The Yin and Yang of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Resistance Against ... - Contagionlive.com

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a major public health threat. Rates of hospital-onset MDR P aeruginosa infections increased 32% from 2019 to 2020.¹ P aeruginosa exhibits inherent and acquired mechanisms of resistance, including an impermeable outer membrane, repression or inactivation of the porin oprD, upregulation of efflux pumps, increased production of chromosomal AmpC β-lactamase, and the presence of other antibiotic-inactivating enzymes.^2-7 In fact, "difficult to treat" resistance (DTR) phenotypes are commonly encountered in clinical practice and are defined as nonsusceptibility to traditional treatment options, including all β-lactams and fluoroquinolones.⁸

Current guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the management of serious infections due to DTR P aeruginosa is monotherapy with either ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, or imipenem-relebactam, with cefiderocol as an alternative.⁹ The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases recommends monotherapy with ceftolozane-tazobactam, but not with imipenem-relebactam, ceftazidime-avibactam or cefiderocol due to a lack of clinical evidence.¹⁰

Ceftolozane demonstrates excellent in vitro activity against DTR P aeruginosa and does not require a β-lactamase inhibitor to restore activity.⁹ Ceftolozane is an oxyimino-cephalosporin that is structurally similar to ceftazidime but is more potent in vitro. Ceftolozane is unique because it is a potent PBP3 inhibitor and has greater than 2-fold higher affinities for all essential penicillin-binding proteins in P aeruginosa compared with ceftazidime.¹¹ Moreover, ceftolozane has low affinity for PBP4, which is a known trap target for β-lactams connected to AmpC induction.¹²

Ceftolozane is also stable against hydrolysis from chromosomal AmpC β-lactamases, also known as Pseudomonas-derived cephalosporinase (PDC).^11,13 This stability is the result of the substitution of a pyrazole side chain on the 3-position of the cephem ring that provides steric hindrance between ceftolozane and the gate to the PDC active-site binding pocket and increased permeability through the outer cell membrane.^14,15 The activity of ceftolozane is not affected by efflux pumps or inactivation of oprD.¹³

Combining ceftolozane with tazobactam does not extend activity against DTR P aeruginosa. Rather, tazobactam inhibits some class A extended-spectrum β-lactamases and susceptible class C β-lactamases (eg, CMY) but not class A, B, or D carbapenemases.^16-19 By comparison, avibactam and relebactam are potent inhibitors of most class A and C β-lactamases and are capable of restoring the in vitro activity of ceftazidime and imipenem, respectively, against DTR P aeruginosa.^20,21

CLINICAL EXPERIENCE TREATING MDR P AERUGINOSA INFECTIONS

Four randomized, controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam vs other antibiotics for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection, complicated intra-abdominal infection, and hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.^22-25 Across all 4 studies, however, few patients infected by MDR and DTR P aeruginosa have been evaluated. Thus, real-world clinical data have been essential in assessing the efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with traditional antipseudomonal regimens used to treat MDR P aeruginosa infections.

Clinical outcomes were evaluated in a retrospective, multicenter cohort study that compared ceftolozane-tazobactam with either a polymyxin or an aminoglycoside-based regimen as definitive therapy for infections due to MDR/extensively drug-resistant P aeruginosa (52% of participants had ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia). The receipt of ceftolozane-tazobactam was independently associated with clinical cure; the number needed to treat for a clinical cure was 5. Ceftolozane-tazobactam was also found to be protective against acute kidney injury.²⁶

Five randomized, controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam vs traditional antipseudomonal agents in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection, complicated intra-abdominal infection, and nosocomial pneumonia including ventilator-associated pneumonia.^27-31 In a pooled analysis of patients with MDR P aeruginosa infections who received ceftazidime-avibactam vs best available therapy (mostly carbapenems), clinical responses were similar, at 57% and 54%, respectively; however, only 66% of isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam.³² There is even less clinical experience with imipenem-relebactam and cefiderocol.

Taken together, there remains an overall paucity of comparative clinical evidence for the management of carbapenem-resistant P aeruginosa.

