Objective. To review the basic principles and functionality of the AMRmap online resource. Materials and Methods. The AMRmap platform was developed using the R programming language and various downloadable modules – packages. The current annually updated version of EUCAST clinical breakpoints was applied for determination of categories of susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. Descriptive analysis includes calculation of absolute and relative frequencies, median values, and confidence intervals using the Wilson method. Categorical variables are compared using Fisher’s exact test and Holm correction method for multiple comparisons. The algorithms are used to visualize multiple comparisons, kernel regression for trend analysis, and algorithms for finding associative rules. Results. The developed surveillance system includes modules for filtering, analyzing and visualizing antibiotic resistance data. The filters allow creating a sample of data with a specific list of parameters. A tab-based separation of analysis and visualization options ensure efficient stepwise evaluation of results. Data saving and sharing functions are also provided. Conclusions. This web-based informatics system provides a convenient way to AMR data from prospective microbiological surveillance studies in Russia. AMRmap can be accessed at https://amrmap.ru.

Objective. To assess the in vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against clinical Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in various regions of Russia based on results of local susceptibility testing by disk diffusion method. Materials and Methods. Overall, 160 laboratories located in 61 Russian cities participated in this surveillance during 2018-2020. All consecutive clinical isolates of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in each participating laboratory were included in the study. Ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing was done by disc-diffusion method in accordance with current EUCAST recommendations. Susceptibility data for carbapenems and III-IV generation cephalosporins, as well as results of carbapenemases detection, were also reported, if available. All the data were recorded in electronic case report form developed on the OpenClinica online platform (www.openclinica.com). Data analysis and reporting were done using AMRcloud online platform (https://amrcloud.net/). Results. In total, we received information on antimicrobial susceptibility of 22,121 isolates, including 17,456 (78.9%) Enterobacterales and 4,665 (21.1%) P. aeruginosa. Less than 9% of Enterobacterales isolates were resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam. At the same time rates of resistance to ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefepime, ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem were 54.1%, 58.9%, 59.4%, 41.4%, 23.9%, and 21.3%. Among Enterobacterales the highest level of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam was detected in K. pneumoniae (16.5%), lowest – in E. coli (2.1%). Some increase of resistance to ceftazidimeavibactam was noted during the study – from 7.8% in 2018-2019 to 9.6% in 2020 (p = 0.0001). Rate of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam in P. aeruginosa was 33.1%. At the same time rates of resistance to ceftazidime, cefepime, imipenem, and meropenem were 51.1%, 54.5%, 50%, and 47.3%. During the study there was statistically significant decrease in resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam in P. aeruginosa (p = 0.0001). Resistance rates for all beta-lactams for both Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were higher in nosocomial isolates than in community-acquired isolates. Conclusions. Ceftazidime-avibactam demonstrated significantly higher in vitro activity against Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa Russian clinical isolates comparing with commonly used carbapenems and extended spectrum cephalosporins. Access for all study data available at the AMRcloud online platform (https://amrcloud.net/ru/project/cazavi-1-2/).