-
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in... Aug 2016β-Lactams are the most widely used class of antibiotics. Since the discovery of benzylpenicillin in the 1920s, thousands of new penicillin derivatives and related... (Review)
Review
β-Lactams are the most widely used class of antibiotics. Since the discovery of benzylpenicillin in the 1920s, thousands of new penicillin derivatives and related β-lactam classes of cephalosporins, cephamycins, monobactams, and carbapenems have been discovered. Each new class of β-lactam has been developed either to increase the spectrum of activity to include additional bacterial species or to address specific resistance mechanisms that have arisen in the targeted bacterial population. Resistance to β-lactams is primarily because of bacterially produced β-lactamase enzymes that hydrolyze the β-lactam ring, thereby inactivating the drug. The newest effort to circumvent resistance is the development of novel broad-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitors that work against many problematic β-lactamases, including cephalosporinases and serine-based carbapenemases, which severely limit therapeutic options. This work provides a comprehensive overview of β-lactam antibiotics that are currently in use, as well as a look ahead to several new compounds that are in the development pipeline.
Topics: Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Monobactams; Penicillins; beta-Lactam Resistance; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 27329032
DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a025247 -
JAMA Jul 2023Meropenem is a widely prescribed β-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug...
IMPORTANCE
Meropenem is a widely prescribed β-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events.
RESULTS
All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Meropenem; Shock, Septic; Critical Illness; Double-Blind Method; Sepsis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Monobactams; Hypersensitivity
PubMed: 37326473
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.10598 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Oct 2023Ceftobiprole is a cephalosporin that may be effective for treating complicated bacteremia, including methicillin-resistant . (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Ceftobiprole is a cephalosporin that may be effective for treating complicated bacteremia, including methicillin-resistant .
METHODS
In this phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, adults with complicated bacteremia were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ceftobiprole at a dose of 500 mg intravenously every 6 hours for 8 days and every 8 hours thereafter, or daptomycin at a dose of 6 to 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 24 hours plus optional aztreonam (at the discretion of the trial-site investigators). The primary outcome, overall treatment success 70 days after randomization (defined as survival, bacteremia clearance, symptom improvement, no new bacteremia-related complications, and no receipt of other potentially effective antibiotics), with a noninferiority margin of 15%, was adjudicated by a data review committee whose members were unaware of the trial-group assignments. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS
Of 390 patients who underwent randomization, 387 (189 in the ceftobiprole group and 198 in the daptomycin group) had confirmed bacteremia and received ceftobiprole or daptomycin (modified intention-to-treat population). A total of 132 of 189 patients (69.8%) in the ceftobiprole group and 136 of 198 patients (68.7%) in the daptomycin group had overall treatment success (adjusted difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.1). Findings appeared to be consistent between the ceftobiprole and daptomycin groups in key subgroups and with respect to secondary outcomes, including mortality (9.0% and 9.1%, respectively; 95% CI, -6.2 to 5.2) and the percentage of patients with microbiologic eradication (82.0% and 77.3%; 95% CI, -2.9 to 13.0). Adverse events were reported in 121 of 191 patients (63.4%) who received ceftobiprole and 117 of 198 patients (59.1%) who received daptomycin; serious adverse events were reported in 36 patients (18.8%) and 45 patients (22.7%), respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events (primarily mild nausea) were more frequent with ceftobiprole.
CONCLUSIONS
Ceftobiprole was noninferior to daptomycin with respect to overall treatment success in patients with complicated bacteremia. (Funded by Basilea Pharmaceutica International and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ERADICATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03138733.).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Cephalosporins; Daptomycin; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method; Administration, Intravenous; Aztreonam
PubMed: 37754204
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2300220 -
Revista Argentina de Microbiologia 2022The aim of this review is to present an update on the susceptibility of viridans group streptococci (VGS) to β-lactam antimicrobials, with emphasis on the Argentinean... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review is to present an update on the susceptibility of viridans group streptococci (VGS) to β-lactam antimicrobials, with emphasis on the Argentinean scenario. VGS are a heterogeneous group including five groups of species, each one exhibiting peculiar susceptibility patterns to penicillin (PEN). Species of the Streptococcus mitis group are frequently nonsusceptible to PEN. PEN resistance is associated with changes in PEN-binding proteins. In Argentina, one to two thirds of VGS are nonsusceptible to PEN. Third generation cephalosporins and carbapenems are currently more effective in vitro than PEN against VGS. Mortality was associated to nonsusceptibility to PEN in at least two studies involving patients with bacteremia caused by VGS. Treatment of endocarditis due to VGS should be adjusted/to the PEN susceptibility of the isolates. Vancomycin may be an alternative choice for treating endocarditis caused by PEN-resistant isolates (MIC≥4μg/ml).
Topics: Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Streptococcal Infections; Viridans Streptococci; Penicillins; Monobactams; beta-Lactams; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis
PubMed: 36266147
DOI: 10.1016/j.ram.2022.06.004 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2023The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant...
SCOPE
The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.
METHODS
These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prospective Studies; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Monobactams; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 36566836
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.012 -
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 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 -
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 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2021Carbapenem-resistant (CRE) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PA) producing metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) cause severe nosocomial infections with no defined treatment. The...
Carbapenem-resistant (CRE) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PA) producing metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) cause severe nosocomial infections with no defined treatment. The combination of aztreonam (ATM) with ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) is a potential therapeutic option, but there is no approved, feasible testing method for use in clinical laboratories to assess the activity of two antimicrobials in combination. Here, we evaluate the performance of four ATM-CZA combination testing methods, as follows: broth disk elution (DE), disk stacking (DS), strip stacking (SS), and strip crossing (SX). We used 10 clinical, representative and 6 P. aeruginosa isolates harboring MBL, Guiana extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (GES), or non-MBL enzymes. Four of these isolates were from clinical cases treated by ATM-CZA. All CRE producing NDM and CR-PA producing GES that were resistant to ATM and CZA alone were susceptible to the ATM-CZA combination. P. aeruginosa generating NDM or VIM remained resistant to ATM-CZA, likely due to non-β-lactamase mechanisms, and all other isolates were susceptible to ATM or CZA alone. The most accurate, precise, and reproducible methods of low complexity were disc elution and both strip methods (SX and SS) using MIC test strips (MTS) , all with 100% sensitivity and specificity, followed by Etest with SX (95.83% sensitivity, 100% specificity) and SS (87.5% sensitivity, 100% specificity). DS had the lowest performance. DE is particularly valuable in low-resource settings that routinely use disks. MTS yielded higher categorical agreements by SX (94%) and SS (84%), relative to Etest by SX (90%) and SS (82%). P. aeruginosa results yielded the majority of the errors. These methods may allow laboratories to inform clinical decision making like combination therapy for severe infections caused by extensively drug-resistant
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Aztreonam; Ceftazidime; Drug Combinations; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 34424044
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00846-21 -
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