Results from the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 2017 of the In Vitro Activities of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam against Clinical Isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The in vitro activities of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), ceftolozane-tazobactam (C-T), and comparators were determined for 1,774 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and 524 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected by 30 medical centers from the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 2017. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by the CLSI broth microdilution method, and blaKPC and blaNDM were detected by PCR for all carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Ceftazidime-avibactam demonstrated potent activity against almost all Enterobacteriaceae (94.6% susceptibility; MIC50, ≤0.25 mg/liter; MIC90, ≤0.25 to >32 mg/liter) and good activity against P. aeruginosa (86.5% susceptibility; MIC50/90, 2/16 mg/liter). Among the CRE, 50.8% (189/372 isolates) were positive for blaKPC-2, which mainly existed in ceftazidime-avibactam-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates (92.1%, 174/189). Among the CRE, 17.7% (66/372 isolates) were positive for blaNDM, which mainly existed in strains resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam (71.7%, 66/92). Ceftolozane-tazobactam showed good in vitro activity against Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis (MIC50/90, ≤0.5/2 mg/liter; 90.5 and 93.8% susceptibility, respectively), and the rates of susceptibility of K. pneumoniae (MIC50/90, 2/>64 mg/liter) and P. aeruginosa (MIC50/90, 1/8 mg/liter) were 52.7% and 88.5%, respectively. Among the CRE strains, 28.6% of E. coli isolates and 85% of K. pneumoniae isolates were still susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, but only 7.1% and 1.9% of them, respectively, were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam. The rates of susceptibility of the carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates to ceftazidime-avibactam (65.7%) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (68%) were similar. Overall, both ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam were highly active against clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa recently collected across China, and ceftazidime-avibactam showed activity superior to that of ceftolozane-tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae, whereas ceftolozane-tazobactam showed a better effect against P. aeruginosa.

Yin D ，Wu S ，Yang Y ，Shi Q ，Dong D ，Zhu D ，Hu F ，China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) Study Group ... -  《-》

Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

This study compared the activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains. All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC50 0.125μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC50 0.38μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC50 ≥256μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC50 ≥256μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC50 1.5μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC50 0.75μg/ml). Ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime-avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane-tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime-avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.

Alatoom A ，Elsayed H ，Lawlor K ，AbdelWareth L ，El-Lababidi R ，Cardona L ，Mooty M ，Bonilla MF ，Nusair A ，Mirza I ... -  《-》

Verification of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Susceptibility Testing Methods against Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are newly approved agents for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Resistance to both agents has been described clinically. Susceptibility testing on automated systems is unavailable for either agent. Our objective was to compare the disk diffusion and Etest methods to standard broth microdilution (BMD) methods for testing ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam against a diverse collection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRP) isolates, respectively. Among 74 ceftazidime-avibactam-susceptible and -resistant CRE isolates, BMD categorical agreement was higher with Etest (96%) than with disk diffusion (72%; P = 0.0003). Twenty-eight percent of ceftazidime-avibactam-susceptible CRE isolates were classified as resistant by disk diffusion. Results were comparable to those obtained with resistance defined genotypically. Among 72 ceftolozane-tazobactam-susceptible and -resistant CRP isolates, the levels of BMD categorical agreement with disk diffusion and Etest were 94% and 96%, respectively; the only errors identified were minor. Our findings demonstrate that Etest measurements of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam susceptibility correlate closely with standard BMD methods, suggesting a useful role clinically. On the other hand, disk diffusion measurements overcalled CRE resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam. A better understanding of ceftazidime-avibactam interpretive breakpoints is needed before disk diffusion is used routinely in the clinic. Until clinicians and microbiologists understand Etest and disk diffusion performance at their centers, test results should be interpreted cautiously.

Shields RK ，Clancy CJ ，Pasculle AW ，Press EG ，Haidar G ，Hao B ，Chen L ，Kreiswirth BN ，Nguyen MH ... -  《-》

Assessment of the In Vitro Activities of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam and Ceftazidime/Avibactam in a Collection of Beta-Lactam-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Clinical Isolates at Montpellier University Hospital, France.

Viala B ，Zaidi FZ ，Bastide M ，Dumont Y ，Le Moing V ，Jean-Pierre H ，Godreuil S ... -  《-》

In Vitro Activity of Cefepime-Zidebactam, Ceftazidime-Avibactam, and Other Comparators against Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii: Results from China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 20

This study evaluated the in vitro activity of cefepime-zidebactam in comparison with that of ceftazidime-avibactam and other comparators against clinically significant Gram-negative bacillus isolates. A total of 3,400 nonduplicate Gram-negative clinical isolates were collected from 45 medical centers across China in the CHINET Program in 2018, including Enterobacterales (n = 2,228), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 657), and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 515). The activities of cefepime-zidebactam and 20 comparators were determined by broth microdilution as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Cefepime-zidebactam demonstrated potent activity against almost all Enterobacterales (MIC50/90, 0.125/1 mg/liter) and good activity against P. aeruginosa (MIC50/90, 2/8 mg/liter). Among the 373 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 57.3% (213/373) and 15.3% (57/373) were positive for blaKPC-2 and blaNDM, respectively. Cefepime-zidebactam showed a MIC of ≤2 mg/liter for 92.0% (196/213) of blaKPC-2 producers and 79.7% (47/59) of blaNDM producers. Ceftazidime-avibactam showed good in vitro activity against Enterobacterales (MIC50/90, 0.25/2 mg/liter; 94.0% susceptible) and P. aeruginosa (MIC50/90, 4/16 mg/liter; 86.9% susceptible). Ceftazidime-avibactam was active against 9.1% of carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli isolates (63.6% were blaNDM producers) and 84.6% of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates (74.3% were blaKPC producers). Most (90.1%) blaKPC-2 producers were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefepime-zidebactam demonstrated limited activity (MIC50/90, 16/32 mg/liter) against the 515 A. baumannii isolates (79.2% were carbapenem resistant), and ceftazidime-avibactam was less active (MIC50/90, 64/>64 mg/liter). Cefepime-zidebactam was highly active against clinical isolates of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, including blaKPC-2-positive Enterobacterales and blaNDM-positive Enterobacterales and carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa And ceftazidime-avibactam was highly active against blaKPC-2-positive Enterobacterales and carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa.

Yang Y ，Guo Y ，Yin D ，Zheng Y ，Wu S ，Zhu D ，Hu F ... -  《-》