Published in

Oxford University Press, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 10(77), p. 2809-2815, 2022

DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac241

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Activity of cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/zidebactam against ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the activity of cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/zidebactam against a clinical and laboratory collection of ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa β-lactamase mutants. Methods The activity of cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam, cefepime/zidebactam and comparators was evaluated against a collection of 30 molecularly characterized ceftolozane/tazobactam- and/or ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates from patients previously treated with cephalosporins. To evaluate how the different β-lactamases in the clinical isolates affected the resistance to these agents, a copy of each blaPDC, blaOXA-2 and blaOXA-10 ancestral and mutant allele from the clinical isolates was cloned in pUCp24 and expressed in dual blaPDC-oprD (for blaPDC-like genes) or single oprD (for blaOXA-2-like and blaOXA-10-like genes) PAO1 knockout mutants. MICs were determined using reference methodologies. Results For all isolates, MICs were higher than 4 and/or 8 mg/L for ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam, respectively. Cefiderocol was the most active agent, showing activity against all isolates, except one clinical isolate that carried an R504C substitution in PBP3 (MIC = 16 mg/L). Imipenem/relebactam was highly active against all isolates, except two clinical isolates that carried the VIM-20 carbapenemase. Cefepime/zidebactam and cefepime/taniborbactam displayed activity against most of the isolates, but resistance was observed in some strains with PBP3 amino acid substitutions or that overexpressed mexAB-oprM or mexXY efflux pumps. Evaluation of transformants revealed that OXA-2 and OXA-10 extended-spectrum variants cause a 2-fold increase in the MIC of cefiderocol relative to parental enzymes. Conclusions Cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/zidebactam show promising and complementary in vitro activity against ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant P. aeruginosa. These agents may represent potential therapeutic options for ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant P. aeruginosa infections.