginosa isolates to a 10-day serial passaging against five antipseudomonal agents to evaluate resistance levels post-exposure and putative resistance mechanisms in terminal mutants were analyzed by whole-genome sequencing analysis. Meropenem (mean, 38-fold increase), cefepime (14.4-fold), and piperacillin-tazobactam (52.9-fold) terminal mutants displayed high minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values compared to those obtained after exposure to ceftolozane-tazobactam (11.4-fold) and ceftazidime-avibactam (5.7-fold). Fewer isolates developed elevated MIC values for other ß-lactams and agents belonging to other classes when exposed to meropenem in comparison to other agents. Alterations in nalC and nalD, involved in the upregulation of the efflux pump system MexAB-OprM, were common and observed more frequently in isolates exposed to ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem. These alterations, along with ones in mexR and amrR, provided resistance to most ß-lactams and levofloxacin but not imipenem. The second most common gene altered was mpl, which is involved in the recycling of the cell wall peptidoglycan. These alterations were mainly noted in isolates exposed to ceftolozane-tazobactam and piperacillin-tazobactam but also in one cefepime-exposed isolate. Alterations in other genes known to be involved in ß-lactam resistance (ftsI, oprD, phoP, pepA, and cplA) and multiple genes involved in lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis were also present. The data generated here suggest that there is a difference in the mechanisms selected for high-level resistance between newer ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations and older agents. Nevertheless, the isolates exposed to all agents displayed elevated MIC values for other ß-lactams (except imipenem) and quinolones tested mainly due to alterations in the MexAB-OprM regulators that extrude these agents.

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.

Association between piperacillin/tazobactam use and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam is one of the most common antibiotics prescribed in the ICU and the combination of piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. However, data on the risk of AKI with piperacillin/tazobactam, despite vancomycin co-exposure, are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of piperacillin/tazobactam with AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) among adult ICU patients. METHODS: We analysed data from patients included in two open access databases (MIMIC-IV and eICU). Critically ill patients who received piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime (a cephalosporin with similar broad-spectrum activity to piperacillin/tazobactam) during their first ICU stay were eligible for the study. Marginal structural Cox models, accounting for time-fixed covariates and time-dependent covariates were performed. The primary outcomes were AKI and need of RRT. RESULTS: A total of 20 107 patients were included, with 11 213 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 8894 in the cefepime group. Exposure to piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with AKI (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.51-2.07; P < 0.001) and with need of RRT (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.57; P = 0.005). Tests for interaction were not statistically significant for occurrence of AKI and RRT in the subgroup of patients exposed to vancomycin or not (P = 0.26 and P = 0.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, exposure to piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with increased risk of AKI and with increased risk of RRT, regardless of combination therapy with vancomycin.

Towards optimizing cefepime/tazobactam (WCK 4282) exposure to achieve efficacy against piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant ESBL infections: dose recommendations for various renal functions, including intermittent haemodialysis, in healthy individuals.

OBJECTIVES: WCK 4282 is a novel combination of cefepime 2 g and tazobactam 2 g being developed for the treatment of infections caused by piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant ESBL infections. The dosing regimen for cefepime/tazobactam needs to be optimized to generate adequate exposures to treat infections caused by ESBL-producing pathogens resistant to both cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam. METHODS: We developed pharmacokinetic population models of cefepime and tazobactam to evaluate the optimal dose adjustments in patients, including those with augmented renal clearance as well as various degrees of renal impairment, and also for those on intermittent haemodialysis. Optimal doses for various degrees of renal function were identified by determining the PTA for a range of MICs. To cover ESBL-producing pathogens with an cefepime/tazobactam MIC of 16 mg/L, a dosing regimen of 2 g q8h infused over 1.5 h resulted in a combined PTA of 99% for the mean murine 1 log10-kill target for the cefepime/tazobactam combination. RESULTS: We found that to adjust for renal function, doses need to be reduced to 1 g q8h, 500 mg q8h and 500 mg q12h for patients with CLCR of 30-59, 15-29 and 8-14 mL/min (as well as patients with intermittent haemodialysis), respectively. In patients with high to augmented CLR (estimated CLCR 120-180 mL/min), a prolonged 4 h infusion of standard dose is required. CONCLUSIONS: The suggested dosing regimens will result in exposures of cefepime and tazobactam that would be adequate for infections caused by ESBL-producing pathogens with a cefepime/tazobactam MICs up to 16 mg/L.