MECHANISMS OF RESISTANCE TO CEFTOLOZANE-TAZOBACTAM AND CROSS-RESISTANCE TO OTHER β-LACTAMS

The development of resistance to each of the previously mentioned agents (like other β-lactams) was reported shortly after FDA approval.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance is most commonly mediated through structural alterations in PDC, a chromosomally encoded class C β-lactamase in P aeruginosa.³³ Amino acid substitutions, insertions, and deletions in PDC have been reported and likely facilitate more efficient hydrolysis of ceftolozane.^{16, 33-40} Specific modifications typically occur in or bordering a region of PDC known as the Ω-loop. The Ω-loop functions to form the floor of the active site in PDC, which binds to the R1 group of β-lactam molecules and determines substrate specificity.⁴¹ Amino acid substitutions within the Ω-loop result in widening of the active site to better accommodate the bulky R2 group of ceftolozane, facilitating hydrolysis.^33,40

A wider binding pocket also accommodates ceftazidime better.⁴² In fact, enzyme kinetics of common PDC mutations (E247K, G183D, T96I, and ΔG229-E247) demonstrate greater catalytic efficiencies to both ceftolozane and ceftazidime compared with wild-type PDC. The same PDC mutations further showed decreased affinity for avibactam, reducing PDC's susceptibility to inhibition by avibactam.⁴³

Other mechanisms may play a complementary role in ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance, which includes overexpression of PDC. Derepression of PDC can result from mutations in the genes involved in AmpC regulation, namely ampR, ampG, ampD, and dacB.^{33, 40} Less common mechanisms that have been reported include mutations in the DNA polymerase subunits gama and tau or ftsI (which encodes PBP3).^42,44,45 Reported rates of treatment-emergent resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam range from 3% to 50% across observational studies.^37,42,46-48 Definitions of resistance have varied across studies.

In one study, resistance was defined as a 4-fold or greater ceftolozane-tazobactam minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) increase against P aeruginosa isolates collected after 72 or more hours of treatment. Isolates from 14 of 28 patients met the study definition after a median of 15 days of therapy.⁴¹ Such cases were more likely to have inadequate source control and less likely to receive ceftolozane-tazobactam as an extended 3-hour infusion compared with control patients whose isolates did not evolve resistance. Common mutations were identified in ampC, ampR, DNA polymerase subunits gama and tau, and ftsI. Notably, 86% of isolates showed high-level cross-resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam without prior ceftazidime-avibactam exposure.⁴¹

In a study by Haidar et al, ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance was defined as a MIC greater than or equal to 16 μg/mL. Three of 21 patients (14%) developed ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance as early as 8 days into treatment. Whole-genome sequence analyses demonstrated mutations in the ampC-ampR region of resistant isolates.⁴⁷

In a Spanish study, ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance (MIC ≥ 32 μg/mL) developed in 8 of 58 patients (14%). In 6 of 8 cases, resistance was due to structural modifications in AmpC. Interestingly, all 6 cases were associated with baseline isolates that harbored preexisting mutations in the AmpC repressor gene, ampR. In the other 2 cases, mutations in OXA-10 were identified. Overall, 88% of cases were associated with cross-resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam.^37,45

Cross-resistance between ceftolozane-tazobactam and other novel β-lactams has also been reported. Cefiderocol is a siderophore cephalosporin that demonstrates excellent in vitro activity against DTR P aeruginosa.⁴⁹ Interestingly, Streling et al described a P aeruginosa isolate that developed nonsusceptibility to cefiderocol after 14 days of ceftolozane-tazobactam treatment without cefiderocol exposure. Mutations in PDC were associated with ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance, and mutations in PiuD and PirA (TonB-dependent receptors) were associated with elevated MICs to cefiderocol.^50,51

TREATMENT OF CEFTOLOZANE-TAZOBACTAM–RESISTANT P AERUGINOSA IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

Familiarity of resistance mechanisms is essential in selecting the most appropriate treatment when ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance is identified. In some cases, metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) genes may be present, which manifest in resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and imipenem-relebactam.⁵² MBLs can hydrolyze all β-lactams except aztreonam and are not inhibited by novel β-lactamase inhibitors. Additionally, MBL-producing P aeruginosa infections have been associated with more rapid onset of illness and faster progression to death compared with non–MBL-producing P aeruginosa infections.⁵³

Cefiderocol employs a "Trojan horse" strategy by exploiting the bacterial iron siderophore uptake system to allow active transport across the bacterial outer membrane and is stable against MBL-mediated hydrolysis.^54-56 A post hoc analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials (CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP) highlighted the role of cefiderocol in treating infections caused by MBL-producing pathogens, with 41% (14/34) of patients infected with MBL-producing nonfermenting species like P aeruginosa.^56-58 Cefiderocol led to numerically higher clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates compared with best available therapy in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, bloodstream infection/sepsis, or complicated urinary tract infections. These outcomes were consistent across species and cefiderocol MIC values up to 4 μg/ mL.⁵⁷ Local epidemiology and rates of MBL should be known to assist in therapeutic decision-making.

