Next Article in Journal
Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Case–Control Study
Previous Article in Journal
Fungus Among Us: An 8-Year Retrospective Study of Fungal Infections at a Tertiary-Care Hospital in Bucharest, Romania
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chimeric Antigen Receptor Immunotherapy for Infectious Diseases: Current Advances and Future Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/pathogens14101062
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Clinical Isolates to Sulbactam–Durlobactam: A Systematic Review of Data from In Vitro Studies

by
Matthew E. Falagas
1,2,3,*,
Laura T. Romanos
1,
Dimitrios Ragias
1 and
Charalampos Filippou
2
1
Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos Street, 151 23 Marousi, Greece
2
School of Medicine, European University Cyprus, 6 Diogenous Str., 2404 Nicosia, Cyprus
3
Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, 145 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA 02111, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2025, 14(10), 1062; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101062
Submission received: 30 September 2025 / Revised: 13 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 20 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bacterial Resistance and Novel Therapeutic Approaches)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the limited therapeutic options for patients with Acinetobacter baumannii complex infections, a new combination antimicrobial agent, sulbactam–durlobactam, has been developed. In this systematic review, we evaluated the available data on the resistance of A. baumannii complex clinical isolates to sulbactam–durlobactam. Methods: We performed a thorough search of four databases for relevant studies. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) sulbactam–durlobactam breakpoint for A. baumannii complex susceptibility was used (MIC value ≤4 mg/L). Data on the presence of genes of various β-lactamases were also analyzed. Results: From 182 identified articles, 84 were thoroughly screened. Data extraction was performed on 20 articles (published 2017–2025) reporting on a total of 10,412 A. baumannii complex clinical isolates. Among the various β-lactamases genes present, the OXA subvariants OXA-23/OXA-23-like were the most common (in 561 isolates). The proportions of non-selected (consecutive) A. baumannii isolates found to be resistant to sulbactam–durlobactam were 1.2%, 1.2%, and 4.6% in the three studies, and with non-susceptibility (resistance and intermediate resistance) were 2%, 2.1%, and 4.6% in three other studies. Non-susceptibility was very rare among A. calcoaceticus, A. nosocomialis, and A. pittii isolates (0%, 0.3%, and 0.6%, respectively). The proportion of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates with resistance was 0–5.2%. The proportion of A. baumannii isolates selected for their reduced susceptibility profile (including reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol) with resistance was 1.4–27.3%. Discussion: The low proportion of sulbactam–durlobactam resistance among A. baumannii complex isolates supports the consideration of the use of this new antibiotic for its approved indications.

1. Introduction

Acinetobacter baumannii is a Gram-negative, lactose non-fermenting bacterium. Until approximately 20 years ago, it was considered primarily a colonizer rather than a significant cause of infection. Additionally, before that time, it was believed that infections caused by A. baumannii were not associated with increased mortality. It was often stated that patients ‘die with A. baumannii infection, not from it’, reflecting a belief that A. baumannii did not increase mortality. However, data from around the world eventually showed that A. baumannii infections can directly cause significant morbidity and mortality [1,2]. Nowadays, it is recognized that A. baumannii infections are frequently multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), or pandrug-resistant (PDR) and have disseminated globally [3,4].
As a result, therapeutic options for A. baumannii infections are now limited due to the extensive antimicrobial resistance of these pathogens. Older antibiotics, such as polymyxins (colistin and polymyxin B) and aminoglycosides, are frequently used despite their considerable nephrotoxicity. In addition, some broad-spectrum β-lactams with activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (piperacillin–tazobactam, ceftazidime, aztreonam, meropenem) and quinolones (e.g., levofloxacin) may exhibit activity against certain A. baumannii isolates. Although newer antibiotics that are modifications of tetracyclines (such as omadacycline and eravacycline) and tigecycline (a glycylcycline) exhibit promising activity against a variety of pathogens, their effectiveness against A. baumannii is relatively low and variable [5]. Newer β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (meropenem–vaborbactam, imipenem–relebactam, aztreonam–avibactam) have limited or variable activity against A. baumannii [6,7].
Another commonly used antibiotic combination for treating patients with A. baumannii infections is ampicillin–sulbactam [8]. Recent studies have shown an increase in bacterial resistance to this combination of agents, reinforcing the need for new agents and combinations to enter the market [9]. Increasing the sulbactam dose in this combination could potentially reduce the emergence of resistance to this combination in A. baumannii. However, there would not be a significant advantage to using a high-dose ampicillin–sulbactam combination for treatment, as there is considerable overlap between sulbactam resistance and carbapenem resistance [10]. Additionally, there is limited information on the clinical use of trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of patients with A. baumannii infections [11]. A. baumannii isolates intrinsically produce several types of β-lactamases, especially Class C β-lactamases, according to the Ambler classification [such as Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinases (ADC)] [12]. Additionally, A. baumannii isolates may harbor the oxacillinase-51 (OXA-51) gene. However, both ADC and OXA-51 genes are expressed at low levels, leading to low or no production of the relevant cephalosporinases (ADC) and carbapenemase (OXA-51) [12]. The expression of these genes may be promoted by the insertion sequence ISAba1, a genetic element that leads to subsequent gene overexpression [13]. A. baumannii can also horizontally acquire Ambler Class D (such as OXA-23, OXA-24, and OXA-58) carbapenemase genes, as well as Ambler Class B carbapenemases such as imipenemase (IMP), Verona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase (VIM), and New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM) [14,15]. A. baumannii isolates may also employ various mechanisms of resistance, such as loss of outer membrane permeability and the overexpression of efflux pumps, in addition to β-lactamase acquisition [14]. Clones with multiple mechanisms of resistance have been successful in dissemination. The IC2 clone (GC2), also known as ST2 based on the multilocus sequence typing (MLST) of the Pasteur scheme, and including ST208 and ST281 MLST types of the Oxford scheme, has disseminated globally [16,17]. It is a frequently isolated clone of A. baumannii, especially in patients with MDR healthcare-associated infections. The isolates of this clone may carry genes for the production of OXA-23, OXA-66, and carbapenemases [18].
To address the challenge of MDR A. baumannii, a new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination, sulbactam–durlobactam (formerly ETX2514), was developed. This drug, with the market name Xacduro, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2023 for the treatment of adult patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) caused by isolates of the A. baumannii complex. The drug was fast-tracked and prioritized for review as a pathogen-specific antimicrobial agent [19]. From this perspective, sulbactam–durlobactam is a rare example of an antimicrobial approved for a specific pathogen. Another relevant example is fidaxomicin, which is currently approved only for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile disease.
Sulbactam–durlobactam is a targeted β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combination. Sulbactam has a dual role: it acts as a β-lactam antibiotic (binding to penicillin-binding proteins 1 and 3) and also as a β-lactamase inhibitor [20]. Sulbactam is still susceptible to hydrolysis by certain β-lactamases, for example, TEM-1. In fact, one study showed that A. baumannii isolates carrying the TEM-1 β-lactamase gene had significantly higher MIC values in comparison to those that were negative for this gene. For this reason, it is paired with durlobactam, a novel diazabicyclooctane β-lactamase inhibitor [21]. Durlobactam is a novel diazabicyclooctane compound and has a broad spectrum of activity against several β-lactamases, namely, Class A, C, and D serine β-lactamases, according to the Ambler classification [22].
In the context of therapeutic developments for treating patients with A. baumannii infections, in this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the published evidence on the resistance of A. baumannii complex isolates to sulbactam–durlobactam. These data will help in decision-making regarding the appropriate use of the new combination antibiotic in clinical practice. Given the recent approval of sulbactam–durlobactam, understanding the current extent of any resistance to this agent is critical for its optimal use.