Cefepime pharmacokinetics in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on the pharmacokinetics/dynamics (PK/PD) of beta-lactam antibiotics have not been well studied in general, but cefepime specifically has the least amount of data. We aimed to investigate whether ECMO alters the PK of cefepime in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective case-control study evaluated cefepime therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) results from ECMO patients that were matched 1:1 with TDM results in non-ECMO patients for drug regimen and renal function. The primary outcome was the difference in PK/PD of cefepime in ECMO compared with non-ECMO ICU patients. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, treatment failure, superinfection, bacterial resistance, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were included with 44 matched cefepime concentrations in each group. ECMO patients had higher free maximum concentrations (fCmax) (p = 0.003), lower free minimum concentration (fCmin)/1x minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratios (p = 0.040), and lower attainment of free Cmin/4x MIC (p = 0.010). There were no differences between the groups for free Cmin, time above 1xMIC or 4x MIC, and pharmacokinetic parameters (ke, half-life, and Vd). Of those who survived to discharge, hospital length of stay was longer in the ECMO group (p < 0.001). Patients on ECMO were more likely to experience treatment failure (p = 0.036). The incidence of bacterial resistance, superinfection, or survival were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that more aggressive empiric dosing may be warranted in patients on ECMO. Therapeutic drug monitoring and future prospective studies would provide more evidence to guide decision making regarding dose adjustments.

Deciphering mechanisms affecting cefepime-taniborbactam in vitro activity in carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas spp. isolates recovered during a surveillance study in Spain.

PURPOSE: To characterize the resistance mechanisms affecting the cefepime-taniborbactam combination in a collection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas spp. (predominantly P. aeruginosa; CRPA) clinical isolates. METHODS: CPE (n = 247) and CRPA (n = 170) isolates were prospectively collected from patients admitted to 8 Spanish hospitals. Susceptibility to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators was determined by broth microdilution. Cefepime-taniborbactam was the most active agent, inhibiting 97.6% of CPE and 67.1% of CRPA (MICs ≤ 8/4 mg/L). All isolates with cefepime-taniborbactam MIC > 8/4 mg/L (5 CPE and 52 CRPA) and a subset with MIC ≤ 8/4 mg/L (23 CPE and 24 CRPA) were characterized by whole genome sequencing. RESULTS: A reduced cefepime-taniborbactam activity was found in two KPC-ST307-Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates with altered porins [KPC-62-K. pneumoniae (OmpA, OmpR/EnvZ), KPC-150-K. pneumoniae (OmpK35, OmpK36)] and one each ST133-VIM-1-Enterobacter hormaechei with altered OmpD, OmpR, and OmpC; IMP-8-ST24-Enterobacter asburiae; and NDM-5-Escherichia coli with an YRIN-inserted PBP3 and a mutated PBP2. Among the P. aeruginosa (68/76), elevated cefepime-taniborbactam MICs were mostly associated with GES-5-ST235, OXA-2+VIM-2-ST235, and OXA-2+VIM-20-ST175 isolates also carrying mutations in PBP3, efflux pump (mexR, mexZ) and AmpC (mpl) regulators, and non-carbapenemase-ST175 isolates with AmpD-T139M and PBP3-R504C mutations. Overall, accumulation of these mutations was frequently detected among non-carbapenemase producers. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced cefepime-taniborbactam activity among the minority of isolates with elevated cefepime-taniborbactam MICs is not only due to IMP carbapenemases but also to the accumulation of multiple resistance mechanisms, including PBP and porin mutations in CPE and chromosomal mutations leading to efflux pumps up-regulation, AmpC overexpression, and PBP modifications in P. aeruginosa.

Activity of imipenem/relebactam and comparators against KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

PURPOSE: Relebactam is a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor, which, when combined with imipenem/cilastatin, is active against both class A and class C ß-lactamases. To evaluate in vitro antimicrobial activity of imipenem/relebactam against a collection of recent clinical isolates of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa and K. pneumoniae ST258 and ST512 KPC producers belonging to different lineages from hospitals in Southern Spain. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-eight isolates were tested: 265 K. pneumoniae (230 ST512/KPC-3 and 35 ST258/KPC-3) and 413 carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa. Imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepime, aztreonam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, meropenem, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, colistin, and ceftazidime/avibactam were used as comparators against P. aeruginosa. Against K. pneumoniae ceftazidime, cefepime, aztreonam, and ceftolozane/tazobactam were not tested, and tigecycline was studied instead. MICs were determined in duplicate by broth microdilution according to EUCAST guidelines. RESULTS: Imipenem/relebactam displayed potent in vitro activity against both sequence types of KPC-3-producing K. pneumoniae. MIC50 and MIC90 values were 0.25 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively, with percent of susceptible isolates >97%. Only three K. pneumoniae ST512/KPC-3 isolates and one ST258/KPC-3 were resistant to imipenem/relebactam. Relebactam sensitized 98.5% of K. pneumoniae isolates resistant to imipenem. The activity of imipenem/relebactam against P. aeruginosa was moderate (susceptibility rate: 62.7%). Analysis of the acquired and mutational resistome of isolates with high levels of resistance to imipenem/relebactam has not shown a clear association between them. CONCLUSION: Imipenem/relebactam showed excellent activity against K. pneumoniae KPC-3. The activity of imipenem/relebactam against imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa was moderate.