In a patient with prior treatment of a ceftolozane-tazobactam–susceptible P aeruginosa isolate, it would be important to consider the possibility of treatment-emergent resistance and cross-resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam. Fortunately, other β-lactam antibiotics may demonstrate collateral susceptibility in these situations. In a study by Rubio et al, in vitro susceptibility of MDR P aeruginosa isolates was assessed before and after the development of resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam (median duration of therapy = 16 days). AmpC mutations were identified in 79% of paired isolates before and after ceftolozane-tazobactam treatment. Postexposure isolates with AmpC mutations were more susceptible to imipenem-relebactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem by 2-, 4-, and 8-fold, respectively, vs baseline isolates. Sixty-three percent of all postexposure isolates were susceptible to imipenem-relebactam, including 81% of isolates with treatment-emergent mutations in AmpC.⁵⁹

Similar findings were observed by Díaz- Cañestro et al in a study of 58 patients treated with ceftolozane-tazobactam, 8 of whom developed treatment-emergent resistance.⁴⁶ It is proposed that the widening of the substrate binding site that occurs in AmpC structural mutations allows imipenem to rotate its 6α-hydroxyethyl side chain away from the point of hydrolytic attack, translating into increased carbapenem susceptibility.^60-62 In a ceftolozane-tazobactam-resistant P aeruginosa isolate, imipenem-relebactam would be preferred vs imipenem because the addition of relebactam would also combat AmpC hyperproduction.38 Cefiderocol may be a consideration in these scenarios as well; however, cross-resistance has been described.^49,50

In general, in vitro susceptibility testing should always be performed whenever possible to guide decision-making against MDR/DTR/extensively drug-resistant P aeruginosa given the complexity of the underlying mechanisms of resistance. Comparative effectiveness studies are also notably lacking for the novel antipseudomonal agents. Thus, understanding these mechanisms and interplay of β-lactam resistance can be vital when faced with selecting treatment in these challenging clinical scenarios.

References

1.CDC. COVID-19: U.S. Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance, Special Report 2022. US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2022. doi:10.15620/cdc:117915

2.Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbi

1.CDC. COVID-19: U.S. Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance, Special Report 2022. US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2022. doi:10.15620/cdc:117915

2.Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(4):582-610. doi:10.1128/CMR.00040-09

3.Jones RN, Deshpande LM, Bell JM, et al. Evaluation of the contemporary occurrence rates of metallo-beta-lactamases in multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli in Japan: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2002). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;49(4):289-294. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2004.04.007

4.Livermore DM. Of Pseudomonas, porins, pumps and carbapenems. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(3):247-250. doi:10.1093/jac/47.3.247

5.Livermore DM. Multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: our worst nightmare? Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(5):634-640. doi:10.1086/338782

6.Mesaros N, Nordmann P, Plésiat P, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: resistance and therapeutic options at the turn of the new millennium. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13(6):560-578. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01681.x

7.Hancock RE. Resistance mechanisms in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(suppl 1):S93-S99. doi:10.1086/514909

8.Kadri SS, Adjemian J, Lai YL, et al; National Institutes of Health Antimicrobial Resistance Outcomes Research Initiative (NIH-ARORI). Difficult-to-treat resistance in gram-negative bacteremia at 173 US hospitals: retrospective cohort analysis of prevalence, predictors, and outcome of resistance to all first-line agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(12):1803-1814. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy378

9.IDSA guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant gram-negative infections: version 1.0. Infectious Diseases Society of America. March 7, 2022. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance/

10.Paul M, Carrara E, Retamar P, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(4):521-547. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.11.025

11.Moyá B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Ge Y, Oliver A. Affinity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 to penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(9):3933-3937. doi:10.1128/AAC.00296-10

12.Moya B, Dötsch A, Juan C, et al. Beta-lactam resistance response triggered by inactivation of a nonessential penicillin-binding protein. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(3):e1000353. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000353

13.Takeda S, Nakai T, Wakai Y, Ikeda F, Hatano K. In vitro and in vivo activities of a new cephalosporin, FR264205, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(3):826-830. doi:10.1128/AAC.00860-06

