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.

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.

Differential frequency of persister cells in clinically derived isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa after exposure to cefiderocol and ceftolozane/tazobactam.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial persistence is a phenomenon whereby a subpopulation of bacteria survive high concentrations of an active antibiotic in the absence of phenotypic alterations. Persisters are associated with chronic and recurrent infections for pathogens including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Understanding persister profiles of newer antibiotics such as cefiderocol and ceftolozane/tazobactam against P. aeruginosa is warranted as these agents generally target difficult-to-treat infections. METHODS: Persister formation was assessed using in vitro assays against nine clinical P. aeruginosa isolates exposed to cefiderocol or ceftolozane/tazobactam. Quantitative persister assays were performed using a stationary phase of bacteria challenged with 10-fold MIC drug concentrations. Persisters were quantitated as the percent persisters at 24 h and the log ratio (LR) difference in AUC for cfu for each antibiotic alone compared with growth control. The tolerance disc test (TDtest) was used to qualitatively detect persisters. RESULTS: Percent persisters at 24 h was lower with cefiderocol compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam for six of the nine tested isolates. Eight of the nine isolates had higher reduction in LR for cefiderocol groups, suggesting an overall higher and more rapid bacterial reduction in cefiderocol groups. For cefiderocol, five of the nine tested isolates lacked regrowth after replacement with glucose disc, suggesting no persistence via the TDtest. For ceftolozane/tazobactam, three isolates lacked persister formation. CONCLUSIONS: Cefiderocol resulted in less bacterial persistence relative to ceftolozane/tazobactam against nine clinical P. aeruginosa isolates. Cefiderocol's siderophore mechanism may be advantageous over ceftolozane/tazobactam through enhanced anti-persister effects. Clinical correlation of these findings is warranted as persisters can lead to antibiotic resistance and treatment failure.

Validation of a Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bloodstream infection prediction score in the hematologic malignancy population.

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (SM) bloodstream infections (BSIs) contribute to significant mortality in hematologic malignancy (HM) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients. A risk score to predict SM BSI could reduce time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy (TTAT) and improve patient outcomes. A single center cohort study of hospitalized adults with HM/HSCT was conducted. Patients had ≥ 1 blood culture with a Gram-negative (GN) organism. A StenoSCORE was calculated for each patient. The StenoSCORE2 was developed using risk factors for SM BSI identified via logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. Sensitivity and specificity for the StenoSCORE and StenoSCORE2 were calculated. Thirty-six SM patients and 534 non-SM patients were assessed. A StenoSCORE ≥ 33 points was 80% sensitive, 68% specific, and accurately classified 69% of GN BSIs. StenoSCORE2 variables included acute leukemia, prolonged neutropenia, mucositis, ICU admission, recent meropenem and/or cefepime exposure. The StenoSCORE2 performed better than the StenoSCORE (ROC AUC 0.84 vs. 0.77). A StenoSCORE2 ≥ 4 points was 86% sensitive, 76% specific, and accurately classified 77% of GN BSIs. TTAT was significantly longer for patients with SM BSI compared with non-SM BSI (45.16 h vs. 0.57 h; p < 0.0001). In-hospital and 28-day mortality were significantly higher for patients with SM BSI compared to non-SM BSI (58.3% vs. 18.5% and 66.7% vs. 26.4%; p-value < 0.0001). The StenoSCORE and StenoSCORE2 performed well in predicting SM BSIs in patients with HM/HSCT and GN BSI. Clinical studies evaluating whether StenoSCORE and/or StenoSCORE2 implementation improves TTAT and clinical outcomes are warranted.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Phenotypic and genotypic profile of ceftolozane/tazobactam-non-susceptible, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the genotypic and ceftazidime/avibactam-susceptibility profiles amongst ceftolozane/tazobactam-non-susceptible (NS), MBL-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a global surveillance programme. METHODS: Isolates were collected as part of the ERACE-PA Global Surveillance programme. Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa deemed clinically relevant by the submitting laboratories were included. Broth microdilution MICs were conducted per CLSI standards to ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftazidime and cefepime. Genotypic carbapenemases were detected using CarbaR and CarbaR NxG (research use only). Isolates negative for carbapenemases by PCR were assessed via WGS. Isolates were included in the analysis if they were ceftolozane/tazobactam-NS and lacked detection of known MBLs. RESULTS: Of the 807 isolates collected in the ERACE-PA programme, 126 (16%) were ceftolozane/tazobactam-NS and lacked MBLs. Cross-resistance to ceftazidime and cefepime was common, with only 5% and 16% testing susceptible, respectively. Ceftazidime/avibactam retained in vitro activity, with 65% of isolates testing susceptible. GES was the most common enzymology, detected in 57 (45%) isolates, and 89% remained susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam. Seven isolates harboured KPC and all tested susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam. In the remaining 62 isolates, WGS revealed various ESBLs or OXA ß-lactamases. While 39% remained susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam, marked variability was observed among the diverse resistance mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime/avibactam remained active in vitro against the majority of ceftolozane/tazobactam-NS, MBL-negative P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime/avibactam was highly active against isolates harbouring GES and KPC ß-lactamases. These data highlight the potential clinical utility of genotypic profiling as well as the need to test multiple novel agents when carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa are encountered.