2. Methods

2.1. Sources and Eligibility Criteria

We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol of the study was not uploaded to a registry. A comprehensive literature review was conducted across four databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from their inception to 19 July 2025. Eligible for assessment were studies of any primary research design that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) the terms sulbactam–durlobactam included in the title/abstract/keywords, and (b) the terms minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) or disk diffusion susceptibility testing data present.
The exclusion criteria were (a) non-primary research articles; (b) studies of isolates obtained from animal sources; (c) case reports focusing on a single patient or a single bacterial isolate; (d) primary research articles that did not contain relevant data for this review; (e) studies that did not contain data on susceptibility of A. baumannii complex isolates to sulbactam–durlobactam; (f) conference abstracts; and (g) studies evaluating ≤ 5 total isolates, for the sulbactam–durlobactam susceptibility testing.

2.2. Search Strategy and Screening of Studies

The detailed search strategy is presented in Supplementary File S1. Terms such as “sulbactam–durlobactam”, “resistance”, “non-susceptibility”, “MIC”, and “disk diffusion” were used. Additional articles were identified through manual screening of reference lists. Duplicate articles were removed using the Rayyan tool’s automatic DOI-based deduplication. We screened all retrieved studies in full text.

2.3. Breakpoints of Susceptibility Testing

At the time of writing, clinical breakpoints for sulbactam–durlobactam against A. baumannii complex have exclusively been published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Isolates are considered susceptible (S) if the sulbactam minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) is ≤4 mg/L with a fixed 4 mg/L durlobactam concentration. Isolates with a sulbactam MIC of ≥16 mg/L are categorized as resistant (R). Isolates with a sulbactam MIC of 8 mg/L are classified as intermediate resistant (I). The term ‘non-susceptible’ refers to any isolate with MIC > 4 mg/L (thus categorized as intermediate or resistant under CLSI criteria).

2.4. Data Extraction

Our analysis includes data on the total number of the studied isolates, the number of isolates of each species, and the presence of various β-lactamases (based on phenotypic and/or genotypic methods). Also included are data on the MIC range (mg/L), MIC50, MIC90, and the percentage of resistance among the studied isolates. Two investigators (L.T.R. and D.R.) independently performed the study selection, screening, and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved with the assistance of a senior investigator (M.E.F.).

2.5. Data Tabulation

The data were categorized according to bacterial species and the presence of β-lactamase genes. For each group, the following information was recorded: the number of specific isolates, the presence of β-lactamase genes, MIC ranges in milligrams per liter (mg/L), and the percentage of isolates resistant to sulbactam–durlobactam. Resistance was determined based on the criteria set by the respective studies using susceptibility breakpoints defined by the CLSI.

