1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 71, Issue 10

Comparative activities of omadacycline, eravacycline and tigecycline against non-ESBL-producing, ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant isolates of No Access

Abstract

Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and carbapenem-resistant are characterized by the World Health Organization as pathogens for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. Omadacycline and eravacycline are two novel antibacterials within the tetracycline class.

There are limited data regarding the comparison of the activities of omadacycline, eravacycline and tigecycline against isolates with different antimicrobial susceptibility profiles.

Our objective was to compare the activities of omadacycline, eravacycline and tigecycline against a collection of isolates, including non-ESBL-producing, ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant strains.

Ninety-four isolates, including 30 non-ESBL-producing, 30 ESBL-producing and 34 carbapenem-resistant (22 carrying , 12 carrying ) strains were included in the study. ESBL and carbapenemase genes were detected by conventional PCR. Omadacycline, eravacycline and tigecycline MICs were determined by the gradient diffusion method and interpreted using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined breakpoints.

Overall, the percentage of tigecycline-susceptible strains (97.9 %) was higher than the percentage of omadacyline-susceptible (75.5 %) and eravacycline-susceptible (72.3 %) strains. The omadacycline and eravacycline susceptibility rates were 83.3 % among non-ESBL-producing isolates and 66.7 % among ESBL-producing isolates. The most common ESBL gene detected was (90 %), followed by (50 %) and (50 %). The omadacycline and eravacycline susceptibility rate among isolates carrying was 33.3 %, whereas it was 100 % among isolates that do not carry . The omadacycline and eravacycline susceptibility rates among carbapenem-resistant isolates were 76.5 and 67.6 %, respectively. The omadacycline susceptibility rates among -positive and -positive isolates were 77.3 and 75.0 %, respectively. The eravacycline susceptibility rates among -positive and -positive isolates were 68.2 and 66.7 %, respectively. One carbapenem-resistant isolate was intermediate and one ESBL-producing isolate was resistant to tigecycline.

Overall, tigecycline was the most active tetracycline against isolates. Omadacycline and eravacycline showed excellent activity against ESBL-producing isolates that do not carry . Omadacycline showed reasonable activity against carbapenem-resistant isolates carrying or .

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antimicrobial susceptibility testing , eravacycline , K. pneumoniae , omadacycline and tigecycline
© 2022 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001592
2022-10-27
2024-05-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. World Health Organization WHO publishes list of bacteria for which new antibiotics are urgently needed; 2017Feb27 https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed accessed 10 February 2022
  2. Lynch JP, Clark NM, Zhanel GG. Evolution of antimicrobial resistance among Enterobacteriaceae (focus on extended spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases). Expert Opin Pharmacother 2013; 14:199–210 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. US FDA Nuzyra prescribing Information; 2018 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209816_209817lbl.pdf accessed 5 January 2022
  4. Iregui A, Landman D, Quale J. Activity of Omadacycline and other Tetracyclines against contemporary gram-negative pathogens from New York city hospitals. Microb Drug Resist 2021; 27:190–195 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhanel GG, Esquivel J, Zelenitsky S, Lawrence CK, Adam HJ et al. Omadacycline: a novel oral and intravenous aminomethylcycline ntibiotic Agent. Drugs 2020; 80:285–313 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. US FDA Xerava Prescribing Information; 2018 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/211109lbl.pdf accessed 6 January 2022
  7. Lutgring JD, Balbuena R, Reese N, Gilbert SE, Ansari U et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of NDM-producing Enterobacterales collected in the United States in 2017 and 2018. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020; 64:e00499-20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. European Medicines Agency 2022 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/xerava accessed 11 January 2022
  9. Lee YR, Burton CE. Eravacycline, a newly approved fluorocycline. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 38:1787–1794 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Scott LJ. Eravacycline: a review in complicated intra-abdominal infections. Drugs 2019; 79:315–324 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Leng B, Yan G, Wang C, Shen C, Zhang W et al. Dose optimisation based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of tigecycline. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2021; 25:315–322 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. US FDA Tygacil Prescribing Information. n.d https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/021821s048lbl.pdf accessed 24 January 2022
  13. Zhanel GG, Cheung D, Adam H, Zelenitsky S, Golden A et al. Review of eravacycline, a novel fluorocycline antibacterial agent. Drugs 2016; 76:567–588 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. İnce G, Mirza HC, Üsküdar Güçlü A, Gümüş H, Erol Ç et al. Comparison of in vitro activities of plazomicin and other aminoglycosides against clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 2021; 76:3192–3196 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Poirel L, Walsh TR, Cuvillier V, Nordmann P. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2011; 70:119–123 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Uskudar-Guclu A, Guney M, Sig AK, Kilic S, Baysallar M. Arising Prevalence of OXA-48 producer Escherichia coli and OXA-48 with NDM co-producer Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains. Rev Rom Med Lab 2019; 27:319–326 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Weill F-X, Demartin M, Tandé D, Espié E, Rakotoarivony I et al. SHV-12-like extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing strains of Salmonella enterica serotypes Babelsberg and Enteritidis isolated in France among infants adopted from Mali. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:2432–2437 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonnet R, Sampaio JL, Labia R, De Champs C, Sirot D et al. A novel CTX-M beta-lactamase (CTX-M-8) in cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolated in Brazil. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:1936–1942 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. US FDA Tigecycline-injection products. FDA-identified interpretive criteria; 2022 https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/tigecycline-injection-products accessed 1 March 2022
  20. US FDA Omadacycline-injection and oral products. FDA-identified breakpoints for omadacycline; 2022 https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/omadacycline-injection-and-oral-products accessed 4 March 2022
  21. US FDA Eravacycline-injection products. FDA-identified interpretive criteria; 2022 https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/eravacycline-injection-products accessed 15 March 2022
  22. Clark JA, Kulengowski B, Burgess DS. In vitro activity of eravacycline compared with tigecycline against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56:106178 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee Y-L, Ko W-C, Lee W-S, Lu P-L, Chen Y-H et al. In-vitro activity of cefiderocol, cefepime/zidebactam, cefepime/enmetazobactam, omadacycline, eravacycline and other comparative agents against carbapenem-nonsusceptible Enterobacterales: results from the Surveillance of Multicenter Antimicrobial Resistance in Taiwan (SMART) in 2017-2020. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2021; 58:106377 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters; 2022 https://www.eucast.org accessed 21 March 2022
  25. Meletiadis J, Paranos P, Georgiou PC, Vourli S, Antonopoulou S et al. In vitro comparative activity of the new beta-lactamase inhibitor taniborbactam with cefepime or meropenem against Klebsiella pneumoniae and cefepime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa metallo-beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2021; 58:106440 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuo SC, Wang YC, Tan MC, Huang WC, Shiau YR et al. In vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, cefepime/zidebactam and other novel antibiotics against imipenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacilli from Taiwan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2021; 76:2071–2078 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang Q, Neidig N, Chu TY, Divoky C, Carpenter J et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of cefiderocol against recent multidrug-resistant carbapenem-nonsusceptible Enterobacterales isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2022; 103:115651 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001592
Loading
Comparative in vitro activities of omadacycline, eravacycline and tigecycline against non-ESBL-producing, ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant isolates of K. pneumoniae
J. Med. Microbiol. 71, 001592 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001592
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001592
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001592
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

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