-
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2022This is a retrospective single-center study of 24 patients who received ceftazidime-avibactam plus aztreonam (CZA/ATM) for the treatment of VIM-type-producing...
This is a retrospective single-center study of 24 patients who received ceftazidime-avibactam plus aztreonam (CZA/ATM) for the treatment of VIM-type-producing Gram-negative bacillus (GNB) infections. The bacteria isolated were in 22 patients and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 2. Sixteen out of 19 isolates showed synergistic activity. Two patients presented clinical failure at day 14, and the 30-day mortality was 17% (4/24). CZA/ATM could be considered an alternative therapy for VIM-type-producing GNB infections.
Topics: Humans; Aztreonam; Retrospective Studies; beta-Lactamases; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 36102635
DOI: 10.1128/aac.00751-22 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Apr 2024Metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) are responsible for resistance to almost all beta-lactam antibiotics. Found predominantly in Gram-negative bacteria, they severely limit... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) are responsible for resistance to almost all beta-lactam antibiotics. Found predominantly in Gram-negative bacteria, they severely limit treatment options. Understanding the epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and prevention of infections caused by MBL-producing organisms is essential to reduce their burden.
AREAS COVERED
The origins and structure of MBLs are discussed. We describe the mechanisms of action that differentiate MBLs from other beta-lactamases. We discuss the global epidemiology of MBL-producing organisms and their impact on patients' outcomes. By exposing the mechanisms of transmission of MBLs among bacterial populations, we emphasize the importance of infection prevention and control.
EXPERT OPINION
MBLs are spreading globally and challenging the majority of available antibacterial agents. Genotypic tests play an important role in the identification of MBL production. Phenotypic tests are less specific but may be used in low-resource settings, where MBLs are more predominant. Infection prevention and control are critical to reduce the spread of organisms producing MBL in healthcare systems. New combinations such as avibactam-aztreonam and new agents such as cefiderocol have shown promising results for the treatment of infections caused by MBL-producing organisms. New antibiotic and non-antibiotic agents are being developed and may improve the management of infections caused by MBL-producing organisms.
Topics: Humans; beta-Lactamases; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Aztreonam; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Bacteria; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 38275276
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2024.2311213 -
JAMA Jul 2023
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; beta-Lactams; Critical Illness; Infusions, Intravenous; Monobactams; Sepsis; Treatment Outcome; Time Factors
PubMed: 37326478
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.6483 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Aug 2019Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative organisms are a major health concern due to lack of effective therapy. Emergence of resistance to newer agents like...
Evaluation of the Synergy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Combination with Meropenem, Amikacin, Aztreonam, Colistin, or Fosfomycin against Well-Characterized Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative organisms are a major health concern due to lack of effective therapy. Emergence of resistance to newer agents like ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) further magnifies the problem. In this context, combination therapy of CZA with other antimicrobials may have potential in treating these pathogens. Unfortunately, there are limited data regarding these combinations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate CZA in combination with amikacin (AMK), aztreonam (AZT), colistin (COL), fosfomycin (FOS), and meropenem (MEM) against 21 carbapenem-resistant and 21 MDR strains. The potential for synergy was evaluated via MIC combination evaluation and time-kill assays. All strains were further characterized by whole-genome sequencing, quantitative real-time PCR, and SDS-PAGE analysis to determine potential mechanisms of resistance. Compared to CZA alone, we observed a 4-fold decrease in CZA MICs for a majority of strains and at least a 2-fold decrease for most isolates in the majority of combinations tested. In both and strains, CZA in combination with AMK or AZT was synergistic (≥2.15-log CFU/ml decrease). CZA-MEM was effective against and CZA-FOS was effective against Time-kill analysis also revealed that the synergy of CZA with MEM or AZT may be due to the previously reported restoration of MEM or AZT activity against these organisms. Our findings show that CZA in combination with these antibiotics has potential for therapeutic options in difficult to treat pathogens. Further evaluation of these combinations is warranted.
Topics: Amikacin; Azabicyclo Compounds; Aztreonam; Ceftazidime; Colistin; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Drug Synergism; Fosfomycin; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PubMed: 31182535
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00779-19 -
Allergy Mar 2024In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has...