3. Results

Selection of Relevant Articles

The PRISMA reporting checklist for the abstract and the text is shown in Supplementary Files S2 and S3. In Figure 1, the PRISMA flow diagram is shown. It describes the evaluation, selection, and inclusion of the relevant articles. A total of 182 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 85 unique articles remained. We obtained 84 of these in full-text and assessed them (one potentially relevant article could not be retrieved in full text), ultimately including 20 articles in our analysis. These 20 articles corresponded to 18 unique studies [10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In two cases, two articles reported separate data from a single study [29,31] and [28,32].
The included in vitro studies, published between 2017 and 2025, reported results on a total of 10,412 isolates (Table 1). The articles collectively reported on various A. baumannii complex isolates, including A. baumannii (10 studies) [10,23,25,26,27,28,30,32,34,39,40], A. calcoaceticus (2 studies) [28,30,32], A. nosocomialis (2 studies) [28,30,32], and A. pittii (2 studies) [28,30,32]. Seven articles specifically included data on carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) isolates [23,24,33,35,37,38,41].
The studied isolates had the presence of various β-lactamases genes, particularly oxacillinase (OXA), Temoniera β-lactamase (TEM), and Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase (ADC). Among the OXA subvariants, OXA-23 (including OXA-23-like variants) was the most common OXA gene (present in 561 isolates), followed by OXA-66-like (136 isolates), OXA-69-like (80), and OXA-51-like (70 isolates). TEM-1 was the predominant TEM variant (179 isolates). The most frequent ADC genes were ADC-30 and ADC-73 (present in 60 and 67 isolates, respectively).
In all studies, the CLSI breakpoints for susceptibility were used to determine the percentage of isolates resistant to sulbactam–durlobactam [10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In Table 1, we present the in vitro susceptibility testing results of non-selected (consecutive) A. baumannii complex isolates. The percentage of non-selected A. baumannii isolates that were resistant was 1.2%, 1.2%, and 4.6% in three studies [10,25,27]. The percentages with intermediate resistance in these studies were 1.9%, 7.1%, and 2%, respectively [10,25,27]. The percentage of non-selected (consecutive) A. baumannii isolates with non-susceptibility (resistance and intermediate-resistance) in three other studies was 2%, 2.1%, and 4.6%; the relevant data were presented in five articles [28,29,31,32,40].
Non-susceptibility was very rare in A. calcoaceticus, A. nosocomialis, and A. pittii (0%, 0.3%, and 0.6% of isolates, respectively) in the study that reported data for these species [28,32] (Table 1). In one study that did not specify the Acinetobacter species, the resistance of isolates to this drug was reported at 3%, and intermediate resistance was reported at 0% [36] (Table 1). Another study displayed the non-susceptibility percentage for all A. baumannii complex isolates studied combined as 2.3% [30].
In studies focusing on selected CRAB isolates (Table 2), resistance ranged from 0% to 5.2%, and intermediate resistance ranged from 0% to 12% [23,24,33,35,37,38,41].
In Table 3, we present the in vitro susceptibility testing results of selected (non-consecutive) A. baumannii complex isolates. In a 2023 study, eleven A. baumannii clinical isolates showing reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol (MIC value ≥ 1 mg/L) were analyzed. Notably, 27.3% (3 of 11) of those isolates were resistant to sulbactam–durlobactam [39]. Another 2023 study examined the resistance of 10 isolates, which had been previously characterized by whole-genome sequencing. It found that 10% of isolates were resistant and 20% were intermediate to sulbactam–durlobactam [34].
A 2022 study examined 100 non-duplicate clinical A. baumannii isolates, which had previously been characterized for resistance mechanisms representative of MDR patterns commonly observed in A. baumannii. They exhibited high non-susceptibility to other antibiotics (e.g., 82% to amikacin and 95% to cefepime). Against sulbactam–durlobactam, 15% of these isolates were fully resistant, and 4% were intermediate. Notably, in the subset of five NDM-producing isolates, 80% were resistant to sulbactam–durlobactam [26].
A 2019 study evaluated 72 genotypically characterized A. baumannii isolates (all carrying multiple Class C and D β-lactamase genes). It found resistance and intermediate proportions of 1.4% and 4.2%, respectively [23].

4. Discussion

Our analysis indicates that sulbactam–durlobactam has high activity against A. baumannii complex clinical isolates overall. The observed resistance proportions were low despite the notoriously difficult-to-treat nature of A. baumannii—with the notable exception of NDM-producing isolates.
The FDA approved sulbactam–durlobactam for the treatment of adult patients with HABP/VABP caused by isolates of the A. baumannii complex in a fixed 1:1 ratio (1 g of each agent per dose), to be administered via intravenous infusion over 3 h. The recommended treatment duration is 7 to 14 days, depending on the patient’s clinical status. For the first three doses, the drug should be administered every 12 h; thereafter, it should be administered every 24 h. Dose adjustments should be made for patients with reduced renal function.
Various Phase 1 clinical trials (NCT02971423, NCT03303924, NCT03310463) were conducted to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of sulbactam–durlobactam on healthy subjects [43,44,45]. Another Phase 1 clinical trial (NCT06801223) is currently recruiting to evaluate the activity of this antimicrobial combination in pediatric patients with infections caused by the A. baumannii complex [46].
One Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT03445195) was also completed to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of this drug on hospitalized adult patients with complicated urinary tract infections [47]. One study arm received sulbactam–durlobactam 1:1 (1 g of each agent) infused over 3 h, every 6 h, while the other study arm received 1 g of a placebo intravenously. Both arms also received 500 mg of IV imipenem–cilastatin every 6 h. In an analysis of data from 68 patients of this trial, no significant difference was observed between the compared arms (76.6% and 81% for the sulbactam–durlobactam and the placebo group, respectively, for the overall success, defined as clinical cure and microbiologic eradication in the microbiologically modified intent-to-treat population) [48].
A Phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03894046) was also conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the intravenous administration of the sulbactam–durlobactam combination for treating patients with A. baumannii complex infections. This trial was named ATTACK. The comparator agent was colistin. Overall, it met the non-inferiority criteria versus the comparator in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (19.0% vs. 32.3%) and showed lower nephrotoxicity in the first 28 days after treatment (13.2% vs. 37.6%) [49].
Additionally, an observational study (NCT06746883) is currently recruiting. The aim is to assess the safety and risk of hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylaxis) to sulbactam–durlobactam in adults with infections caused by the A. baumannii complex. It will monitor the occurrence of adverse events over 28 days [50].
Given the in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility data evaluated in this article, further studies should explore the antimicrobial activity of sulbactam–durlobactam against other Gram-negative bacteria. A 2021 study evaluated the activity of sulbactam–durlobactam against various isolates of the Burkholderia species. Among 150 Burkholderia cepacia complex and Burkholderia gladioli isolates, 12.7% of non-susceptibility was observed when the MIC ≤ 4 mg/L susceptibility breakpoint was utilized [51].
Our study has strengths and limitations. We conducted a thorough literature search across four databases and employed a transparent study selection process in our analysis, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. This led to a comprehensive evaluation of the published literature on the resistance of A. baumannii isolates, building upon a prior systematic review [22].
However, we did not register the research protocol for our study in a relevant depository and did not perform a risk of bias assessment of the included studies as there is a lack of a globally accepted and validated tool for risk of bias assessment of in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility studies. Additionally, we did not report on other resistance mechanisms besides the presence of β-lactamase genes (that may not be fully expressed and, thus, may not lead to the production of β-lactamases). The role of these mechanisms in antimicrobial resistance is not negligible. Various studies included in our analysis mentioned the coexistence of other resistance mechanisms, such as insertion mutations in certain protein targets and changes in penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). This aligns with recent molecular studies identifying Class B β-lactamases (NDM and other metallo-β-lactamases) and PBP3 amino acid insertions/mutations as key drivers of sulbactam–durlobactam resistance [32].
Future studies should explore the antimicrobial activity of sulbactam–durlobactam on other Gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacterales, and lactose non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria beyond A. baumannii complex, specifically Burkholderia cepacia complex [51]. Additionally, the activity of sulbactam–durlobactam against MBL-producing Gram-negative bacteria should be further studied, given the increasing prevalence of MBL-producing A. baumannii (e.g., NDM) and the poor activity of sulbactam–durlobactam against such strains [26]. Notably, recent clinical guidelines have incorporated sulbactam–durlobactam as a preferred treatment for carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii infections, underscoring the importance of ongoing surveillance for resistance as this agent enters wider use [52].

