Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility/resistance to cefiderocol: which are the best present and future therapeutic alternatives?

Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2024 Feb;43(2):339-354. doi: 10.1007/s10096-023-04732-4. Epub 2023 Dec 14.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the different present and future therapeutic β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) alternatives, namely aztreonam-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, and sulbactam-durlobactam against clinical isolates showing reduced susceptibility or resistance to cefiderocol in Enterobacterales, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Methods: MIC values of aztreonam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime, cefepime-taniborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, imipenem, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem, meropenem-vaborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, sulbactam-durlobactam, and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were determined for 67, 9, and 11 clinical Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa or A. baumannii isolates, respectively, showing MIC values of cefiderocol being ≥1 mg/L. If unavailable, the respective β-lactam breakpoints according to EUCAST were used for BL/BLI combinations.

Results: For Enterobacterales, the susceptibility rates for aztreonam, cefepime, imipenem, and meropenem were 7.5%, 0%, 10.4%, and 10.4%, respectively, while they were much higher for cefepime-zidebactam (91%), cefiderocol-zidebactam (91%), meropenem-nacubactam (71.6%), cefiderocol-nacubactam (74.6%), and cefiderocol-taniborbactam (76.1%), as expected. For P. aeruginosa isolates, the higher susceptibility rates were observed for imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol-zidebactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam (56% for all combinations). For A. baumannii isolates, lower susceptibility rates were observed with commercially or under development BL/BLI combos; however, a high susceptibility rate (70%) was found for sulbactam-durlobactam and when cefiderocol was associated to some BLIs.

Conclusions: Zidebactam- and nacubactam-containing combinations showed a significant in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol. On the other hand, imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam showed the highest susceptibility rates against P. aeruginosa isolates. Finally, sulbactam-durlobactam and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were the only effective options against A. baumannii tested isolates.

Keywords: Avibactam; Cefiderocol; Nacubactam; Relebactam; Taniborbactam; Vaborbactam; Zidebactam; β-Lactamase.

MeSH terms

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / pharmacology
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use
  • Azabicyclo Compounds*
  • Aztreonam* / pharmacology
  • Borinic Acids*
  • Boronic Acids*
  • Carboxylic Acids*
  • Cefepime
  • Cefiderocol*
  • Cephalosporins / pharmacology
  • Cyclooctanes*
  • Humans
  • Imipenem / pharmacology
  • Lactams*
  • Meropenem / pharmacology
  • Microbial Sensitivity Tests
  • Piperidines*
  • beta-Lactamase Inhibitors / pharmacology
  • beta-Lactamases

Substances

  • relebactam
  • zidebactam
  • nacubactam
  • Cefiderocol
  • Meropenem
  • avibactam
  • vaborbactam
  • taniborbactam
  • Cefepime
  • Aztreonam
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents
  • Cephalosporins
  • Imipenem
  • beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
  • beta-Lactamases
  • Carboxylic Acids
  • Piperidines
  • Lactams
  • Boronic Acids
  • Cyclooctanes
  • Azabicyclo Compounds
  • Borinic Acids