14.Toda A, Ohki H, Yamanaka T, et al. Synthesis and SAR of novel parenteral anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins: discovery of FR264205. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2008;18(17):4849-4852. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2008.07.085

15.Candel FJ, González Del Castillo J, Julián Jiménez A, Matesanz M. Ceftolozane-tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2022;35(suppl 1):35-39. doi:10.37201/req/s01.08.2022

16.Yahav D, Giske CG, Grāmatniece A, Abodakpi H, Tam VH, Leibovici L. New β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;34(1):e00115-e00120. doi:10.1128/CMR.00115-20

17.Rodríguez-Martínez JM, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Extended-spectrum cephalosporinases in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(5):1766-1771. doi:10.1128/AAC.01410-08

18.Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y. Chequerboard titration of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) and tazobactam versus beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(9):1972-1974. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq248

19.Cho JC, Fiorenza MA, Estrada SJ. Ceftolozane/tazobactam: a novel cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Pharmacotherapy. 2015;35(7):701-715. doi:10.1002/phar.1609

20.Sader HS, Castanheira M, Shortridge D, Mendes RE, Flamm RK. Antimicrobial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam tested against multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from U.S. medical centers, 2013 to 2016. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(11):e01045-e01117. doi:10.1128/AAC.01045-17

21.Barnes MD, Taracila MA, Rutter JD, et al. Deciphering the evolution of cephalosporin resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio. 2018;9(6):e02085-e02118. doi:10.1128/mBio.02085-18

22.Wagenlehner FM, Umeh O, Steenbergen J, Yuan G, Darouiche RO. Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cUTI). Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1949-1956. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62220-0

23.Kollef MH, Nováček M, Kivistik Ü, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(12):1299-1311. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30403-7

24.Lucasti C, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase II trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(9):5350-5357. doi:10.1128/AAC.00049-14

25.Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infections in an era of multidrug resistance: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(10):1462-1471. doi:10.1093/cid/civ097

26.Pogue JM, Kaye KS, Veve MP, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam vs polymyxin or aminoglycoside-based regimens for the treatment of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(2):304-310. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz816

27.Vena A, Giacobbe DR, Castaldo N, et al. Clinical experience with ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of infections due to multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria other than carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(2):71. doi:10.3390/antibiotics9020071

28.Torres A, Zhong N, Pachl J, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):285-295. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30747-8

29.Mazuski JE, Gasink LB, Armstrong J, et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection: results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 program. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(11):1380-1389. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw133

30.Wagenlehner FM, Sobel JD, Newell P, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus doripenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a phase 3 randomized trial program. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(6):754-762. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw378

31.Qin X, Tran BG, Kim MJ, et al. A randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalised adults in Asia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;49(5):579-588. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.01.010

32. Stone GG, Newell P, Gasink LB, et al. Clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: pooled data from the ceftazidime/avibactam Phase III clinical trial programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(9):2519-2523. doi:10.1093/jac/dky204

33.Papp-Wallace KM, Mack AR, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Resistance to novel β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations: the "price of progress." Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2020;34(4):773-819. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2020.05.001

34.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19(5):455-477. doi:10.1089/cmb.2012.0021

35.Skoglund E, Abodakpi H, Rios R, et al. In vivo resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa arising by AmpC- and non-AmpC-mediated pathways. Case Rep Infect Dis. 2018;2018:9095203. doi:10.1155/2018/9095203

36.Zasowski EJ, Rybak JM, Rybak MJ. The β-lactams strike back: ceftazidime-avibactam. Pharmacotherapy. 2015;35(8):755-770. doi:10.1002/phar.1622

37.Fraile-Ribot PA, Cabot G, Mulet X, et al. Mechanisms leading to in vivo ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance development during the treatment of infections caused by MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(3):658-663. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx424

38.Fraile-Ribot PA, Zamorano L, Orellana R, et al; GEMARA-SEIMC/REIPI Pseudomonas Study Group. Activity of imipenem-relebactam against a large collection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates and isogenic β-lactam-resistant mutants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(2):e02165-e02219. doi:10.1128/AAC.02165-19

39.Zamudio R, Hijazi K, Joshi C, Aitken E, Oggioni MR, Gould IM. Phylogenetic analysis of resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and carbapenems in piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa from cystic fibrosis patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53(6):774-780. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.02.022