5. Conclusions

The evaluation of published in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility studies of A. baumannii complex clinical isolates to sulbactam–durlobactam demonstrates low resistance. These data, together with the efficacy results of the relevant clinical trials, suggest that the new combination antimicrobial drug should be considered for treating patients with A. baumannii complex infections. The occasional occurrence of resistance to sulbactam–durlobactam among the studied isolates and the considerable proportion of resistance among selected A. baumannii complex clinical isolates with advanced resistance profiles necessitate the review of the results of appropriate in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the use of the new antibiotic in clinical practice.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens14101062/s1. Supplementary File S1. Detailed search strategies used in each resource (as of 21 July 2025). Supplementary File S2. PRISMA 2020 for the abstract reporting checklist [42]. Supplementary File S3. PRISMA 2020 for the main article text reporting checklist [42].

Author Contributions

M.E.F. had the idea for the article. All authors contributed to the methodology used in the article. L.T.R. and D.R. conducted the literature search, data extraction, and tabulation. All authors contributed to the first version of the manuscript, as well as to subsequent revisions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

A. baumanniiAcinetobacter baumannii
A. calcoaceticusAcinetobacter calcoaceticus
A. nosocomialisAcinetobacter nosocomialis
A. pittiiAcinetobacter pittii
ADCAcinetobacter-derived cephalosporinases
β-lactamasesbeta-lactamases
BLβ-lactam
BLIβ-lactamase inhibitor
CLSIClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute
CRABcarbapenem-resistant A. baumannii
DOIsdigital object identifiers
FDAFood and Drug Administration
HABPhospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia
IMPimipenemase
IVintravenous
MBLmetallo-β-lactamase
MDRmultidrug-resistant
MICminimal inhibitory concentration
NDMNew Delhi metallo-β-lactamase
OXAoxacillinase
PBP1 and PBP3penicillin-binding proteins 1 and 3
PDRpandrug-resistant
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
TEMTemoniera β-lactamase
VABPventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia
VIMVerona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase
XDRextensively drug-resistant

