1887

Abstract

Ceftolozane/tazobactam was approved by the Drug Office, Department of Health, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2017.

Currently the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Gram-negative pathogens isolated from patients in Hong Kong is undocumented. It would be prudent to document the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against and Enterobacterales isolated from hospitalized patients in Hong Kong.

To describe the susceptibility of recent clinical isolates of and the two most common Enterobacterales species (, ) cultured from respiratory tract, intra-abdominal, urinary tract and bloodstream infection samples to ceftolozane/tazobactam and other commonly used antimicrobial agents.

CLSI-defined broth microdilution MICs were determined and interpreted for Gram-negative isolates collected in Hong Kong from 2017 to 2019 by the SMART surveillance programme.

For , 96.7 % of isolates (=210) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, while susceptibility rates were ≥14 % lower to meropenem (82.9 % susceptible), cefepime (82.4 %), ceftazidime (81.4 %), piperacillin/tazobactam (76.7 %) and levofloxacin (79.5 %). Ceftolozane/tazobactam inhibited 85.7 % of piperacillin/tazobactam-nonsusceptible isolates, 80.6–82.1 % of cefepime-, ceftazidime- or meropenem-nonsusceptible isolates, and 75.9 % of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates of . For , 96.1 % of isolates (=308) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem (99.0 % susceptible), piperacillin/tazobactam (93.8 %), cefepime (85.7 %) and ceftazidime (85.4 %). The majority (88.3 %) of ESBL (extended-spectrum β-lactamase) non-CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales) phenotype isolates of were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, comparable to piperacillin/tazobactam (85.0 %) but lower than meropenem (100 %). For , 98.5 % of isolates (=609) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem (99.3 % susceptible), piperacillin/tazobactam (96.7 %), ceftazidime (82.3 %) and cefepime (76.5 %). The majority (96.7 %) of ESBL non-CRE phenotype isolates of were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, similar to both meropenem (100 %) and piperacillin/tazobactam (94.5 %).