Cefepime versus carbapenems for treatment of AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections.

PURPOSE: Cefepime is recommended for treating infections caused by AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (AmpC-PE), though supporting evidence is limited. Therefore, this study compared outcomes associated with cefepime versus carbapenem therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by AmpC-PE after phenotypic exclusion of ESBL-co-producing isolates. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared definite cefepime versus carbapenem treatment for AmpC-PE BSI in hospitalized patients of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 01/2015 and 07/2020. Primary outcomes included in-hospital death, renal impairment and neurologic adverse events; secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and recurrent infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy episodes of AmpC-PE BSI were included, 162, 77 and 31 were treated with a carbapenem, cefepime and other antibiotics, respectively. Patients treated with carbapenems were more likely to be transferred to the ICU on admission and more frequently had central venous catheter as a source of infection. In uni- and multivariable analyses, primary and secondary outcomes did not differ between the two treatment groups, except for more frequent occurrence of neurological adverse events among patients treated with carbapenems and shorter length of hospital stay among survivors treated with cefepime. CONCLUSION: After excluding isolates with phenotypic ESBL-co-production, cefepime was not associated with adverse outcomes compared to carbapenems when used to treat BSIs caused by AmpC-PE. Our study provides evidence to support the use of cefepime as a safe treatment strategy for AmpC-PE BSI, particularly in clinically stable patients without initial renal impairment or increased susceptibility to neurological adverse events.

Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility/resistance to cefiderocol: which are the best present and future therapeutic alternatives?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the different present and future therapeutic ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) alternatives, namely aztreonam-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, and sulbactam-durlobactam against clinical isolates showing reduced susceptibility or resistance to cefiderocol in Enterobacterales, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: MIC values of aztreonam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime, cefepime-taniborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, imipenem, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem, meropenem-vaborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, sulbactam-durlobactam, and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were determined for 67, 9, and 11 clinical Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa or A. baumannii isolates, respectively, showing MIC values of cefiderocol being ≥1 mg/L. If unavailable, the respective ß-lactam breakpoints according to EUCAST were used for BL/BLI combinations. RESULTS: For Enterobacterales, the susceptibility rates for aztreonam, cefepime, imipenem, and meropenem were 7.5%, 0%, 10.4%, and 10.4%, respectively, while they were much higher for cefepime-zidebactam (91%), cefiderocol-zidebactam (91%), meropenem-nacubactam (71.6%), cefiderocol-nacubactam (74.6%), and cefiderocol-taniborbactam (76.1%), as expected. For P. aeruginosa isolates, the higher susceptibility rates were observed for imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol-zidebactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam (56% for all combinations). For A. baumannii isolates, lower susceptibility rates were observed with commercially or under development BL/BLI combos; however, a high susceptibility rate (70%) was found for sulbactam-durlobactam and when cefiderocol was associated to some BLIs. CONCLUSIONS: Zidebactam- and nacubactam-containing combinations showed a significant in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol. On the other hand, imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam showed the highest susceptibility rates against P. aeruginosa isolates. Finally, sulbactam-durlobactam and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were the only effective options against A. baumannii tested isolates.