In vivo translational assessment of the GES genotype on the killing profile of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the in vivo killing profile of human-simulated exposures of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem against GES-harbouring Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the murine thigh infection model. METHODS: Five P. aeruginosa isolates [three isogenic (GES-1, GES-5 and GES-15) and two clinical (GES-5 and GES-15)] were evaluated. MICs were determined using broth microdilution. Human-simulated regimens (HSRs) of ceftazidime 2 g IV q8h as a 2 h infusion, ceftazidime/avibactam 2.5 g IV q8h as a 2 h infusion and meropenem 2 g IV q8h as a 3 h infusion were administered. Change in bacterial burden relative to baseline was assessed. RESULTS: Modal MICs ranged from 8 to >64 mg/L for ceftazidime, from 1 to 16 mg/L for ceftazidime/avibactam and from 1 to >64 mg/L for meropenem. In vivo, for the isogenic strains, avibactam augmented ceftazidime activity against the GES-1- and GES-15-harbouring isolates. Both ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in significant kill against the GES-5 isogenic isolate. The meropenem HSR produced >1 log10 kill against each isogenic isolate (MICs of 1-4 mg/L). Against the GES-5 clinical isolate, ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in >1 log10 kill compared with bacterial growth with the meropenem HSR. In the clinical isolate harbouring GES-15, the elevated MICs of ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam reduced the effectiveness of both compounds, while the observed reduction in meropenem MIC translated into in vivo efficacy of the HSR regimen, predictive of clinical efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: In GES-harbouring P. aeruginosa, quantitative reductions in bacterial density observed with the translational murine model suggest that the phenotypic profile of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem is predictive of clinical efficacy when using the evaluated dosing regimens.

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

BACKGROUND: Two out of the three recently approved ß-lactam (BL)/ß-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) 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 WT, 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 73% (37/51) 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.

Omadacycline pharmacokinetics and soft-tissue penetration in diabetic patients with wound infections and healthy volunteers using in vivo microdialysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the plasma and soft-tissue pharmacokinetic exposure of omadacycline in infected patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) and healthy volunteers using in vivo microdialysis. METHODS: Eight patients and six healthy volunteers were enrolled and received an omadacycline IV loading dose (200 mg) followed by two oral doses (300 mg) every 24 h. Microdialysis catheters were placed in the soft tissue near the infected diabetic foot wound (patients) or thigh (healthy volunteers). Plasma and dialysate fluid samples were collected, starting immediately prior to the third dose and continued for 24 h post-dose. Protein binding was determined by ultracentrifugation. RESULTS: The mean ± SD omadacycline pharmacokinetic parameters in plasma for infected patients and healthy volunteers were: Cmax, 0.57 ± 0.15 and 1.14 ± 0.26 mg/L; t½, 16.19 ± 5.06 and 25.34 ± 12.92 h; and total omadacycline AUC0-24, 6.27 ± 1.38 and 14.06 ± 3.40 mg·h/L, respectively. The omadacycline mean plasma free fraction was 0.21 and 0.20 for patients and healthy volunteers, corresponding to free plasma AUC0-24 of 1.13 ± 0.37 and 2.78 ± 0.55 mg·h/L, respectively. Omadacycline tissue AUC0-24 was 0.82 ± 0.38 and 1.37 ± 0.48 mg·h/L for patients and volunteers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study describes the plasma and soft-tissue exposure of omadacycline in patients with DFI and healthy volunteers. Integrating these data with the microbiological, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and clinical efficacy data is foundational to support clinical assessments of omadacycline efficacy specifically for DFI. This, coupled with the once-daily oral administration, suggests omadacycline could be an advantageous translational therapy for the hospital and outpatient setting.

Phenotypic/Genotypic Profile of OXA-10-Like-Harboring, Carbapenem-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Using Validated Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic In Vivo Models To Further Evaluate Enzyme Functionality and Clinical Implications.

In vitro MICs and in vivo pharmacodynamics of ceftazidime and cefepime human-simulated regimens (HSR) against modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM)-positive Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates harboring different OXA-10-like subtypes were described. The murine thigh model assessed ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h [q8h] HSR) and cefepime (2 g and 1 g q8h HSR). Phenotypes were similar despite possessing OXA-10-like subtypes with differing spectra. Ceftazidime produced ≥1-log10 killing in all isolates. Cefepime activity was dose dependent and MIC driven. This approach may be useful in assessing the implications of ß-lactamase variants.

Elevated MICs of Susceptible Antipseudomonal Cephalosporins in Non-Carbapenemase-Producing, Carbapenem-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Implications for Dose Optimization.