Overall, >96 % of clinical isolates of , and collected in Hong Kong in 2017–2019 were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, while the activity of several commonly prescribed β-lactams was reduced, especially for . Continued surveillance of ceftolozane/tazobactam and other agents is warranted.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001487
2022-04-22
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler A, Katz DE, Marchaim D. The continuing plague of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2016; 30:347–375 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Doi Y, Iovleva A, Bonomo RA. The ecology of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) in the developed world. J Travel Med 2017; 24:S44–S51 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kadri SS, Adjemian J, Lai YL, Spaulding AB, Ricotta E et al. 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; 67:1803–1814 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hackel MA, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Karlowsky JA et al. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against carbapenem-nonsusceptible and multidrug-resistant isolates of Gram-negative bacilli collected worldwide in 2014 to 2016. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:e01968-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Karlowsky JA, Lob SH, Young K, Motyl MR, Sahm DF. Activity of imipenem/relebactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa with antimicrobial-resistant phenotypes from seven global regions: SMART 2015-2016. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2018; 15:140–147 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lob SH, Biedenbach DJ, Badal RE, Kazmierczak KM, Sahm DF. Antimicrobial resistance and resistance mechanisms of Enterobacteriaceae in ICU and non-ICU wards in Europe and North America: SMART 2011-2013. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2015; 3:190–197 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ho PL, Wu TC, Chao DVK, Hung IFN, Lui L et al. Reducing Bacterial Resistance with IMPACT, 5th edn. Hong Kong; 2017
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hsueh S-C, Lee Y-J, Huang Y-T, Liao C-H, Tsuji M et al. In vitro activities of cefiderocol, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam and other comparative drugs against imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, all associated with bloodstream infections in Taiwan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74:380–386 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kuo S-C, Liu C-E, Lu P-L, Chen Y-S, Lu M-C et al. Activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam against Gram-negative pathogens isolated from lower respiratory tract infections in the Asia-Pacific region: SMART 2015-2016. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 55:105883 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Maraolo AE, Mazzitelli M, Trecarichi EM, Buonomo AR, Torti C et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam for difficult-to-treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: A systematic review of its efficacy and safety for off-label indications. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 55:105891 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Pfaller MA, Shortridge D, Sader HS, Castanheira M, Flamm RK. Ceftolozane/tazobactam activity against drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing healthcare-associated infections in the Asia-Pacific region (minus China, Australia and New Zealand): report from an Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme (2013-2015). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2018; 51:181–189 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Yin D, Wu S, Yang Y, Shi Q, Dong D et al. 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. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019; 63:e02431-18 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Meunier D, Hopkins KL, Hill R et al. Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against surveillance and “problem” Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and non-fermenters from the British Isles. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:2278–2289 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fournier D, Carrière R, Bour M, Grisot E, Triponney P et al. Mechanisms of resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Results of the GERPA Multicenter Study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2021; 65:e01117-20 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. van Duin D, Bonomo RA. Ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam: second-generation β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63:234–241 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dik DA, Kim C, Madukoma CS, Fisher JF, Shrout JD et al. Fluorescence assessment of the AmpR-signaling network of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to exposure to β-lactam antibiotics. ACS Chem Biol 2020; 15:1184–1194 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Sader HS, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam tested against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with various resistance patterns isolated in U.S. Hospitals (2011-2012). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:6305–6310 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Li J, Xu Q, Ogurek S, Li Z, Wang P et al. Efflux Pump AcrAB confers decreased susceptibility to piperacillin-tazobactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam in tigecycline-non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae. Infect Drug Resist 2020; 13:4309–4319 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bush K, Jacoby GA. Updated functional classification of beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:969–976 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y. Chequerboard titration of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) and tazobactam versus beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:1972–1974 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Castanheira M, Duncan LR, Mendes RE, Sader HS, Shortridge D. Activity of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae Isolates Collected from Respiratory Tract Specimens of Hospitalized Patients in the United States during 2013 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018; 62:e02125-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Karlowsky JA, Kazmierczak KM, Young K, Motyl MR, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against phenotypically defined extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-positive isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from hospitalized patients (SMART 2016). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2020; 96:114925 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Popejoy MW, Paterson DL, Cloutier D, Huntington JA, Miller B et al. Efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam against urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections caused by ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: a pooled analysis of Phase 3 clinical trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:268–272 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Shortridge D, Pfaller MA, Castanheira M, Flamm RK. Antimicrobial activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam tested against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected from patients with bloodstream infections isolated in United States hospitals (2013-2015) as part of the Program to Assess Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) surveillance program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2018; 92:158–163 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 30th ed. CLSI Supplement M100. 2020. CLSI, 940. Wayne, PA: West Valley Road;
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically – Eleventh Edition, CLSI document M07-Ed11. 2018. CLSI, 940. Wayne, PA: West Valley Road;
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Nichols WW, de Jonge BLM, Kazmierczak KM, Karlowsky JA, Sahm DF. In Vitro Susceptibility of Global Surveillance Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam (INFORM 2012 to 2014). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:4743–4749 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Castanheira M, Mills JC, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. Mutation-driven β-lactam resistance mechanisms among contemporary ceftazidime-nonsusceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from U.S. hospitals. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:6844–6850 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Arca-Suárez J, Vázquez-Ucha JC, Fraile-Ribot PA, Lence E, Cabot G et al. Molecular and biochemical insights into the in vivo evolution of AmpC-mediated resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam during treatment of an MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75:3209–3217 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fraile-Ribot PA, Cabot G, Mulet X, Periañez L, Martín-Pena ML 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; 73:658–663 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Khil PP, Dulanto Chiang A, Ho J, Youn J-H, Lemon JK et al. Dynamic emergence of mismatch repair deficiency facilitates rapid evolution of ceftazidime-avibactam resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa acute infection. mBio 2019; 10:e01822-19 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MacVane SH, Pandey R, Steed LL, Kreiswirth BN, Chen L. Emergence of ceftolozane-tazobactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa during treatment Is mediated by a single AmpC structural mutation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61:e01183-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Berrazeg M, Jeannot K, Ntsogo Enguéné VY, Broutin I, Loeffert S et al. Mutations in β-Lactamase AmpC increase resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:6248–6255 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kazmierczak KM, Rabine S, Hackel M, McLaughlin RE, Biedenbach DJ et al. Multiyear, multinational survey of the incidence and global distribution of metallo-β-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:1067–1078 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lupia T, Corcione S, Mornese Pinna S, De Rosa FG. New cephalosporins for the treatment of pneumonia in internal medicine wards. J Thorac Dis 2020; 12:3747–3763 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pogue JM, Kaye KS, Veve MP, Patel TS, Gerlach AT et al. Ceftolozane/Tazobactam vs polymyxin or aminoglycoside-based regimens for the treatment of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:304–310 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tamma PD, Aitken SL, Bonomo RA, Mathers AJ, van Duin D et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidance on the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum β-lactamase Producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Difficult-to-Treat Resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Clin Infect Dis 2021; 72:1109–1116 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Chang Y-T, Coombs G, Ling T, Balaji V, Rodrigues C et al. Epidemiology and trends in the antibiotic susceptibilities of Gram-negative bacilli isolated from patients with intra-abdominal infections in the Asia-Pacific region, 2010-2013. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2017; 49:734–739 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jean S-S, Coombs G, Ling T, Balaji V, Rodrigues C et al. Epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of pathogens causing urinary tract infections in the Asia-Pacific region: Results from the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART), 2010-2013. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2016; 47:328–334 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001487
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001487
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error