Activity of cefiderocol and innovative ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations against isogenic strains of Escherichia coli expressing single and double ß-lactamases under high and low permeability conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of the most clinically relevant ß-lactamases and their interplay with low outer membrane permeability on the activity of cefiderocol, ceftazidime/avibactam, aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/enmetazobactam, cefepime/taniborbactam, cefepime/zidebactam, imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, meropenem/xeruborbactam and meropenem/nacubactam against recombinant Escherichia coli strains. METHODS: We constructed 82 E. coli laboratory transformants expressing the main ß-lactamases circulating in Enterobacterales (70 expressing single ß-lactamase and 12 producing double carbapenemase) under high (E. coli TG1) and low (E. coli HB4) permeability conditions. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined by reference broth microdilution. RESULTS: Aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/zidebactam, cefiderocol, meropenem/xeruborbactam and meropenem/nacubactam were active against all E. coli TG1 transformants. Imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/enmetazobactam were also highly active, but unstable against most of MBL-producing transformants. Combination of ß-lactamases with porin deficiency (E. coli HB4) did not significantly affect the activity of aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/zidebactam, cefiderocol or meropenem/nacubactam, but limited the effectiveness of the rest of carbapenem- and cefepime-based combinations. Double-carbapenemase production resulted in the loss of activity of most of the compounds tested, an effect particularly evident for those E. coli HB4 transformants in which MBLs were present. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the promising activity that cefiderocol and new ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitors have against recombinant E. coli strains expressing widespread ß-lactamases, including when these are combined with low permeability or other enzymes. Aztreonam/avibactam, cefiderocol, cefepime/zidebactam and meropenem/nacubactam will help to mitigate to some extent the urgency of new compounds able to resist MBL action, although NDM enzymes represent a growing challenge against which drug development efforts are still needed.

In vitro development of imipenem/relebactam resistance in KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae involves multiple mutations including OmpK36 disruption and KPC modification.

OBJECTIVES: In order to inform and anticipate potential strategies aimed at combating KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections, we analysed imipenem/relebactam and ceftazidime/avibactam single-step mutant frequencies, resistance development trajectories, differentially selected resistance mechanisms and their associated fitness cost using four representative high-risk K. pneumoniae clones. METHODS: Mutant frequencies and mutant preventive concentrations were determined using agar plates containing incremental concentrations of ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor. Resistance dynamics were determined through incubation for 7 days in 10 mL MH tubes containing incremental concentrations of each antibiotic combination up to their 64 × baseline MIC. Two colonies per strain from each experiment were characterized by antimicrobial susceptibility testing, whole genome sequencing and competitive growth assays (to determine in vitro fitness). KPC variants associated with imipenem/relebactam resistance were characterized by cloning and biochemical experiments, atomic models and molecular dynamics simulation studies. RESULTS: Imipenem/relebactam prevented the emergence of single-step resistance mutants at lower concentrations than ceftazidime/avibactam. In three of the four strains evaluated, imipenem/relebactam resistance development emerged more rapidly, and in the ST512/KPC-3 clone reached higher levels compared to baseline MICs than for ceftazidime/avibactam. Lineages evolved in the presence of ceftazidime/avibactam showed KPC substitutions associated with high-level ceftazidime/avibactam resistance, increased imipenem/relebactam susceptibility and low fitness costs. Lineages that evolved in the presence of imipenem/relebactam showed OmpK36 disruption, KPC modifications (S106L, N132S, L167R) and strain-specific substitutions associated with imipenem/relebactam resistance and high fitness costs. Imipenem/relebactam-selected KPC derivatives demonstrated enhanced relebactam resistance through important changes affecting relebactam recognition and positioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings anticipate potential resistance mechanisms affecting imipenem/relebactam during treatment of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae infections.