In vitro activity of cefepime/taniborbactam and comparator agents against Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream pathogens recovered from patients with cancer.

Background: Taniborbactam is a ß-lactamase inhibitor that, when combined with cefepime, may offer a potential treatment option for patients with serious and resistant Gram-negative bacterial (GNB) pathogens. Objectives: This study evaluated in vitro activity of cefepime/taniborbactam and comparator agents against GNB pathogens isolated from patients with cancer at our institution. Methods: A total of 270 GNB pathogens (2019-23) isolated from patients with cancer were tested against cefepime/taniborbactam and comparator agents commonly used for these patients. CLSI-approved broth microdilution methods were used. MIC50, MIC90, MIC range and percentage of susceptibility calculations were made using FDA breakpoints when available. Results: Cefepime/taniborbactam showed highly potent activity against tested Enterobacterales, including isolates producing ESBLs and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. At a provisional breakpoint of ≤16/4 mg/L, cefepime/taniborbactam inhibited most tested species of GNB pathogens, with overall 98.9% susceptibility, which was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher than the susceptibility of the GNB isolates to all other tested comparator agents, ranging from 39.6% for cefepime to 86.3% for ceftazidime/avibactam. Conclusions: Our results showed that taniborbactam in combination with cefepime improved in vitro activity against GNB pathogens isolated from patients with cancer, including MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, ESBL-producing Enterobacterales and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates, with highest activity compared with all tested comparator agents, including other ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations. Further studies are warranted to explore the efficacy of cefepime/taniborbactam for empirical initial treatment of GNB infections in cancer patients with high rates of febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization.

In vitro activity of tebipenem and comparator agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with cancer.

Background: Tebipenem is a broad-spectrum orally administered carbapenem antibiotic that could be an alternative to IV carbapenems. The current study evaluated in vitro activity of tebipenem against bacterial isolates recovered from patients with cancer. Methods: A total of 611 bacterial pathogens recently isolated from patients with cancer were tested for susceptibility to tebipenem and comparators. CLSI-approved broth microdilution methods were used. MIC50, MIC90, MIC range and percentage susceptibility calculations were made using FDA breakpoints when available. Results: Tebipenem had a low MIC90 for most Gram-positive and Enterobacterales isolates. Tebipenem MIC90 ranged from 0.06 to 0.25 mg/L for all tested Enterobacterales. Conclusions: Oral tebipenem has promising activity against clinically significant bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with cancer. Further clinical evaluation of tebipenem for the treatment of bacterial infections in patients with cancer is warranted.

In vitro activity of eravacycline and comparator agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with cancer.

Background: Bacterial infections are common in patients with cancer, and many bacteria have developed resistance to currently used antibiotics. Objectives: We evaluated the in vitro activity of eravacycline (a recently developed fluorocycline) and comparators against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with cancer. Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using CLSI-approved methodology and interpretive criteria for 255 Gram-positive and 310 Gram-negative bacteria. MIC and susceptibility percentage were calculated according to CLSI and FDA breakpoints when available. Results: Eravacycline had potent activity against most Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA. Of 80 Gram-positive isolates with available breakpoints, 74 (92.5%) were susceptible to eravacycline. Eravacycline had potent activity against most Enterobacterales, including ESBL-producing organisms. Of 230 Gram-negative isolates with available breakpoints, 201 (87.4%) were susceptible to eravacycline. Eravacycline had the best activity among comparators against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, with 83% susceptibility. Eravacycline was also active against many non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria, with the lowest MIC90 value among comparators. Conclusions: Eravacycline was active against many clinically significant bacteria isolated from patients with cancer, including MRSA, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli. Eravacycline might play an important role in the treatment of bacterial infections in patients with cancer, and additional clinical evaluation is warranted.

The in vitro activity of delafloxacin and comparator agents against bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with cancer.

Background: Fluoroquinolones are used for infection prevention in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies. Fluoroquinolones are active against many Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) but are less active against Gram-positive organisms. We evaluated the in vitro activity of delafloxacin and selected comparators against 560 bacterial pathogens isolated exclusively from patients with cancer. Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and time-kill studies were performed using CLSI-approved methodology and interpretive criteria for 350 Gram-positive organisms and 210 GNB that had been recently isolated from patients with cancer. Results: Delafloxacin was more active than ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus and CoNS. Overall, 63% of staphylococcal isolates were susceptible to delafloxacin, 37% to ciprofloxacin and 39% to levofloxacin. Activity of delafloxacin against most Enterobacterales was similar to that of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin. Escherichia coli and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates had low susceptibility rates to the three tested fluoroquinolones. In time-kill studies delafloxacin and levofloxacin decreased the bacterial load to 3.0 log10 in 8 and 13 h, respectively, using 8 × MIC. Conclusions: Delafloxacin is more active than ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin against S. aureus but has substantial gaps in coverage against GNB. Resistance to all three fluoroquinolones could be high among leading GNB such as E. coli and P. aeruginosa, particularly in cancer centres where these agents are widely used as prophylactic agents.