Dose Individualization of Cefepime for Febrile Neutropenia in Patients With Lymphoma or Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Optimal cefepime dosing is a challenge because of its dose-dependent neurotoxicity. This study aimed to determine individualized cefepime dosing for febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 16 patients receiving cefepime at a dose of 2 g every 12 hours. Unbound concentrations were determined at 0.5 hours, 7.2 hours [at the 60% time point of the 12 hours administration interval (C7.2h)], and 11 hours (trough concentration) after the first infusion (rate: 2 g/h). The primary and secondary end points were the predictive performance of the area under the unbound concentration-time curve (AUC unbound ) and the effect of unbound cefepime pharmacokinetic parameters on clinical response, respectively. RESULTS: The mean (SD) AUC unbound was 689.7 (226.6) mcg h/mL, which correlated with C7.2h (R 2 = 0.90), and the Bayesian posterior AUC unbound using only the trough concentration (R 2 = 0.66). Although higher exposure was more likely to show a better clinical response, each parameter did not indicate a statistical significance between positive and negative clinical responses ( P = 0.0907 for creatinine clearance (Ccr), 0.2523 for C7.2h, 0.4079 for trough concentration, and 0.1142 for AUC unbound ). Cutoff values were calculated as 80.2 mL/min for Ccr (sensitivity: 0.889, specificity: 0.714), 18.6 mcg/mL for C7.2h (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000), and 9.2 mcg/mL for trough concentration (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000). When aiming for a time above 100% the minimum inhibitory concentration, both continuous infusion of 4 g/d and intermittent infusion of 2 g every 8 hours achieved a probability of approximately 100% at a minimum inhibitory concentration of 8 mcg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring by sampling at C7.2h or trough can facilitate rapid dose optimization. Continuous infusion of 4 g/d was recommended. Intermittent dosing of 2 g every 8 hours was alternatively suggested for patients with a Ccr of 60-90 mL/min.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Bayesian-Guided Beta-Lactam Infusion Strategy and Associated Bacterial Resistance and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing health concern worldwide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of beta-lactam infusion on the emergence of bacterial resistance in patients with severe pneumonia in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Adult intensive care patients receiving cefepime, meropenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam for severe pneumonia caused by Gram-negative bacteria were randomized to receive beta-lactams as an intermittent (30 minutes) or continuous (24 hours) infusion. Respiratory samples for culture and susceptibility testing, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC), were collected once a week for up to 4 weeks. Beta-lactam plasma concentrations were measured and therapeutic drug monitoring was performed using Bayesian software as the standard of care. RESULTS: The study was terminated early owing to slow enrollment. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. Cefepime (n = 22) was the most commonly prescribed drug at randomization, followed by piperacillin (n = 8) and meropenem (n = 5). Nineteen patients were randomized into the continuous infusion arm and 16 into the intermittent infusion arm. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common respiratory isolate (n = 19). Eighteen patients were included in the final analyses. No differences in bacterial resistance were observed between arms ( P = 0.67). No significant differences in superinfection ( P = 1), microbiological cure ( P = 0.85), clinical cure at day 7 ( P = 0.1), clinical cure at end of therapy ( P = 0.56), mortality ( P = 1), intensive care unit length of stay ( P = 0.37), or hospital length of stay ( P = 0.83) were observed. Achieving 100% ƒT > MIC ( P = 0.04) and ƒT > 4 × MIC ( P = 0.02) increased likelihood of clinical cure at day 7 of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in the emergence of bacterial resistance or clinical outcomes were observed between intermittent and continuous infusions. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment may be associated with a clinical cure on day 7.

Antimicrobial activity of cefepime-tazobactam combination against extended spectrum beta-lactamase and/or AmpC beta-lactamase- producing gram-negative bacilli.

BACKGROUND: The problem of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, which is caused by ESBL and AmpC ß-lactamases, is getting worse globally. Infections caused by bacterial isolates harboring these enzymes are difficult to treat with carbapenems being the sole effective treatment option for such infections. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of ESBLs and AmpC-producing Gram-negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens and to evaluate the sensitivity of cefepime-tazobactam combination against them. METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study carried out on 100 Gram-negative bacilli at Theodor Bilharz Research Institute Hospital during the period from February 2015 to January 2016. ESBL production was screened by using the disc diffusion test followed by confirmation by the combined disc confirmatory test, the screening for AmpC production was conducted using the cefoxitin disc test, which was subsequently confirmed by the AmpC disc test. Isolates confirmed positive for ESBL and/ or AmpC production were investigated for their susceptibility to antibiotics. RESULTS: Among 100 Gram-negative bacilli, 44 isolates were confirmed as ESBL producers by the combined disc confirmatory test out of 56 isolates that tested positive for ESBL production through the disc diffusion test. The presence of AmpC production was assessed using the cefoxitin disc test, 32 isolates were screened to be AmpC producers, and the AmpC disc test confirmed AmpC production in 9 isolates of them. Using the Mast® D68C set, 32 isolates were ESBL producers, 3 were AmpC producers, and 4 isolates were ESBL/AmpC co-producers. The highest sensitivity was to cefepime-tazobactam (91.48%) followed by the carbapenems. CONCLUSION: Cefepime-tazobactam showed remarkable activity against ESBL and/or AmpC-producing Gram-negative bacilli and may be considered as a therapeutic alternative to carbapenems.