40.Cabot G, Bruchmann S, Mulet X, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance development requires multiple mutations leading to overexpression and structural modification of AmpC. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(6):3091-3099. doi:10.1128/AAC.02462-13

41.Jacoby GA. AmpC beta-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(1):161-182, Table of Contents. doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-08

42.Tamma PD, Beisken S, Bergman Y, et al. Modifiable risk factors for the emergence of ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e4599-e4606. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1306

43.Slater CL, Winogrodzki J, Fraile-Ribot PA, Oliver A, Khajehpour M, Mark BL. Adding insult to injury: mechanistic basis for how AmpC mutations allow Pseudomonas aeruginosa to accelerate cephalosporin hydrolysis and evade avibactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(9):e00894-e00920. doi:10.1128/AAC.00894-20

44.Del Barrio-Tofiño E, Zamorano L, Cortes-Lara S, et al; GEMARA-SEIMC/REIPI Pseudomonas study Group. Spanish nationwide survey on Pseudomonas aeruginosa antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and epidemiology. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(7):1825-1835. doi:10.1093/jac/dkz147

45.Del Barrio-Tofiño E, López-Causapé C, Cabot G, et al. Genomics and susceptibility profiles of extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(11):e01589-e01617. doi:10.1128/AAC.01589-17

46.Díaz-Cañestro M, Periañez L, Mulet X, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: experience from the Balearic Islands. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;37(11):2191-2200. doi:10.1007/s10096-018-3361-0

47.Haidar G, Philips NJ, Shields RK, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: clinical effectiveness and evolution of resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):110-120. doi:10.1093/cid/cix182

48. Streling AP, Al Obaidi MM, Lainhart WD, et al. Evolution of cefiderocol non-susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient without previous exposure to the antibiotic. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e4472-e4474. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1909

49.Bassetti M, Castaldo N, Cattelan A, et al; CEFTABUSE Study Group. Ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of serious Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a multicentre nationwide clinical experience. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53(4):408-415. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.11.001

50.O'Donnell JN, Bidell MR, Lodise TP. Approach to the treatment of patients with serious multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Pharmacotherapy. 2020;40(9):952-969. doi:10.1002/phar.2449

51. Streling AP, Al Obaidi MM, Lainhart WD, et al. Evolution of cefiderocol non-susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient without previous exposure to the antibiotic. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e4472-e4474. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1909

52.Simner PJ, Beisken S, Bergman Y, Posch AE, Cosgrove SE, Tamma PD. Cefiderocol activity against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates exhibiting ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(7):ofab311. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab311

53.Yoon EJ, Jeong SH. Mobile carbapenemase genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:614058. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.614058

54.Lucena A, Dalla Costa LM, Nogueira KS, et al. Nosocomial infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa: molecular epidemiology, risk factors, clinical features and outcomes. J Hosp Infect. 2014;87(4):234-240. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2014.05.007

55.Ito A, Kohira N, Bouchillon SK, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of S-649266, a catechol-substituted siderophore cephalosporin, when tested against non-fermenting gram-negative bacteria . J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(3):670-677. doi:10.1093/jac/dkv402

56.Kohira N, West J, Ito A, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a siderophore cephalosporin, S-649266, against Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60(2):729-734. doi:10.1128/AAC.01695-15

57.Ito-Horiyama T, Ishii Y, Ito A, et al. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin S-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(7):4384-4386. doi:10.1128/AAC.03098-15

58.Timsit JF, Paul M, Shields RK, et al. Cefiderocol for the treatment of infections due to metallo-B-lactamase-producing pathogens in the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP phase 3 randomized studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(6):1081-1084. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac078

59.Rubio AM, Kline EG, Jones CE, et al. In Vitro Susceptibility of Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa following Treatment-Emergent Resistance to Ceftolozane-Tazobactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021;65(6):e00084-21. Published 2021 May 18. doi:10.1128/AAC.00084-21

60.Bassetti M, Echols R, Matsunaga Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(2):226-240. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30796-9

61.Wunderink RG, Matsunaga Y, Ariyasu M, et al. Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(2):213-225. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30731-3

62.Lahiri SD, Walkup GK, Whiteaker JD, et al. Selection and molecular characterization of ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant mutants in Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains containing derepressed AmpC. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(6):1650-1658. doi:10.1093/jac/dkv004

Adblock test (Why?)