Individual or Combined Effects of Meropenem, Imipenem, Sulbactam, Colistin, and Tigecycline on Biofilm-Embedded Acinetobacter baumannii and Biofilm Architecture.

Acinetobacter baumannii biofilms are difficult to eradicate. We investigated the effects of meropenem (2 mg/liter), imipenem (2 mg/liter), sulbactam (4 mg/liter), colistin (2 mg/liter), and tigecycline (2 mg/liter), alone or in combination, on biofilm-embedded carbapenem-resistant and carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii (CRAb and CSAb, respectively) cells, as well as on the architecture of the biofilms. A. baumannii ATCC 15151 (Ab15151) and its OXA-82-overproducing transformant, along with two clinical CSAb and two clinical CRAb isolates of differing clonalities, were used. The minimal bactericidal concentrations for biofilm-embedded cells of the six tested isolates were >50-fold those of their planktonic cells. When used individually, meropenem exhibited a higher killing effect than the other four antimicrobials on biofilm-embedded CSAb cells in the colony biofilm assay. For two clinical CRAb isolates, meropenem plus sulbactam or sulbactam plus tigecycline showed >100-fold the bactericidal effect exhibited by these agents used alone after 48 h of treatment. The effect of antimicrobials on the architecture of Ab15151 biofilm emitting green fluorescence was determined by confocal laser scanning microscopy using COMSTAT software. Significant decreases in the maximum biofilm thickness were observed after exposure to meropenem and imipenem. Meropenem plus sulbactam significantly decreased the biomass and mean thickness and increased the roughness coefficient of biofilms, but sulbactam plus tigecycline only decreased the maximum and mean biofilm thickness compared to any of these agents used alone. Meropenem was active against biofilm-embedded CSAb, whereas meropenem plus sulbactam exhibited synergism against biofilm-embedded CRAb and caused significantly more damage to the biofilm architecture than did any of the agents used alone.

In Vivo and In Vitro Efficacy of Minocycline-Based Combination Therapy for Minocycline-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.

Minocycline-based combination therapy has been suggested to be a possible choice for the treatment of infections caused by minocycline-susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii, but its use for the treatment of infections caused by minocycline-resistant A. baumannii is not well established. In this study, we compared the efficacy of minocycline-based combination therapy (with colistin, cefoperazone-sulbactam, or meropenem) to that of colistin in combination with meropenem for the treatment of minocycline-resistant A. baumannii infection. From 2006 to 2010, 191 (17.6%) of 1,083 A. baumannii complex isolates not susceptible to minocycline from the Taiwan Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance program were collected. Four representative A. baumannii isolates resistant to minocycline, amikacin, ampicillin-sulbactam, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, cefepime, gentamicin, imipenem, levofloxacin, meropenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam were selected on the basis of the diversity of their pulsotypes, collection years, health care setting origins, and geographic areas of origination. All four isolates had tetB and overexpressed adeABC, as revealed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Among all minocycline-based regimens, only the combination with colistin produced a fractional inhibitory concentration index comparable to that achieved with meropenem combined with colistin. Minocycline (4 or 16 µg/ml) in combination with colistin (0.5 µg/ml) also synergistically killed minocycline-resistant isolates in time-kill studies. Minocycline (50 mg/kg of body weight) in combination with colistin (10 mg/kg) significantly improved the survival of mice and reduced the number of bacteria present in the lungs of mice compared to the results of monotherapy. However, minocycline (16 µg/ml)-based therapy was not effective at reducing biofilm-associated bacteria at 24 or 48 h when its effectiveness was compared to that of colistin (0.5 µg/ml) and meropenem (8 µg/ml). The clinical use of minocycline in combination with colistin for the treatment of minocycline-resistant A. baumannii may warrant further investigation.

Contribution of Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase-30 to sulbactam resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii.

The sulbactam resistance rate in Acinetobacter baumannii has increased worldwide. Previous reports have shown that the ß-lactamase bla TEM-1 confers resistance to sulbactam in A. baumannii. The purpose of this study was to examine whether other ß-lactamases, including the Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase (ADC), OXA-23, OXA-24/72, and OXA-58 families, also contribute to sulbactam resistance in A. baumannii. The correlation between these ß-lactamases and the sulbactam minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined using A. baumannii clinical isolates from diverse clonality, which were collected in a nationwide surveillance program from 2002 to 2010 in Taiwan. A possible association between the genetic structure of ISAba1-bla ADC-30 and sulbactam resistance was observed because this genetic structure was detected in 97% of sulbactam-resistant strains compared with 10% of sulbactam-susceptible strains. Transformation of ISAba1-bla ADC-30 into susceptible strains increased the sulbactam MIC from 2 to 32 µg/ml, which required bla ADC-30 overexpression using an upstream promoter in ISAba1. Flow cytometry showed that ADC-30 production increased in response to sulbactam, ticarcillin, and ceftazidime treatment. This effect was regulated at the RNA level but not by an increase in the bla ADC-30 gene copy number as indicated by quantitative PCR. Purified ADC-30 decreased the inhibitory zone created by sulbactam or ceftazidime, similarly to TEM-1. In conclusion, ADC-30 overexpression conferred resistance to sulbactam in diverse clinical A. baumannii isolates.