The present study evaluated the in vitro potency of ceftazidime and cefepime among carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected as part of a global surveillance program and assessed the pharmacodynamic implications using previously published population pharmacokinetics. When susceptible, MICs resulted at the high end of distribution for both ceftazidime and cefepime, thus 6 g/day was required to achieve optimal pharmacodynamic profiles. These findings should be considered in the clinic and for the application of CLSI susceptibility breakpoints.

In vivo activity of WCK 4282 (high-dose cefepime/tazobactam) against serine ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the neutropenic murine thigh infection model.

OBJECTIVES: WCK 4282, high-dose cefepime/tazobactam, possesses potent in vitro activity against Gram-negative organisms including ESBL- and cephalosporinase-harbouring strains. The purpose of this evaluation was to investigate the in vivo activity of human-simulated exposures of WCK 4282 against serine-ß-lactamase-harbouring Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: Nineteen clinical isolates were evaluated (ESBL/cephalosporinase producers, n = 8 Escherichia coli, n = 4 P. aeruginosa; KPC producers, n = 3 Klebsiella pneumoniae, n = 1 Klebsiella aerogenes; OXA-48/181 producers, n = 2 K. pneumoniae, n = 1 E. coli). WCK 4282 MICs ranged from 4 to 32 mg/L compared with 16 to >128 mg/L for cefepime. Thigh-infected neutropenic mice received cefepime, WCK 4282 or sham control over 24 h prior to harvest. Cefepime and tazobactam dosing regimens produced plasma profiles of fAUC, fT>MIC and fCmax similar to human exposure after WCK 4282 2/2 g every 8 h (1.5 h infusion). RESULTS: Bacterial burdens (log10 cfu/thigh) were 5.81 ±â€Š0.36 at 0 h and 9.29 ±â€Š0.88 at 24 h in untreated controls. WCK 4282 produced potent activity against ESBL/cephalosporinase-producing strains with WCK 4282 MIC ≤16 mg/L; mean changes in log10 cfu/thigh from 0 h were -1.70 ±â€Š0.77 and +1.86 ±â€Š2.03 log10 cfu/thigh for WCK 4282 and cefepime human-simulated regimens, respectively. WCK 4282 produced variable activity against serine-carbapenemase-harbouring isolates. For the KPC-harbouring strains, WCK 4282 produced bacteriostasis with a mean -0.1 ±â€Š0.61 log10 cfu/thigh. Against OXA-48/181-harbouring isolates, WCK 4282 produced a range of change in bacterial burden of -1.23 ±â€Š0.33 to +1.04 ±â€Š0.7 log10 cfu/thigh. CONCLUSIONS: Human-simulated exposures of WCK 4282 produced in vivo efficacy against ESBL/cephalosporinase-producing, piperacillin/tazobactam- and ceftolozane/tazobactam-non-susceptible Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. These findings support further development of this combination as a carbapenem-sparing agent.

Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of meropenem/vaborbactam and meropenem against OXA-48 ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales in the neutropenic murine thigh infection model.

OBJECTIVES: Despite vaborbactam lacking inhibitory activity against OXA-48, approximately a third of OXA-48-harbouring Enterobacterales test susceptible to meropenem/vaborbactam due to its higher breakpoint than meropenem alone. The present study evaluated the efficacy of human-simulated exposures of meropenem/vaborbactam against OXA-48-harbouring Enterobacterales in the neutropenic murine thigh model. METHODS: Twenty-six isolates [OXA-48 (n = 24) and KPC (n = 2)] were evaluated. MICs were conducted in triplicate per CLSI. Mice received human-simulated regimens of meropenem/vaborbactam, meropenem or vehicle for 24 h. Mice were inoculated with ∼1 × 107 cfu/mL in each thigh 2 h prior to dosing and both thighs were harvested at 24 h. Efficacy was assessed using mean log10 cfu/thigh at 24 h and the achievement of 1 log10 reduction relative to 0 h control as an established surrogate marker predictive of success for serious infections. RESULTS: Meropenem/vaborbactam MICs ranged from 1 to 64 mg/L. The mean inoculum at 0 h was 5.77 ± 0.26 compared with 8.26 ± 1.53 for controls at 24 h. As anticipated for KPCs, meropenem/vaborbactam resulted in enhanced mean ± SD change in bacterial density (-1.10 ± 0.26), compared with meropenem (1.45 ± 0.88). Vaborbactam did not enhance mean ± SD change against OXA-48 isolates compared with meropenem (-0.44 ± 1.29 and -0.43 ± 1.36, respectively). For OXA-48-harbouring isolates with meropenem/vaborbactam MICs ≥16 (n = 5), 8 (n = 5), 4 (n = 9) and ≤2 (n = 5) mg/L, 0%, 0%, 44% and 60% of isolates achieved the target reduction ≥1 log10 with either agent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight that meropenem/vaborbactam and meropenem humanized exposures in vivo resulted in similar, albeit poor, activity against OXA-48-producing Enterobacterales despite susceptible MICs per EUCAST and CLSI interpretation. As a result, caution is warranted when treating meropenem/vaborbactam-susceptible Enterobacterales without a genotypic profile.