Use this link to cite:
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/42153 Activity of cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/zidebactam against ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
Authors
Lasarte-Monterrubio, Cristina
Fraile-Ribot, Pablo Arturo
Vázquez-Ucha, Juan Carlos
Cabot, Gabriel
Guijarro-Sánchez, Paula
Alonso-García, Isaac
Rumbo-Feal, Soraya
Galán-Sánchez, Fátima
Beceiro Casas, Alejandro
Arca-Suárez, Jorge
Advisors
Other responsabilities
Journal Title
Bibliographic citation
Lasarte-Monterrubio C, Fraile-Ribot PA, Vázquez-Ucha JC, Cabot G, Guijarro-Sánchez P, Alonso-García I, Rumbo-Feal S, Galán-Sánchez F, Beceiro A, Arca-Suárez J, Oliver A, Bou G. Activity of cefiderocol, imipenem/relebactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/zidebactam against ceftolozane/tazobactam- and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022 Sep 30;77(10):2809-2815.
Type of academic work
Academic degree
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.