To determine the in vitro activity of cefiderocol in a global collection of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa including >200 carbapenemase-producing isolates. Isolates (n = 806) from the ERACE-PA Surveillance Program were assessed. Broth microdilution MICs were determined for cefiderocol (iron-depleted CAMHB) and comparators (CAMHB). Susceptibility was interpreted by CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints and reported as percent of isolates. The MIC distribution of cefiderocol in the entire cohort and by carbapenemase status was assessed. In the entire cohort, cefiderocol was the most active agent (CLSI 98% susceptible; EUCAST 95% susceptible; MIC_50/90, 0.25/2 mg/L). Amikacin (urinary only breakpoint) was the second most active, with 70% of isolates testing as susceptible. The percentage of isolates susceptible to all other agents was low (200 carbapenemase-harbouring isolates. Cefiderocol was highly active against MBL-producing isolates, where treatment options are limited. These data can help guide empirical therapy guidelines based on local prevalence of carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa or in response to rapid molecular diagnostics.

Antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is complex and multifaceted. While the novel β-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) avibactam, relebactam and vaborbactam inhibit serine-based β-lactamases, the comparative potency of the novel β-lactam (BL)/BLI combinations against serine carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa is unknown. To compare the in vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftazidime, imipenem/relebactam, imipenem, meropenem/vaborbactam and meropenem against serine β-lactamase-producing P. aeruginosa. Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa were collated through the Enhancing Rational Antimicrobials against Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (ERACE-PA) Global Surveillance. Isolates positive for serine-based carbapenemases were assessed. MICs were determined by broth microdilution to each novel BL/BLI and BL alone. GES was the most common carbapenemase identified (n = 59) followed by KPC (n = 8). Ceftazidime/avibactam had MIC₅₀/MIC₉₀ values of 4/8 mg/L and 91% of isolates were susceptible. Conversely, ceftazidime alone was active against only 3% of isolates. The MIC₅₀/MIC₉₀ of imipenem/relebactam were 16/>16 mg/L and 13% of all isolates were defined as susceptible. Of the KPC-producing isolates, 38% were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam, compared with 0% to imipenem. The meropenem/vaborbactam MIC₅₀/MIC₉₀ were >16/>16 mg/L, and 6% of isolates were susceptible, which was similar to meropenem alone (MIC₅₀/₉₀, >8/>8 mg/L; 3% susceptible) suggesting the addition of vaborbactam cannot overcome co-expressed, non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms. Among the novel BL/BLIs, ceftazidime/avibactam displayed better in vitro activity and thus is a rational treatment option for serine carbapenemase-harbouring P. aeruginosa. While imipenem/relebactam displayed some activity, particularly against isolates with bla_KPC, meropenem/vaborbactam exhibited poor activity, with MICs similar to meropenem alone.

Sulbactam-durlobactam is a potent combination active against Acinetobacter baumannii; however, it lacks activity against other nosocomial pathogens. Cefepime is a common first-line therapy for hospital/ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales. With increasing resistance to cefepime, and the significant proportion of polymicrobial nosocomial infections, effective therapy for infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii, P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales is needed. This study investigated the in vitro synergy of sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime against relevant pathogens. Static time–kills assays were performed in duplicate against 14 cefepime-resistant isolates (A. baumannii, n = 4; P. aeruginosa, n = 4; Escherichia coli, n = 3; Klebsiella pneumoniae, n = 3). One WT K. pneumoniae isolate was included. Antibiotic concentrations simulated the free-steady state average concentration of clinically administered doses in patients. Sulbactam-durlobactam alone showed significant activity against A. baumannii consistent with the MIC values. Sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime showed synergy against one A. baumannii isolate with an elevated MIC to sulbactam-durlobactam (32 mg/L). Against all P. aeruginosa isolates, synergy was observed with sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime. For the Enterobacterales, one E. coli isolate demonstrated synergy while the others were indifferent due to significant kill from sulbactam-durlobactam alone. The combination of sulbactam-durlobactam plus cefepime showed synergy against one of the K. pneumoniae and additive effects against the other two K. pneumoniae tested. No antagonism was observed in any isolates including the WT strain. Synergy and no antagonism was observed with a combination of sulbactam-durlobactam and cefepime; further in vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics data and clinical correlation are necessary to support our findings.

A minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) derived algorithm, predictive of carbapenemase production, was developed using a challenge set (n = 92) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), including carbapenemase-producing (CP), cephalosporinase and/or efflux/porin mutation, and wild-type isolates. Broth microdilution MICs to clinically relevant anti-pseudomonal agents were utilized. The algorithm was applied to 1209 clinical PA isolates from a US surveillance program. Confirmatory genotypic (Xpert^® Carba-R assay) and phenotypic (mCIM/eCIM) testing for carbapenemases was conducted on algorithm-derived isolates. With the algorithm, carbapenem resistance alone resulted in poor specificity to identify CP-PA (54%) within the challenge set of isolates. Inclusion of cefepime, ceftazidime, and piperacillin/tazobactam non-susceptibility resulted in a specificity of 66%. Ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance further improved specificity (89%). Of the 1209 isolates, 116 met criteria (carbapenem-resistant and non-susceptibility to cefepime, ceftazidime, and piperacillin/tazobactam) for confirmatory testing. Carba-R and mCIM/eCIM identified five (all bla_VIM-positive) and seven carbapenemase-producing isolates, respectively. This MIC algorithm combined with genotypic/phenotypic carbapenemase testing is a pragmatic and streamlined approach to identify CP-PA.

We assessed the plasma and soft-tissue pharmacokinetic exposure of omadacycline in infected patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) and healthy volunteers using in vivo microdialysis. Eight patients and six healthy volunteers were enrolled and received an omadacycline IV loading dose (200 mg) followed by two oral doses (300 mg) every 24 h. Microdialysis catheters were placed in the soft tissue near the infected diabetic foot wound (patients) or thigh (healthy volunteers). Plasma and dialysate fluid samples were collected, starting immediately prior to the third dose and continued for 24 h post-dose. Protein binding was determined by ultracentrifugation. The mean ± SD omadacycline pharmacokinetic parameters in plasma for infected patients and healthy volunteers were: C_max, 0.57 ± 0.15 and 1.14 ± 0.26 mg/L; t_½, 16.19 ± 5.06 and 25.34 ± 12.92 h; and total omadacycline AUC_0–24, 6.27 ± 1.38 and 14.06 ± 3.40 mg·h/L, respectively. The omadacycline mean plasma free fraction was 0.21 and 0.20 for patients and healthy volunteers, corresponding to free plasma AUC_0–24 of 1.13 ± 0.37 and 2.78 ± 0.55 mg·h/L, respectively. Omadacycline tissue AUC_0–24 was 0.82 ± 0.38 and 1.37 ± 0.48 mg·h/L for patients and volunteers, respectively. The present study describes the plasma and soft-tissue exposure of omadacycline in patients with DFI and healthy volunteers. Integrating these data with the microbiological, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and clinical efficacy data is foundational to support clinical assessments of omadacycline efficacy specifically for DFI. This, coupled with the once-daily oral administration, suggests omadacycline could be an advantageous translational therapy for the hospital and outpatient setting.

Molecular carbapenem-resistance testing, such as for the presence of carbapenemases genes, is commonly implemented for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales. Carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa are also associated with significant morbidity and mortality, although; prevalence may be underappreciated in the United States due to lack of carbapenemase testing. The present study sought to compare hands-on time, cost and workflow implementation of carbapenemase gene testing in Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates versus sending out isolates to a public health laboratory (PHL) for testing to assess if in-house can provide actionable results. The time to carbapenemase gene results were compared. Differences in cost for infection prevention measures were extrapolated from the time of positive carbapenemase gene detection in-house versus PHL. The median time to perform carbapenemase gene testing was 7.5 minutes (range 5-14) versus 10 minutes (range 8-22) for preparation to send isolates to the PHL. In-house testing produced same day results compared with a median of 6 days (range 3-14) to receive results from PHL. Cost of in-house testing and send outs were similar ($46.92 versus $40.53, respectively). If contact precautions for patients are implemented until carbapenemase genes are ruled out, in-house testing can save an estimated $76,836.60 annually. Extension of in-house carbapenemase testing to include P. aeruginosa provides actionable results 3-14 days earlier than PHL Standard Pathway testing, facilitating guided therapeutic decisions and infection prevention measures. Supplemental phenotypic algorithms can be implemented to curb the cost of P. aeruginosa carbapenemases testing by identifying isolates most likely to harbor carbapenemases.