Surveillance of In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol Against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Clinical Isolates in a Tertiary Care Hospital.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic resistance among Gram-negative bacterial isolates is increasingly observed. With the emergence of carbapenem-resistant and pan-resistant pathogens, treating these resistant infections is becoming more challenging due to the limited number of effective drugs. There is a desperate need for the discovery of new antibiotics with novel mechanisms of action. Cefiderocol is one such novel antibiotic with a unique siderophore-based mechanism of action, which has been recently approved for clinical use against drug-resistant pathogens. The present study aims to identify the in vitro activity of cefiderocol against major carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates, including those resistant to colistin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and one carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates were included in the study. Identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing were performed using the automated VITEK® 2 Compact (bioMérieux SA, Marcy-l'Étoile, France) identification and susceptibility testing system, except for colistin and cefiderocol. Colistin resistance in Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was assessed using the agar dilution minimum inhibitory concentration method, while for Acinetobacter baumannii, broth microdilution method was employed. Cefiderocol susceptibility testing was conducted using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method with 30 µg discs on standard Mueller-Hinton agar plates. For selected isolates, cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentration detection was performed using broth microdilution with iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth. RESULTS: Of the total 101 isolates, the majority (75, 74.25%) were Enterobacterales which included Klebsiella pneumonia (42, 41.58%) and Escherichia coli (33, 32.67%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13, 12.87%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (10, 9.9%). Only three (2.97%) of the isolates were Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Most of the isolates were susceptible to cefiderocol, with only four (3.96%) isolates showing resistance. Colistin resistance was observed in six (6.12%) of the isolates. There was a good correlation between disc diffusion testing and broth microdilution testing for the detection of cefiderocol-resistant isolates. No cross-resistance with colistin was observed, as all colistin-resistant isolates were uniformly susceptible to cefiderocol Conclusion: Cefiderocol is highly effective with good in vitro activity against the majority of carbapenem-resistant pathogens. While some isolates do show resistance, it is relatively uncommon. Given its safety profile compared to colistin, cefiderocol can serve as an alternative to colistin to treat carbapenem-resistant infections and it may be considered even for the management of colistin-resistant cases. Disc diffusion testing is a reliable method for identifying cefiderocol-resistant isolates in routine clinical and diagnostic laboratories, especially in resource-limited settings.