References

  1. Falagas, M.E.; Bliziotis, I.A.; Siempos, I.I. Attributable Mortality of Acinetobacter Baumannii Infections in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review of Matched Cohort and Case-Control Studies. Crit. Care 2006, 10, R48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Falagas, M.E.; Rafailidis, P.I. Attributable Mortality of Acinetobacter Baumannii: No Longer a Controversial Issue. Crit. Care 2007, 11, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Magiorakos, A.-P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant and Pandrug-Resistant Bacteria: An International Expert Proposal for Interim Standard Definitions for Acquired Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Falagas, M.E.; Kopterides, P. Risk Factors for the Isolation of Multi-Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006, 64, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Galani, I.; Papoutsaki, V.; Karaiskos, I.; Moustakas, N.; Galani, L.; Maraki, S.; Mavromanolaki, V.E.; Legga, O.; Fountoulis, K.; Platsouka, E.D.; et al. In Vitro Activities of Omadacycline, Eravacycline, Cefiderocol, Apramycin, and Comparator Antibiotics against Acinetobacter Baumannii Causing Bloodstream Infections in Greece, 2020–2021: A Multicenter Study. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2023, 42, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Liang, R.; Wang, D.; Hu, M.; Gu, Y.; Wang, M.; Hu, D.; Zhu, M.; Wang, M. In Vitro Activity of Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Imipenem/Relebactam and Meropenem/Vaborbactam Alone or in Combination with Polymyxin B against Carbapenem Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii. J. Antibiot. 2023, 76, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Biedenbach, D.J.; Kazmierczak, K.; Bouchillon, S.K.; Sahm, D.F.; Bradford, P.A. In Vitro Activity of Aztreonam-Avibactam against a Global Collection of Gram-Negative Pathogens from 2012 and 2013. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 4239–4248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Poulikakos, P.; Tansarli, G.S.; Falagas, M.E. Combination Antibiotic Treatment versus Monotherapy for Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant, and Pandrug-Resistant Acinetobacter Infections: A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 33, 1675–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fahmy, G.; Abdel-Rahman, S.; Khalifa, R.; Mohamed, R. The Effect of Tigecycline-Usnic Acid Combination on Tigecycline-Non-Susceptible Acinetobacter Baumannii Clinical Isolates and the Role of Usnic Acid as an Adjuvant Efflux Pump Inhibitor. Microbes Infect. Dis. 2024, 5, 1471–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buyukyanbolu, E.; Argotsinger, J.; Beck, E.T.; Chamberland, R.R.; Clark, A.E.; Daniels, A.R.; Liesman, R.; Fisher, M.; Gialanella, P.; Hand, J.; et al. Activity of Ampicillin-Sulbactam, Sulbactam-Durlobactam, and Comparators against Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex Strains Isolated from Respiratory and Bloodstream Sources: Results from ACNBio Study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2025, 69, e00379-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Falagas, M.E.; Vardakas, K.Z.; Roussos, N.S. Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole for Acinetobacter Spp.: A Review of Current Microbiological and Clinical Evidence. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 46, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mack, A.R.; Hujer, A.M.; Mojica, M.F.; Taracila, M.A.; Feldgarden, M.; Haft, D.H.; Klimke, W.; Prasad, A.B.; Bonomo, R.A. β-Lactamase Diversity in Acinetobacter Baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2025, 69, e00784-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Knight, D.; Dimitrova, D.D.; Rudin, S.D.; Bonomo, R.A.; Rather, P.N. Mutations Decreasing Intrinsic β-Lactam Resistance Are Linked to Cell Division in the Nosocomial Pathogen Acinetobacter Baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 3751–3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Watkins, R.R.; Bonomo, R.A. Sulbactam-Durlobactam: A Step Forward in Treating Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii (CRAB) Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2023, 76, S163–S165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pagano, M.; Martins, A.F.; Barth, A.L. Mobile Genetic Elements Related to Carbapenem Resistance in Acinetobacter Baumannii. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gao, Y.; Li, H.; Chen, H.; Zhang, J.; Wang, R.; Wang, Z.; Wang, H. Origin, Phylogeny, and Transmission of the Epidemic Clone ST208 of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii on a Global Scale. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0260421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, X.; Li, F.; Awan, F.; Jiang, H.; Zeng, Z.; Lv, W. Molecular Epidemiology and Clone Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii in ICU Rooms. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 633817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Al-Hassan, L.; Elbadawi, H.; Osman, E.; Ali, S.; Elhag, K.; Cantillon, D.; Wille, J.; Seifert, H.; Higgins, P.G. Molecular Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii From Khartoum State, Sudan. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 628736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. New Drug Therapy Approvals 2023; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/175253/download (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  20. Papp-Wallace, K.M.; McLeod, S.M.; Miller, A.A. Durlobactam, a Broad-Spectrum Serine β-Lactamase Inhibitor, Restores Sulbactam Activity Against Acinetobacter Species. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2023, 76, S194–S201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Krizova, L.; Poirel, L.; Nordmann, P.; Nemec, A. TEM-1 β-Lactamase as a Source of Resistance to Sulbactam in Clinical Strains of Acinetobacter Baumannii. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2786–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Principe, L.; Di Bella, S.; Conti, J.; Perilli, M.; Piccirilli, A.; Mussini, C.; Decorti, G. Acinetobacter Baumannii Resistance to Sulbactam/Durlobactam: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Barnes, M.D.; Kumar, V.; Bethel, C.R.; Moussa, S.H.; O’Donnell, J.; Rutter, J.D.; Good, C.E.; Hujer, K.M.; Hujer, A.M.; Marshall, S.H.; et al. Targeting Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter Spp.: Sulbactam and the Diazabicyclooctenone β-Lactamase Inhibitor ETX2514 as a Novel Therapeutic Agent. mBio 2019, 10, e00159-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dorazio, A.J. Comparative in Vitro Activity of Sulbactam with Avibactam or Durlobactam against Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii. JAC-Antimicrob. Resist. 