In vitro activity of imipenem/releactam and comparator agents against clinical bacterial isolates from patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) are currently the predominant bacterial pathogens in patients with cancer. Many GNB have become problematic due to the widespread emergence of resistance. Imipenem/relebactam (IMI/REL) is a combination of the carbapenem imipenem with relebactam, a non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor. It is active against most pathogenic GNB including many that are resistant to other agents. We compared its in vitro activity to six other agents against 490 GNB recovered exclusively from patients with cancer because such data are scarce. METHODS: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) microbroth dilution methods were used for susceptibility testing. Whole genome sequencing (Illumina MiSeq) was performed on 30 selected isolates. RESULTS: IMI/REL was active against 98% of Enterobacterales and 87% of non-Enterobacterales isolates (excluding Stenotrophomonas maltophilia). It had potent activity against extended spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and other Enterobacterales (Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter Spp., and Serratia Spp.) and moderate activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. IMI/REL had potent activity against Achromobacter Spp., non-multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Sphingomonas paucimobilis and moderate activity against multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa. Overall, IMI/REL was associated with the lowest number of nonsusceptible isolates compared with six other agents (imipenem, meropenem, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, and tigecycline) commonly used in patients with cancer. Whole genome sequencing performed on 30 resistant isolates (10 each of E. coli, K. pneumonia, and P. aeruginosa) did not reveal any predominant mechanism of resistance to IMI/REL. CONCLUSION: Its in vitro activity indicates that IMI/REL might have a role to play in the treatment of Gram-negative infections in patients with cancer.

Review of allergic reactions from use of chlorhexidine on medical products in clinical settings over 40 years: Risks and mitigations.

Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial agent widely used for infection prevention in medical settings. Nevertheless, allergic reactions ranging from mild to severe have been reported following its use. In this review, we analyzed all case reports published between the introduction of chlorhexidine and the end of 2019 for allergic responses associated with the use of medical devices and or other medical products containing chlorhexidine (CHX) to ascertain the prevalence of severe CHX allergic reactions and what practices might best mitigate those risks.In total, 77 publications containing 124 reported cases of allergic reactions were grouped into 3 product categories, catheters, semisolids, and fluid products. The country, type of reaction, route of sensitization, allergy confirmation, and intervention or mitigation was extracted for each case. Overall, 30 cases were associated with catheters, 46 cases were associated with semisolid products, and 48 cases were associated with the use of other medical products. Severe cases were managed with intravenous fluids, steroids, and epinephrine (adrenaline). None of the reported cases were fatal. The allergy risks can be mitigated by better warning and training clinicians and by recording and screening patient histories for CHX presensitization from prior exposure. For patients undergoing pre-use blood tests, IgE antibody screens can also be performed. Finally, as a precaution in the event a rare severe allergic reaction occurs, procedure carts and rooms can be prestocked with injectable epinephrine and other rapidly acting anti-inflammatory medications.

Enhanced Biofilm Eradication and Reduced Cytotoxicity of a Novel Polygalacturonic and Caprylic Acid Wound Ointment Compared with Common Antiseptic Ointments.

Antiseptic wound ointments are widely used to treat dermal wounds that are microbially contaminated. Polygalacturonic acid (PG)+caprylic acid (CAP) is a novel combination that has been shown to eradicate biofilms. We developed a novel PG+CAP ointment and compared the biofilm eradication capability and cytotoxicity of PG+CAP with that of commercially available antiseptic wound ointments. We used a well-established biofilm model to quantitatively assess the eradication of organisms following exposure to the wound ointments for 2 hours. PG+CAP ointment completely eradicated Candida albicans, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, whereas MediHoney, polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB), and benzalkonium chloride (BZK) ointments failed to eradicate all biofilms within 2 hours. We assessed cytotoxicity by exposing L-929 fibroblasts to extracts of each ointment; Trypan blue exclusion was used to assess cell viability, and Alamar blue conversion was used to assess metabolic function. After exposure to PG+CAP and MediHoney, fibroblast viability was 96.23% and 95.23%, respectively (Trypan blue), and was comparable to untreated cells (98.77%). PHMB and BZK showed reduced viability (83.25% and 77.83%, respectively, p < 0.05). Metabolic activity results followed a similar pattern. Cytotoxicity of PG+CAP ointment towards erythrocytes was comparable to saline. PG+CAP ointment seems to be safe and can rapidly eradicate microbial biofilm; thus, PG+CAP ointment merits further in vivo testing as a potential antimicrobial wound ointment.

Minocycline-EDTA-Ethanol Antimicrobial Catheter Lock Solution Is Highly Effective In Vitro for Eradication of Candida auris Biofilms.

Candida auris is an emerging pathogen that can cause virulent central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Catheter salvage through the eradication of biofilms is a desirable therapeutic option. We compared taurolidine and minocycline-EDTA-ethanol (MEE) catheter lock solutions in vitro for the eradication of biofilms of 10 C. auris strains. MEE fully eradicated all C. auris biofilms, while taurolidine lock partially eradicated all of the C. auris biofilms. The superiority was significant for all C. auris strains tested (P = 0.002).

The potential for developing new antimicrobial resistance from the use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin and their combinations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Catheter infections remain one of the most persistent adverse events causing significant morbidity, economic impact and mortality. Several strategies have been proposed to reduce these infections including the use of catheters embedded with antibiotics and/or antiseptics. One reoccurring challenge is the fear that antimicrobial medical devices will induce resistance. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for induced antimicrobial resistance caused by exposure to antimicrobial medical devices. METHODS: Four electronic databases [MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Scopus] were screened for studies published between 1983 and 2019 regarding assessment of microbial resistance with use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin or combinations thereof. Development of new resistance, selection for tolerant organisms and 'no change in resistance' were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-four publications, grouped by study type and stratified by drug assessed, were included for analyses. The majority of studies found no change in resistance after exposure to antimicrobial medical devices (13 in vitro, 2 in vivo, 20 clinical). Development of new resistance was commonly reported with the use of rifampicin as a single agent and only reported in one study assessing the minocycline/rifampicin combination (M/R); however, the increase in MIC was well below clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Emergence of new resistance to combinations of M/R, minocycline/rifampicin/chlorhexidine (M/R/CH) and chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine (CHXSS) was rare. No clinical trials confirmed its occurrence and some refuted it. The risk of development of new resistance to these antimicrobial combinations appears more fear-based than substantiated by clinical and experimental evidence but warrants continued surveillance.