1887

Abstract

Fosfomycin has retained activity against many multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negatives, and may be useful against extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales to improve clinical outcomes.

There are few data from the UK on the susceptibility of invasive Gram-negative isolates to fosfomycin, especially in the era of increasing use of oral fosfomycin for urinary tract infections (UTIs).

We evaluated fosfomycin susceptibility against 100 consecutive Gram-negative bloodstream isolates, both individually, and in combination with other mechanistically similar and differing antibiotics. The aim was to investigate the synergy between antibiotic combinations against several isolates with variable levels of resistance.

Disc diffusion and MIC test strip methods applying revised EUCAST guidelines for Fosfomycin were used, followed by the MTS™ ‘cross synergy’ method for ‘resistant’ isolates as defined below: (a) Fosfomycin resistant by MIC test strip; (b) MDR isolates defined as being resistant to ≥3 classes of antibiotics (based on routine sensitivity testing; beta lactams were considered as a single class), and/or (c) AMP C or ESBL or carbapenemase producers (or carbapenem resistant). FIC Index (Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index) calculations were used to interpret findings, whereby: FIC = (MICA combination A+B/ MIC agent A) + (MICB combination A+B/ MIC agent B). A result of ≤0.5 was taken to indicate ‘synergy’, >0.5 and ≤1.0 to indicate ‘additive’ effect, >1.0 and ≤4.0 to indicate ‘indifference’, and >4.0 to indicate ‘antagonism’.

We found that 95/100 isolates were susceptible to fosfomycin by MIC test strip, with 88/100 isolates susceptible to fosfomycin by disc, based on EUCAST guideline breakpoints. A total of 30/100 isolates (the more ‘resistant’ of the 100) were eligible for synergy testing according to our definitions (see ), with the remaining 70 isolates not tested further. Seventeen out of 30 were MDR, 2/30 were AMP C producers and 9/30 were ESBL producers. Overall, 34/300 (11 %) of all combination tests showed synergy and 161/300 (54 %) were additive. Synergy was most commonly detected between fosfomycin and beta-lactam antibiotics, including piperacillin/tazobactam (10/30; 33 %), ceftazidime/avibactam (10/30; 30 %), and temocillin (8/30; 27 %). An additive effect was most commonly detected with aztreonam (25/30; 83 %) and meropenem (25/30; 83 %), but 100 % indifference was found with tigecycline (30/30). No antagonism was identified with any antibiotic combination.

Fosfomycin non-susceptibility by MIC test strip was unusual. Synergy was variable when combining fosfomycin with other antibiotics against the more ‘resistant’ isolates. Synergistic/additive effects were detected for beta-lactam/fosfomycin combinations in >80 % of all such combinations, suggesting beta-lactams may be the preferred partner for fosfomycin. Agents with a discordant site of action were more likely to result in indifference. Antagonism was not detected.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Nordic Pharma
    • Principle Award Recipient: GavinBarlow
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001524
2022-04-27
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/71/4/jmm001524.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001524&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Schmid A, Wolfensberger A, Nemeth J, Schreiber PW, Sax H et al. Monotherapy versus combination therapy for multi-drug resistant Gram negative infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2019; 9:15290 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Falagas ME, Tansarli GS, Karageorgopoulos DE, Vardakas KZ. Deaths attributable to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infection. Emerg Infect Dis 2014; 20:1170–1175 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. World Health Organization WHO | Antimicrobial resistance, WHO; 2020 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/ accessed 17 August 2021
  4. Vasoo S, Barreto JN, Tosh PK. Emerging issues in gram-negative bacterial resistance: an update for the practicing clinician. Mayo Clin Proc 2015; 90:395–403 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Shaikh S, Fatima J, Shakil S, Rizvi SMD, Kamal MA. Antibiotic resistance and extended spectrum beta-lactamases: Types, epidemiology and treatment. Saudi J Biol Sci 2015; 22:90–101 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Raphael E, Glymour MM, Chambers HF. Trends in prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolated from patients with community- and healthcare-associated bacteriuria: results from 2014 to 2020 in an urban safety-net healthcare system. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2021; 10:1–13 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Vardakas KZ, Athanassaki F, Pitiriga V, Falagas ME. Clinical relevance of in vitro synergistic activity of antibiotics for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: A systematic review. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2019; 17:250–259 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Savoldi A, Carrara E, Piddock LJV, Franceschi F, Ellis S et al. The role of combination therapy in the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem resistant gram-negatives: a systematic review of clinical studies. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21:545 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Doern CD. When does 2 plus 2 equal 5? a review of antimicrobial synergy testing. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52:4124–4128 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brochado AR, Telzerow A, Bobonis J, Banzhaf M, Mateus A et al. Species-specific activity of antibacterial drug combinations. Nature 2018; 559:259–263 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2018; 18:318–327 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fedrigo NH, Mazucheli J, Albiero J, Shinohara DR, Lodi FG et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of fosfomycin against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp from urinary tract infections and the influence of pH on fosfomycin activities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61:e02498-16 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Falagas ME, Vouloumanou EK, Samonis G, Vardakas KZ. Fosfomycin. Clin Microbiol Rev 2016; 29:321–347 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Rodríguez-Baño J, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez B, Machuca I, Pascual A. Treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-, AmpC-, and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Rev 2018; 31:079–17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Public Health England (NHS), Standards Unit, Microbiology Services, PHE Bacteriology (2017) UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations, Introduction to the preliminary identification of medically important bacteria and fungi from culture, ID1 (2). 1-32; 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/610705/ID_1i2.pdf accessed 31 August 2021
  16. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 8.0; 2018 http://www.eucast.org
  17. Liofilchem (2017) Liofilchem MIC Test Strip, US PI - Version 3; 2021 http://www.liofilchem.net/login.area.mic/technical_sheets/FDA-Tedizolid-MTS.pdf
  18. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 11.0; 2021 https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ accessed 31 August 2021
  19. Liofilchem, MTS Synergy Applicator System, (US patent US9365886B2): A device for standardising the in-vitro synergy testing of two antibiotics through the method of crossing the gradient strips. (Liofilchem, 2012); 2021 https://www.liofilchem.com/en/mts-en.html
  20. Hareendranath G, Mukundan A, Kunjappan SP. Fosfomycin susceptibility in multidrug resistant urinary Escherichia coli isolates. jemds 2021; 10:414–418 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Batra P, Abrol AK, Gupta S, Pushpan P, Kumar R. Susceptibility pattern of oral antimicrobials in uncomplicated UTI: Does fosfomycin still stand effective. J Family Med Prim Care 2020; 9:850–853 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Borisova M, Gisin J, Mayer C. Blocking peptidoglycan recycling in Pseudomonas aeruginosa attenuates intrinsic resistance to fosfomycin. Microb Drug Resist 2014; 20:231–237 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ojdana D, Gutowska A, Sacha P, Majewski P, Wieczorek P et al. Activity of ceftazidime-avibactam alone and in combination with ertapenem, fosfomycin, and tigecycline against carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Microb Drug Resist 2019; 25:1357–1364 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Scudeller L, Righi E, Chiamenti M, Bragantini D, Menchinelli G et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2021; 57:106344 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Okoliegbe IN, Hijazi K, Cooper K, Ironside C, Gould IM. Antimicrobial synergy testing: comparing the tobramycin and ceftazidime gradient diffusion methodology used in assessing synergy in cystic fibrosis-derived multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021; 10:1–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Khan A, Erickson SG, Pettaway C, Arias CA, Miller WR et al. Evaluation of susceptibility testing methods for aztreonam (ATM) and ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) combination therapy on extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2021; 65:e0084621 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001524
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001524
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