2025, 7, dlaf098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Durand-Réville, T.F.; Guler, S.; Comita-Prevoir, J.; Chen, B.; Bifulco, N.; Huynh, H.; Lahiri, S.; Shapiro, A.B.; McLeod, S.M.; Carter, N.M.; et al. ETX2514 Is a Broad-Spectrum β-Lactamase Inhibitor for the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Including Acinetobacter Baumannii. Nat. Microbiol. 2017, 2, 17104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Findlay, J.; Poirel, L.; Bouvier, M.; Nordmann, P. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii and Mechanisms of Resistance. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2022, 30, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Iovleva, A.; McElheny, C.L.; Fowler, E.L.; Cober, E.; Herc, E.S.; Arias, C.A.; Hill, C.; Baum, K.; Fowler, V.G.; Chambers, H.F.; et al. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Colistin-Resistant and/or Cefiderocol-Non-Susceptible, Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Collected in U.S. Hospitals. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2024, 68, e01258-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karlowsky, J.A.; Hackel, M.A.; McLeod, S.M.; Miller, A.A. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Global Isolates of Acinetobacter Baumannii—Calcoaceticus Complex Collected from 2016 to 2021. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0078122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaye, K.S.; McLeod, S.M.; O’Donnell, J.P.; Altarac, D. Sulbactam–Durlobactam for Infections Caused by Acinetobacter Baumannii–Calcoaceticus Complex—Authors’ Reply. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2023, 23, e275–e276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McLeod, S.M.; Moussa, S.H.; Hackel, M.A.; Miller, A.A. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Acinetobacter Baumannii- Calcoaceticus Complex Isolates Collected Globally in 2016 and 2017. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e02534-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Miller, A.A.; Moussa, S.H.; McLeod, S.M. Characterization of Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex Isolates and Microbiological Outcome for Patients Treated with Sulbactam-Durlobactam in a Phase 3 Trial (ATTACK). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2024, 68, e0169823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moussa, S.H.; Shapiro, A.B.; McLeod, S.M.; Iyer, R.; Carter, N.M.; Tsai, Y.-K.; Siu, L.K.; Miller, A.A. Molecular Drivers of Resistance to Sulbactam-Durlobactam in Contemporary Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2023, 67, e0066523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Nodari, C.S.; Santos, F.F.; Kurihara, M.N.L.; Valiatti, T.B.; Cayô, R.; Gales, A.C. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam/Durlobactam against Extensively Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Isolates Belonging to South American Major Clones. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 25, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. O’Donnell, J.; Tanudra, A.; Chen, A.; Newman, J.; McLeod, S.M.; Tommasi, R. In Vivo Dose Response and Efficacy of the β-Lactamase Inhibitor, Durlobactam, in Combination with Sulbactam against the Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2024, 68, e0080023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Petropoulou, D.; Siopi, M.; Vourli, S.; Pournaras, S. Activity of Sulbactam-Durlobactam and Comparators Against a National Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Isolates From Greece. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 11, 814530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santerre Henriksen, A.; Jeannot, K.; Oliver, A.; Perry, J.D.; Pletz, M.W.; Stefani, S.; Morrissey, I.; Longshaw, C.; ARTEMIS Study Investigators; Willinger, B.; et al. In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against European Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and Acinetobacter Spp., Including Isolates Resistant to Meropenem and Recent β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e0383623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Segatore, B.; Piccirilli, A.; Cherubini, S.; Principe, L.; Alloggia, G.; Mezzatesta, M.L.; Salmeri, M.; Di Bella, S.; Migliavacca, R.; Piazza, A.; et al. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam–Durlobactam against Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Clinical Isolates: A Multicentre Report from Italy. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Seifert, H.; Müller, C.; Stefanik, D.; Higgins, P.G.; Miller, A.; Kresken, M. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam/Durlobactam against Global Isolates of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 2616–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Terrier, C.L. 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, 43, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, Q.; Xu, Y.; Jia, P.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, G.; Deng, J.; Hackel, M.; Bradford, P.A.; Reinhart, H. In Vitro Activity of Sulbactam/Durlobactam against Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter Baumannii Collected in China. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 1833–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zalacain, M.; Achard, P.; Llanos, A.; Morrissey, I.; Hawser, S.; Holden, K.; Toomey, E.; Davies, D.; Leiris, S.; Sable, C.; et al. Meropenem-ANT3310, a Unique β-Lactam-β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination with Expanded Antibacterial Spectrum against Gram-Negative Pathogens Including Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2024, 68, e0112023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Entasis Therapeutics a Phase I, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous ETX2514 Administered in Healthy Subjects. 2017. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02971423 (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  44. Entasis Therapeutics Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Intravenous ETX2514 and Sulbactam Administered Concurrently to Subjects with Various Degrees of Renal Impairment and Healthy Matched Control Subjects. 2018. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03310463 (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  45. Entasis Therapeutics a Phase I Study to Determine and Compare Plasma, Epithelial Lining Fluid, and Alveolar Macrophage Concentrations of Intravenous ETX2514 and Sulbactam Administered to Healthy Adult Subjects. 2017. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03303924 (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  46. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics a Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase 1b Study to Assess the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Sulbactam-Durlobactam in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients from Birth to <18 Years Who Are Receiving Systemic Antibiotic Therapy for Suspected or Confirmed Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex Infection. 