In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Drug Hypersensitivity; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contrast Media; Monobactams; beta Lactam Antibiotics; Skin Tests; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 38155501
DOI: 10.1111/all.15996 -
Pharmacotherapy Aug 2023Intravenous β-lactam antibiotics remain a cornerstone in the management of bacterial infections due to their broad spectrum of activity and excellent tolerability.... (Review)
Review
International consensus recommendations for the use of prolonged-infusion beta-lactam antibiotics: Endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases,...
Intravenous β-lactam antibiotics remain a cornerstone in the management of bacterial infections due to their broad spectrum of activity and excellent tolerability. β-lactams are well established to display time-dependent bactericidal activity, where reductions in bacterial burden are directly associated with the time that free drug concentrations remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen during the dosing interval. In an effort to take advantage of these bactericidal characteristics, prolonged (extended and continuous) infusions (PI) can be applied during the administration of intravenous β-lactams to increase time above the MIC. PI dosing regimens have been implemented worldwide, but implementation is inconsistent. We report consensus therapeutic recommendations for the use of β-lactam PI developed by an expert international panel with representation from clinical pharmacy and medicine. This consensus guideline provides recommendations regarding pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, therapeutic drug monitoring considerations, and the use of PI β-lactam therapy in the following patient populations: severely ill and nonseverely ill adult patients, pediatric patients, and obese patients. These recommendations provide the first consensus guidance for the use of β-lactam therapy administered as PIs and have been reviewed and endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC), the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF), the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Pharmacists; Cystic Fibrosis; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Communicable Diseases; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pharmacy
PubMed: 37615244
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2844 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate. This is an updated review.
OBJECTIVES
Does giving antibiotics for P aeruginosa infection in people with CF at the time of new isolation improve clinical outcomes (e.g. mortality, quality of life and morbidity), eradicate P aeruginosa infection, and delay the onset of chronic infection, but without adverse effects, compared to usual treatment or an alternative antibiotic regimen? We also assessed cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Latest search: 24 March 2022. We searched ongoing trials registries. Latest search: 6 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with CF, in whom P aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other antibiotic combinations. We excluded non-randomised trials and cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (1449 participants) lasting between 28 days and 27 months; some had few participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods. Antibiotics in this review are: oral - ciprofloxacin and azithromycin; inhaled - tobramycin nebuliser solution for inhalation (TNS), aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and colistin; IV - ceftazidime and tobramycin. There was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used. TNS versus placebo TNS may improve eradication; fewer participants were still positive for P aeruginosa at one month (odds ratio (OR) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.18; 3 trials, 89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and two months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.65; 2 trials, 38 participants). We are uncertain whether the odds of a positive culture decrease at 12 months (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.67; 1 trial, 12 participants). TNS (28 days) versus TNS (56 days) One trial (88 participants) comparing 28 days to 56 days TNS treatment found duration of treatment may make little or no difference in time to next isolation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). Cycled TNS versus culture-based TNS One trial (304 children, one to 12 years old) compared cycled TNS to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. We found moderate-certainty evidence of an effect favouring cycled TNS therapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82), although the trial publication reported age-adjusted OR and no difference between groups. Ciprofloxacin versus placebo added to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy One trial (296 participants) examined the effect of adding ciprofloxacin versus placebo to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy. There is probably no difference between ciprofloxacin and placebo in eradicating P aeruginosa (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus TNS We are uncertain whether there is any difference between groups in eradication of P aeruginosa at up to six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.23; 1 trial, 58 participants) or up to 24 months (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.42; 1 trial, 47 participants); there was a low rate of short-term eradication in both groups. Ciprofloxacin plus colistin versus ciprofloxacin plus TNS One trial (223 participants) found there may be no difference in positive respiratory cultures at 16 months between ciprofloxacin with colistin versus TNS with ciprofloxacin (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.29; low-certainty evidence). TNS plus azithromycin compared to TNS plus oral placebo Adding azithromycin may make no difference to the number of participants eradicating P aeruginosa after a three-month treatment phase (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35; 1 trial, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); there was also no evidence of any difference in the time to recurrence. Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus no treatment A single trial only reported one of our planned outcomes; there were no adverse effects in either group. AZLI for 14 days plus placebo for 14 days compared to AZLI for 28 days We are uncertain whether giving 14 or 28 days of AZLI makes any difference to the proportion of participants having a negative respiratory culture at 28 days (mean difference (MD) -7.50, 95% CI -24.80 to 9.80; 1 trial, 139 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ceftazidime with IV tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin (both regimens in conjunction with three months colistin) IV ceftazidime with tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin may make little or no difference to eradication of P aeruginosa at three months, sustained to 15 months, provided that inhaled antibiotics are also used (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.65 to 1.09; P = 0.18; 1 trial, 255 participants; high-certainty evidence). The results do not support using IV antibiotics over oral therapy to eradicate P aeruginosa, based on both eradication rate and financial cost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with P aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these antibiotic strategies decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of P aeruginosa. One large trial showed that intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin is not superior to oral ciprofloxacin when inhaled antibiotics are also used. There is still insufficient evidence to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early P aeruginosa infection in CF, but there is now evidence that intravenous therapy is not superior to oral antibiotics.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Ceftazidime; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Cystic Fibrosis; Monobactams; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Pseudomonas Infections; Tobramycin
PubMed: 37268599
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004197.pub6 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Nov 2022Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of beta-lactam antibiotics is recommended to address the variability in exposure observed in critical illness. However, the impact of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of beta-lactam antibiotics is recommended to address the variability in exposure observed in critical illness. However, the impact of TDM-guided dosing on clinical outcomes remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on TDM-guided dosing and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, clinical cure, microbiological cure, treatment failure, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, target attainment, antibiotic-related adverse events, and emergence of resistance) in critically ill patients with suspected or proven sepsis. Eleven studies (n = 1463 participants) were included. TDM-guided dosing was associated with improved clinical cure (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.31), microbiological cure (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27), treatment failure (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, .66 to .94), and target attainment (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.16). No associations with mortality and length of stay were found. TDM-guided dosing improved clinical and microbiological cure and treatment response. Larger, prospective, randomized trials are required to better assess the utility of beta-lactam TDM in critically ill patients.
Topics: Humans; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Prospective Studies; beta-Lactams; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Monobactams
PubMed: 35731853
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac506 -
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2023Due to limited therapeutic options, there is a clinical need to assess the activity of the combination of aztreonam (ATM) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) to guide the...
Due to limited therapeutic options, there is a clinical need to assess the activity of the combination of aztreonam (ATM) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) to guide the therapeutic management of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative organism infections. We set out to develop a practical MIC-based broth disk elution (BDE) method to determine the activity of the combination ATM-CZA using readily available supplies and compare it to reference broth microdilution (BMD). For the BDE method, a 30-μg ATM disk, a 30/20-μg CZA disk, both disks in combination, and no disks were added to 4 separate 5-mL cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CA-MHB) tubes, using various manufacturers. Three testing sites performed both BDE and reference BMD testing of bacterial isolates in parallel from a single 0.5 McFarland standard inoculum and after overnight incubation, assessed them for growth (not susceptible) or no growth (susceptible) at a final concentration of 6/6/4 μg/mL ATM-CZA. During the first phase, the precision and accuracy of the BDE were analyzed by testing 61 isolates at all sites. This testing yielded 98.3% precision between sites, with 98.3% categorical agreement and 1.8% major errors (ME). During the second phase, at each site, we evaluated unique, clinical isolates of metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing ( = 75), carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa ( = 25), Stenotrophomonas maltophilia ( = 46), and sp. ( = 1). This testing resulted in 97.9% categorical agreement, with 2.4% ME. Different results were observed for different disk and CA-MHB manufacturers, requiring a supplemental ATM-CZA-not-susceptible quality control organism to ensure the accuracy of results. The BDE is a precise and effective methodology for determining susceptibility to the combination ATM-CZA.
Topics: Humans; Aztreonam; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Ceftazidime; Drug Combinations; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 37070979
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01647-22