Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Adnan Alatoom, Hashim Elsayed, Karen Lawlor, Laila AbdelWareth, Rania El-Lababidi, Lysettee Cardona, Mohammad Mooty, Maria Fernanda Bonilla, Ahmad Nusair, Imran Mirza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective This study compared the activity of ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Methods In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains. Results All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 0.125 μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.38 μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 1.5 μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.75 μg/ml). Conclusions Ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime–avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane–tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime–avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-43
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases
Volume62
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Carbapenems
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Enterobacteriaceae
beta-Lactamases
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
United Arab Emirates
Escherichia coli
Disk Diffusion Antimicrobial Tests
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
Enzymes
Polymerase Chain Reaction

Keywords

  • carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
  • Ceftazidime–avibactam
  • Ceftolozane–tazobactam
  • Gram-negative bacteria
  • Multidrug resistance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. / Alatoom, Adnan; Elsayed, Hashim; Lawlor, Karen; AbdelWareth, Laila; El-Lababidi, Rania; Cardona, Lysettee; Mooty, Mohammad; Bonilla, Maria Fernanda; Nusair, Ahmad; Mirza, Imran.

In: International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 62, 01.09.2017, p. 39-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Alatoom, Adnan ; Elsayed, Hashim ; Lawlor, Karen ; AbdelWareth, Laila ; El-Lababidi, Rania ; Cardona, Lysettee ; Mooty, Mohammad ; Bonilla, Maria Fernanda ; Nusair, Ahmad ; Mirza, Imran. / Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In: International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2017 ; Vol. 62. pp. 39-43.
@article{003097a1063c497dad9ecd9e6ce1f98f,
title = "Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa",
abstract = "Objective This study compared the activity of ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Methods In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains. Results All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 0.125 μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.38 μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45{\%}) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml), whereas only six (10{\%}) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94{\%}) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 1.5 μg/ml), whereas 30 (97{\%}) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.75 μg/ml). Conclusions Ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime–avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane–tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime–avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.",
keywords = "carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), Ceftazidime–avibactam, Ceftolozane–tazobactam, Gram-negative bacteria, Multidrug resistance",
author = "Adnan Alatoom and Hashim Elsayed and Karen Lawlor and Laila AbdelWareth and Rania El-Lababidi and Lysettee Cardona and Mohammad Mooty and Bonilla, {Maria Fernanda} and Ahmad Nusair and Imran Mirza",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijid.2017.06.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "39--43",
journal = "International Journal of Infectious Diseases",
issn = "1201-9712",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

AU - Alatoom, Adnan

AU - Elsayed, Hashim

AU - Lawlor, Karen

AU - AbdelWareth, Laila

AU - El-Lababidi, Rania

AU - Cardona, Lysettee

AU - Mooty, Mohammad

AU - Bonilla, Maria Fernanda

AU - Nusair, Ahmad

AU - Mirza, Imran

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Objective This study compared the activity of ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Methods In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains. Results All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 0.125 μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.38 μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 1.5 μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.75 μg/ml). Conclusions Ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime–avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane–tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime–avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.

AB - Objective This study compared the activity of ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Methods In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains. Results All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 0.125 μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.38 μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 ≥256 μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime–avibactam (MIC50 1.5 μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane–tazobactam (MIC50 0.75 μg/ml). Conclusions Ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime–avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane–tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime–avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.

KW - carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)

KW - Ceftazidime–avibactam

KW - Ceftolozane–tazobactam

KW - Gram-negative bacteria

KW - Multidrug resistance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026368398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026368398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijid.2017.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.ijid.2017.06.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 28610832

AN - SCOPUS:85026368398

VL - 62

SP - 39

EP - 43

JO - International Journal of Infectious Diseases

JF - International Journal of Infectious Diseases

SN - 1201-9712

ER -