2025. Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06801223 (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  47. Entasis Therapeutics a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Sulbactam-ETX2514 in the Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis. 2020. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03445195 (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  48. Sagan, O.; Yakubsevitch, R.; Yanev, K.; Fomkin, R.; Stone, E.; Hines, D.; O’Donnell, J.; Miller, A.; Isaacs, R.; Srinivasan, S. Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Intravenous Sulbactam-Durlobactam with Imipenem-Cilastatin in Hospitalized Adults with Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e01506-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kaye, K.S.; Shorr, A.F.; Wunderink, R.G.; Du, B.; Poirier, G.E.; Rana, K.; Miller, A.; Lewis, D.; O’Donnell, J.; Chen, L.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Sulbactam-Durlobactam versus Colistin for the Treatment of Patients with Serious Infections Caused by Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex: A Multicentre, Randomised, Active-Controlled, Phase 3, Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial (ATTACK). Lancet Infect. Dis. 2023, 23, 1072–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics a Single-Arm, Open-Label, Prospective, Observational Study to Assess the Safety of Sulbactam-Durlobactam, Including the Risk of Hypersensitivity Reactions (Including Anaphylaxis) in Participants with Acinetobacter Baumannii-Calcoaceticus Complex Infection. 2025. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06746883 (accessed on 29 June 2025).
  51. Papp-Wallace, K.M.; Shapiro, A.B.; Becka, S.A.; Zeiser, E.T.; LiPuma, J.J.; Lane, D.J.; Panchal, R.G.; Mueller, J.P.; O’Donnell, J.P.; Miller, A.A. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity and In Vivo Efficacy of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Pathogenic Burkholderia Species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e01930-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tamma, P.D.; Heil, E.L.; Justo, J.A.; Mathers, A.J.; Satlin, M.J.; Bonomo, R.A. Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024 Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2024, 79, ciae403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pathogens 14 01062 g001
Figure 1. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) flow diagram for identifying, screening and selecting articles. (Source: [42]). Note: a There were two separate reports of two different studies.
Figure 1. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) flow diagram for identifying, screening and selecting articles. (Source: [42]). Note: a There were two separate reports of two different studies.
Pathogens 14 01062 g001
Table 1. Proportion of resistance of non-selected (consecutive) Acinetobacter baumanni complex to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Table 1. Proportion of resistance of non-selected (consecutive) Acinetobacter baumanni complex to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Author aYearIsolatesNβ-Lactamase Genes (Number of Isolates)MIC Value or Range
(mg/L)		MIC50 (mg/L)MIC90 (mg/L)Resistance % (I: %) b
[Breakpoint] c
Buyukyanbolu [10]2025A. baumannii523OXA-23 (8), OXA-66 (8), ADC-73 (7), TEM-1 (3), ADC-56 (2), OXA-72 (2), ADC-222 (2), OXA-24 (2), OXA-95 (2), NDM-1 (2), NDM-5 (2), OXA-23 [M1X] (1), OXA-66 [T10K] (1), ADC-76 (1), OXA-58 (1), OXA-68 (1)≤0.125–>64241.2 (I: 1.9)
Iovleva [27]2024A. baumannii87OXA-82 (65), OXA-23 (59), OXA-66 (8), OXA-95 (6), OXA-24 (5), OXA-83 (3), OXA-51 (2), OXA-223 (2), OXA-72 (1), OXA-113 (1), OXA-166 (1)0.5–64284.6 (I: 2)
Miller [31]
Kaye [29]		2024
2023		A. baumannii complex175OXA-23 (8), OXA-66 (6), TEM-1 (5), ADC-30 (3), ADC-73 (3), ADC-115 (1), ADC-6-like (1), OXA-80 (1), OXA-71 (1)0.25–32244.6 d
Senterre-Henriksen [36] 2024Acinetobacter spp.501OXA (202), MBL (3), OXA + MBL (9), OXA + ESBL (4), ESBL + KPC (1), No Acquired β-lactamase (8) NANA43 (I: 0)
Moussa [32]
Karlowsky [28]		2023
2022		All
A. baumannii
A. calcoaceticus
A. nosocomialis
A. pittii		5032
4038
55
296
638		OXA-23 (34), NDM-1 (32), OXA-66 (32), ADC-30 (11), ADC-73 (11), OXA-24 (9), OXA-58 (6), ADC-25 (5), OXA-69 (5), ADC-169 (4), OXA-402 (4), CTX-M-15 (3), ADC-26 (3), CARB-2 (3), OXA-94 (3), TEM-1 (19), VEB-1 (2), ADC-176 (2), ADC-30-like (2), ADC-99-like (2), ADC-43-like (2), OXA-533-like (2), OXA-64 (2), OXA-71 (2), ADC-11 (1), ADC-131-like (1), ADC-152 (1), ADC-163 (1), ADC-169-like (1), ADC-176-like (1), ADC-18 (1), ADC-181 (1), ADC-214 (1), ADC-216 (1), ADC-39 (1), ADC-43 (1), ADC-5 (1), ADC-53 (1), ADC-6-like (1), ADC-7-like (1), ADC-73-like (1), ADC-76 (1), ADC-80 (1), ADC-82 (1), ADC-91 (1), ADC-97-like (1), CARB-16 (1), OXA-10 (1), OXA-121 (1), OXA-132 (1), OXA-23+ (1), OXA-259 (1), OXA-407 (1), OXA-500 (1), OXA-51 (1), OXA-65 (1), OXA-66+ (1), OXA-68 (1), OXA-70 (1), OXA-72 (1), OXA-820 (1), OXA-83 (1), OXA-91 (1), PER-1 (1), PER-7 (1), VIM-4 (1)≤0.03–>64
≤0.03–>64
0.12–2
≤0.03–8
≤0.03–32		1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5		2
2
1
1
2		1.7 d
2 d
0
0.3 d
0.6 d
McLeod [30]2020A. baumannii complex
A. baumannii
A. calcoaeceticus
A. nosocomialis
A. pittii		1722
1420
10
60
232		OXA-23 (17), OXA-66 (15), NDM-1 (11), TEM-1 (8), ADC-25 (5), ADC-73 (5), ADC-30 (4), OXA-24 (4), OXA-58 (3), ADC-152 (S341T) (2), ADC-169 (2), CARB-2 (2), OXA-64 (2), OXA-69 (2) OXA-132 (2), OXA-402 (2), ADC-5 (1), ADC-5 (G239S, N341T) (1), ADC-7-like (1), ADC-26 (1), ADC-50 (1), ADC-53 (A236V) (1), ADC-80 (V119E) (1), ADC-82 (1), ADC-97-like (1), ADC-99-like (1), ADC-176 (1), CTX-M-15 (1), OXA-64 (1) OXA-65 (1), OXA-70 (1), OXA-71 (1), OXA-83 (1), OXA-91(1), OXA-94 (2), PER-7(1), subclass B3 MBL (1), VEB-1 (1)≤0.03–>64
≤0.03–>64
0.12–1
0.12–4
0.12–4		1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5		2
4
1
1
2		2.3 d
NA
Yang [40]2020A. baumannii982NA≤0.03–>64122.1 d
Durand-Réville [25]2017A. baumannii84OXA-23 (49), OXA-66 (48), TEM-1 (41), ADC-30 (18), ADC-73 (18), OXA-40 (7), ADC-82 (6), OXA-72 (6), OXA-65 (5), OXA-113 (5), ADC-ETX1 e (4), ADC-76 (4), OXA-68 (4), ADC-11 (3), OXA-10/69 (3), OXA-58 (3),SHV-5 (3), ADC-ETX29 (2), ADC-25 e (2), ADC-79 (2), ADC-ETX15 (2), OXA-20 (2), OXA-51 (2), OXA-64 (2), OXA-65 (2),OXA-71 (2), OXA-82 (2), OXA-132 (2), PER-1 (2), GES-12 (1), IMP-4(b) (1), ADC-1 (1), ADC-26 (1), ADC-80 (1), ADC-87 e (1), ADC-ETX3 f (1), ADC-ETX5 f (1), ADC-ETX7 (1), ADC-ETX8 (1), ADC-ETX9 (1), ADC-ETX10 e (1), ADC-ETX12 e (1), ADC-ETX13 (1), ADC-ETX17 (1), ADC-ETX18 (1), ADC-ETX19 e (1), ADC-ETX20 (1), ADC-ETX21 (1), ADC-ETX22 (1), ADC-ETX26 (1), ADC-ETX27 (1), ADC-ETX33 (1), OXA-40 (1), similar to ADC-52 (1), OXA-69 (1), OXA-73 (1), OXA-94 (1), OXA-100 (1), OXA-109 (1), OXA-172 (1), OXA-398 (1), OXA-ARC2597 (1), OXA-ARC2598 (1), OXA-ARC2719 (1), OXA-ARC3488 (1), OXA-ARC3489 (1), PER-unq (1), SHV-12 (1)0.25–16241.2 (I: 7.1)
Notes: a Studies are presented in descending chronological order (and alphabetical order within a year); b I = Intermediate resistance; c According to the criteria, as defined by the authors in each study; d non-susceptibility; e original spectrum; f spectrum undefined. Abbreviations: A. baumannii, Acinetobacter baumannii; ABC, A. baumannii–calcoaceticus complex, A. calcoaeceticus, Acinetobacter calcoaeceticus; ADC, Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase (Class C β-lactamase); A. nosocomialis, Acinetobacter nosocomialis; A. pitti, Acinetobacter pitti; CARB, carbenicillinase (Class A β-lactamase); CTX-M, cefotaximase-Munich (Class A extended-spectrum β-lactamase); ESBL, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (hydrolyzes extended-spectrum cephalosporins and monobactams); GES, Guiana extended spectrum β-lactamase (Class A β-lactamase, includes ESBLs and some carbapenemases); IMP, imipenemase (Class B metallo-β-lactamase); KPC, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (Class A carbapenemase); MBL, metallo-β-lactamase (Class B β-lactamase, hydrolyzes carbapenems); MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; NA, Not applicable/Not available; NDM, New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (Class B carbapenemase); OXA, oxacillinase (Class D β-lactamase, many variants act as carbapenemases); PER, Pseudomonas extended resistance (Class A extended-spectrum β-lactamase); SHV, sulfhydryl variable β-lactamase (Class A β-lactamase, includes penicillinases and ESBLs); TEM, Temoniera β-lactamase (Class A β-lactamase, includes penicillinases and ESBLs); VEB, Vietnam extended spectrum β-lactamase (Class A extended-spectrum β-lactamase); VIM, Verona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase.
Table 2. Proportion of resistance of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Table 2. Proportion of resistance of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Author aYearIsolatesNβ-Lactamase Genes (Number of Isolates)MIC Value or Range
(mg/L)		MIC50 (mg/L)MIC90 (mg/L)Resistance % (I: %) b
[Breakpoint] c
Doragio [24]2025CRAB58OXA-51-like (58), OXA-23-like (49), ADC-30 (20), ADC-73 (20), TEM-1D (18), OXA-24-like (9), ADC-33 (5), ADC-56 (4), ADC-222 (4), ADC-268 (2), ADC-103 (1), ADC-229 (1), OXA-50-like (1), PAO (1)0.5–32285.2 (I: 12)
Zalacain [41]2024CRAB340NA0.25–>32243.8 (I: 3.2)
Petropoulou [35]2022CRAB190TEM-1 + NDM-1 + ADC-73 + OXA-23 + OXA-66 (1), TEM-1 + ADC-73 + OXA-23 + OXA-66 (1), ADC-188 + OXA-23 + OXA-66 (1)0.5–>64481.6 (I: 10.5)
Segatore [37]2022CRAB141ADC-25 + OXA-20 + OXA-58 + OXA-66 (7), ADC-25 + OXA-20 + OXA-58 (4)0.06–>1280.545 (I: 2.8)
Nodari [33]2021CRAB112OXA-24/40-like (48), OXA-23 (34), OXA-23 + OXA-24/40-like (17), OXA-143-like (10), OXA-23 + OXA-143-like (2), OXA-58 (1) (75 of the above isolates were also TEM-1 positive)≤0.25–4110 (I: 0)
Seifert [38]2020CRAB246OXA-23-like (184), OXA-40-like (47), OXA-58-like (3), IMP-26 (1), NDM-1 (3), OXA-51 (7), OXA-237 (1)0.25–128122.4 (I: 1.2)
Barnes [23]2019CRAB26NA0.25–4220 (I: 0)
Notes: a Studies are presented in descending chronological order (and alphabetical order within a year); b I = Intermediate resistance; c According to the criteria, as defined by the authors in each study. Abbreviations: ADC, Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase (Class C β-lactamase); CRAB, Carbapenem resistant A. baumannii; IMP, imipenemase (Class B metallo-β-lactamase); NA, Not applicable/Not available; NDM, New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (Class B carbapenemase); OXA, oxacillinase (Class D β-lactamase, many variants act as carbapenemases); PAO, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain (referring to enzymes characteristic of P. aeruginosa; TEM, Temoniera β-lactamase (Class A β-lactamase, includes penicillinases and ESBLs).
Table 3. Proportion of resistance of selected (non-consecutive) Acinetobacter baumanni complex to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Table 3. Proportion of resistance of selected (non-consecutive) Acinetobacter baumanni complex to sulbactam/durlobactam.
Author aYearIsolatesNβ-Lactamase Genes (Number of Isolates)MIC Value or Range
(mg/L)		MIC50 (mg/L)MIC90 (mg/L)Resistance % (I: %) b
[Breakpoint] c
Le Terrier [39]2023A. baumannii11OXA-23 (9), PER-7 (5), PER-1 (3), NDM-1 (2), NDM-5 (1)0.25–128112827.3 (I: 0)
O’Donnell [34]2023A. baumannii10ADC-5 (1), ADC-11 (1), ADC-30 (2), ADC-33 (1), ADC-80 (1), ADC-82 (2), ADC-99 [N379S] (1), ADC-176 (1), ADC-214 [T341S] (1), OXA-23 (5), OXA-64 (1), OXA-65 (1), OXA-66 (2), OXA-66 [K42] (1), OXA-69 (1), OXA-72 (3), OXA-82 (1), OXA-83 (1), OXA-94 (1), OXA-259 (1), TEM-1 (4) 0.5–161810 (I: 20)
Findlay [26]2022A. baumannii100OXA-23 (73), OXA-72 (10), OXA-40 (6), OXA-58 (5), OXA-24 (1), NDM-1 (4), NDM-5 (1)0.06–6441615 (I: 4)
Barnes [23]2019A. baumannii72ADC (71), OXA-69-like (70), TEM (29), OXA-58-like (9), OXA-23-like (8), PER (2)
In the 4 non-susceptible strains: ADC-25 + OXA-66 + TEM-1 (3), ADC-79 + OXA-66 + OXA-69 + TEM-1 (1) 		0.5–32121.4 (I: 4.2)
Notes: a Studies are presented in descending chronological order (and alphabetical order within a year); b I = Intermediate resistance; c According to the criteria, as defined by the authors in each study. Abbreviations: A. baumannii, Acinetobacter baumannii; ADC, Acinetobacter-derived cephalosporinase (Class C β-lactamase); MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; NA, Not applicable/Not available; NDM, New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (Class B carbapenemase); OXA, oxacillinase (Class D β-lactamase, many variants act as carbapenemases); PER, Pseudomonas extended resistance (Class A extended-spectrum β-lactamase); TEM, Temoniera β-lactamase (Class A β-lactamase, includes penicillinases and ESBLs).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Falagas, M.E.; Romanos, L.T.; Ragias, D.; Filippou, C. Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Clinical Isolates to Sulbactam–Durlobactam: A Systematic Review of Data from In Vitro Studies. Pathogens 2025, 14, 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101062

AMA Style

Falagas ME, Romanos LT, Ragias D, Filippou C. Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Clinical Isolates to Sulbactam–Durlobactam: A Systematic Review of Data from In Vitro Studies. Pathogens. 2025; 14(10):1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Falagas, Matthew E., Laura T. Romanos, Dimitrios Ragias, and Charalampos Filippou. 2025. "Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Clinical Isolates to Sulbactam–Durlobactam: A Systematic Review of Data from In Vitro Studies" Pathogens 14, no. 10: 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101062

APA Style

Falagas, M. E., Romanos, L. T., Ragias, D., & Filippou, C. (2025). Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii Complex Clinical Isolates to Sulbactam–Durlobactam: A Systematic Review of Data from In Vitro Studies. Pathogens, 14(10), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101062

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop