In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against a Global Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates
by
, , and
Harald Seifert
1,2,*,
Carina Müller
1,2,
Danuta Stefanik
1,
Paul G. Higgins
1,2,
Esther Wohlfarth
3 and
Michael Kresken
3,4 1
Institute for Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany
2
German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Bonn-Cologne, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany
3
Antiinfectives Intelligence GmbH, 51105 Cologne, Germany
4
Rheinische Fachhochschule gGmbH, 50676 Cologne, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(7), 1172; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071172
Submission received: 7 June 2023
/
Revised: 7 July 2023
/
Accepted: 10 July 2023
/
Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobials Agents: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Abstract
:Background: Cefiderocol is a novel siderophore cephalosporin with potent activity against multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens including carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). Methods: The susceptibility of 313 non-duplicate CRAB isolates with defined carbapenem resistance mechanisms from a global collection to cefiderocol, ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ciprofloxacin, colistin, imipenem/relebactam, meropenem, meropenem/vaborbactam, minocycline, and piperacillin/tazobactam was determined using the broth microdilution method. Isolates were obtained from various body sites from patients in 47 countries in five world regions between 2012 and 2016. The identification of carbapenem resistance mechanisms and assignment to A. baumannii international clonal lineages were based on whole genome sequencing. Results: Cefiderocol showed greater activity than comparator antimicrobials of the β-lactam class, including novel β-lactams combined with β-lactamase inhibitors, ciprofloxacin, and minocycline. Cefiderocol MIC50 and MIC90 values were 0.5 mg/L and 4 mg/L, respectively, while colistin had comparable activity with a higher MIC50 at 1 mg/L and a lower MIC90 value of 2 mg/L. Many isolates with elevated cefiderocol MICs ≥ 4 mg/L represented A. baumannii international clone (IC) 1 and harbored a metallo-β-lactamase. Conclusions: While cefiderocol is a useful addition to the limited armamentarium of drugs targeting this problematic pathogen, a considerable part of CRAB isolates had elevated MIC values in a range of 4 -> 32 mg/L, including all isolates with a metallo-β-lactamase.
1. Introduction
Acinetobacter baumannii is a nosocomial pathogen that is notorious for its multidrug resistance and propensity to cause hospital outbreaks and epidemic spread [1,2]. A. baumannii isolates representing international clonal lineage (IC) 2 represent the majority of isolates recovered worldwide [3,4]. Multi-drug resistance and, in particular, resistance to carbapenems are matters of great concern. Carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) is considered as priority 1 (“critical”) in the WHO priority pathogens list for research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics published in 2017 [5], and it has recently been upgraded as an urgent public health threat by the CDC, emphasizing that, in the United States, annually, 8500 infections are caused by CRAB [6]. Resistance to carbapenems in A. baumannii is primarily caused by carbapenem-hydrolysing class D ß-lactamases (CHDLs) and, less frequently, metallo-β-lactamases [3,7]. Frequently, colistin is the only compound showing measurable activity against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii. However, its therapeutic use is limited by toxicity and low-serum and tissue concentrations [8,9]. In addition, colistin resistance has been increasing, in particular in countries with heavy use of this drug for the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, Enterobacterales, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [10].
Several new drugs with activity against multi-drug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens have been developed, including ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, plazomicin, imipenem/relebactam, and meropenem/vaborbactam, but these have only very limited activity against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii. In a recent review, Shields et al. summarized the available treatment options for patients with CRAB infections [11]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new drugs targeting serious infections caused by MDR A. baumannii. Cefiderocol, previously known as S-649266, is a novel catechol-substituted parenteral siderophore cephalosporin that has potent activity against a broad range of Gram-negative bacteria, including multi-drug-resistant pathogens such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and non-fermenting bacteria, such as A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia [12,13,14,15,16]. Cefiderocol was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including pyelonephritis, caused by susceptible Gram-negative microorganisms in adult patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options, and for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, caused by susceptible Gram-negative microorganisms. Cefiderocol has also been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for complicated Gram-negative infections in adults with limited treatment options. It has been shown to possess high stability against various β-lactamases, including carbapenem-hydrolysing class A β-lactamases, such as KPC; class B metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs), IMP, VIM, and NDM; and carbapenem-hydrolysing class D β-lactamases, such as OXA-48 and OXA-23, and it is the only new compound with good activity against CRAB that has entered the market [17,18].
In a randomized registrational trial in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, in 16% of cases, pneumonia was caused by A. baumannii, and cefiderocol was non-inferior to meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality and was considered a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia including those caused by MDR Gram-negative bacteria [19]. In another trial comparing cefiderocol to the best available therapy (BAT) in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP), bloodstream infections (BSIs), sepsis, or cUTIs and evidence of a carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen, 46% of which were CRAB, cefiderocol had similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to BAT. However, an increase in all-cause mortality (34% vs. 18%) at the end of the study was observed in patients treated with cefiderocol, as compared to BAT [20]. Generally, deaths were more frequent in patients with infections caused by A. baumannii than by other pathogens (49% vs. 18%). The cause of the increase in mortality has not been established. In contrast, in a recent observational retrospective study comparing cefiderocol to colistin-based regimens in the treatment of severe infections caused by CRAB, 30-day mortality was higher in patients receiving colistin compared to those receiving cefiderocol-containing regimens (56% vs. 34%, p = 0.018) [21]. This difference was confirmed in patients with BSI but not in those with NP, which showed equivalent mortality to colistin-based therapy. Of note, among eight cases in the cefiderocol group who experienced microbiological failure, four (50%) developed resistance to cefiderocol.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activity of cefiderocol in comparison to reference antimicrobials, including novel β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations against a collection of well-characterized, non-duplicate, global isolates of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) harboring acquired oxacillinases, metallo-β-lactamases, or encoding an up-regulated intrinsic OXA-51-like carbapenemase.
2. Results
Among the 313 CRAB isolates, 234 isolates harbored blaOXA-23-like, and 56 isolates had blaOXA-40-like. Other carbapenemases are listed in Table 1. Based on core genome MLST results, isolates represented the eight previously described major international clonal lineages IC1 (N = 26), IC2 (196), IC3 (2), IC4 (5), IC5 (44), IC6 (3), IC7 (12), and IC8 (5), while 20 isolates did not cluster with any of the international clonal lineages [3].
Table 2 shows the MIC distribution, MIC50 and MIC90 values, MIC ranges, and percent susceptibility. All isolates were resistant to imipenem/relebactam and non-susceptible to meropenem; 99% of isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin and 4.8% to colistin.
The cefiderocol MIC50/90 values were 0.5 and 4 mg/L, respectively, with 18.2% of isolates being resistant when applying EUCAST non-species-related PK-PD breakpoints (susceptible, ≤2 mg/L; resistant, >2 mg/L) [22]. Of note, if the recently published CLSI breakpoints had been applied (susceptible, ≤4 mg/L; resistant, ≥16 mg/L), resistance to cefiderocol would drop to 5.1% [23].
Comparatively, MIC50/90 values were ≥64/≥64 mg/L for ceftazidime; ≥16/4/≥16/4 mg/L for ceftazidime/avibactam; ≥16/4/≥16/4 mg/L for ceftolozane/tazobactam; ≥8/≥8 mg/L for ciprofloxacin; 1/2 for colistin; ≥16/4/≥16/4 mg/L for imipenem/relebactam; ≥32/≥32 mg/L for meropenem; ≥16/8/≥16/8 mg/L for meropenem/vaborbactam; 4/≥16 mg/L for minocycline; and ≥128/4/≥128/4 mg/L for piperacillin/tazobactam. Among the fifteen isolates that were resistant to colistin, two were also resistant to cefiderocol, with MIC values of ≥64 mg/L.
We did not find a correlation between the major blaOXA types and cefiderocol MICs, as depicted in Table 3. The cefiderocol MIC50/90 was 0.5/4 mg/L for isolates with OXA-23-like (N = 227) and only slightly lower with 0.5/1 mg/L for isolates with OXA-40-like (N = 54). However, resistance to cefiderocol was considerably higher at 40.6% in A. baumannii isolates with other carbapenemases, with MIC50/90 values of 1 and 32 mg/L, respectively (Table 3 and Table 4). All seven A. baumannii isolates harboring the metallo-β-lactamase blaNDM-1 (including one isolate that co-harbored blaOXA-23, blaNDM-1 and blaPER-7) or blaIMP-26, as well as three of four isolates harboring a GES-type β-lactamase, exhibited cefiderocol MICs ≥4 mg/L and were considered resistant according to EUCAST breakpoints (Table 4).
Of interest, A. baumannii isolates representing IC1 (N = 26) had higher cefiderocol MIC90 values (32 mg/L) than isolates representing other clonal strain types, such as IC2 (N = 196; MIC90, 4 mg/L) and IC5 (N = 44; MIC90, 1 mg/L), resulting in a higher resistance rate of 30.8% among A. baumannii IC1 isolates compared to 16.3% and 4.5% for the two other clonal lineages IC2 and IC5 (Table 5). There were no differences between international clonal lineages with regard to MIC90 values of the other antimicrobials tested.
3. Discussion
In our study, we assessed the in vitro activity of cefiderocol against a panel of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii representing a unique worldwide collection of isolates. Given the well-known clonal population structure of A. baumannii and their tendency for hospital outbreaks and endemic persistence, every effort was made to ensure the greatest possible strain diversity. WGS was used to identify currently circulating international clonal lineages and carbapenem resistance mechanisms.
We found that cefiderocol had potent activity against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates with MIC50/90 values of 0.5 and 4 mg/L, respectively. When applying the non-specific PK-PD breakpoints (susceptible, ≤2; resistant >2 mg/L) provided by EUCAST, 18.2% of isolates were classified as resistant. Conversely, when the recently published CLSI breakpoints (susceptible, ≤4 mg/L; resistant, ≥16 mg/L) were applied, only 5.1% of isolates were considered resistant. Among the antimicrobial agents tested, only colistin had comparable activity, while, as expected, novel β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitors were not active against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii. Hackel et al., in a collection of meropenem-non-susceptible A. baumannii isolates from the US and Europe from 2014 to 2015, found comparable activity with slightly lower cefiderocol MIC50/90 values of 0.25 and 1 mg/L, respectively [14].
Our data also concur with findings reported by Shortridge et al., in a more recent surveillance study of meropenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates collected in 2020, who reported cefiderocol MIC50/90 values of 0.25 and 2 mg/L, respectively, and a resistance rate of 2.9%, with no difference between isolates collected in the US and in Europe [15]. However, in the latter studies, no information regarding the epidemiological background and resistance mechanisms of the isolates under study was provided. In contrast, Ballesté-Delpierre et al., in a more limited collection of 113 A. baumannii isolates from nine countries, recently reported a much higher cefiderocol MIC90 value of >64 mg/L and a considerably higher resistance rate of 20.4% using CLSI breakpoints [24]. These differences may be explained by a less well-balanced strain collection, including a large number of isolates from Azerbaijan, that was highly resistant to cefiderocol.
When different A. baumannii clonal strain types were compared, isolates representing IC1 had higher cefiderocol MIC90 values and higher resistance rates than isolates assigned to other major lineages, such as IC2 and the Pan-American lineage IC5. We currently have no explanation for this finding. Conversely, Ballesté-Delpierre et al. reported a weak association of resistance to cefiderocol with IC2 isolates [24].
There was no correlation between specific blaOXA genes and elevated cefiderocol MICs. Conversely, all isolates harboring metallo-β-lactamases and the majority of isolates harboring GES-like β-lactamases in addition to oxacillinases had cefiderocol MIC values of ≥4 mg/L. This finding concurs with recently reported data that NDM-like β-lactamases and, to an even greater extent, PER-like β-lactamases were found to be associated with reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol in CRAB. Poirel et al. found cefiderocol MIC values ranging from 2 to 16 mg/L among eight blaNDM-positive A. baumannii isolates [25]. Resistance to cefiderocol has also been found to be associated with the presence of blaPER-like [25,26]. Poirel and colleagues found 8 isolates among a collection of 87 A. baumannii isolates with cefiderocol MIC values of ≥8 mg/L, all of them harboring blaOXA-23 and either blaPER-1 or blaPER-7 [25]. The authors also showed a ≥16-fold increase in cefiderocol MIC values after the blaPER-1 gene was cloned into a shuttle plasmid and subsequently electroporated into the A. baumannii CIP70.10 recipient strain, thus confirming the contribution of blaPER-1 to cefiderocol resistance. Liu and colleagues claimed the production of PER-1 to be the key mechanism of cefiderocol resistance in 131 A. baumannii isolates from China and found that PER-1 could be inhibited by a combination of cefiderocol and avibactam or durlo-bactam [26]. However, in our global collection, blaPER-like was found in only one isolate and in combination with blaOXA-23 and blaNDM-1, so its real impact on cefiderocol resistance from a global perspective remains unclear. In fact, the majority of our isolates exhibiting elevated cefiderocol MIC values harbored neither PER-type nor NDM-type β-lactamases; thus, the major cefiderocol resistance mechanism in A. baumannii still needs to be elucidated.
Our study has several limitations. First, the applicability of the non-specific PK-PD breakpoints provided by EUCAST for A. baumannii is problematic, in particular, as the EUCAST breakpoint document states that there is insufficient evidence that A. baumannii is a good target for therapy with cefiderocol [22]. On the other hand, there is no such caveat mentioned in the CLSI document [23]. Second, our strain collection dates back to 2016, and a shift in both strain-type prevalence and resistance mechanisms since then is possible.
In conclusion, cefiderocol had good in vitro potency against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, including isolates that were resistant to colistin, and, thus, may be a promising therapeutic option for the treatment of infections due to MDR A. baumannii. However, we found considerable resistance among our isolates, in particular, but not only, in isolates harboring metallo-β-lactamases. This could be a cause for concern as there is a high medical need, particularly for A. baumannii infections caused by metallo-β-lactamase, to produce isolates that are not susceptible to other novel antimicrobials with activity against MDR A. baumannii such as sulbactam-durlobactam [27].
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Bacterial Isolates
The A. baumannii isolates included in our study were obtained between 2012 and 2016 from various body sites in patients from 114 hospitals in 47 countries and from five world regions, Africa (N = 29), Asia and Middle East (88), Europe (67), Latin America (76), and North America (53). The average number of isolates per hospital was 2.7, with only 15% of hospitals contributing more than 3 isolates over the 5-year study period (copy strains were excluded). To optimally reflect the current global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, the number of isolates included was based on the population size of participating countries. The isolates were subjected to whole genome sequencing (WGS) using the Illumina MiSeq platform, and MLST types were derived from WGS data. Carbapenem resistance mechanisms were determined as described previously. The presence of oxacillinase-encoding genes (blaOXA-51-like, blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-40-like, blaOXA-58-like, blaOXA-143-like and blaOXA-235-like) was investigated using a previously described multiplex PCR [28,29]. Two further multiplex PCRs were applied to detect blaVIM, blaKPC, blaNDM, blaIMI, blaGES, blaGIM, blaIMP, and ISAba1 upstream of blaOXA-51-like [30]. In addition, ResFinder 3.1 (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/ResFinder/ accessed on 1 May 2023) was applied to determine the acquired resistome of each isolate from sequencing data with special interest in the distinct variants of the carbapenemase families identified using PCR. The raw sequencing reads generated in this project were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/ accessed on 1 May 2023) under the study accession number PRJEB27899.
4.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using broth microdilution in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (CAMHB) according to the standard ISO 20776-1 [31]. For cefiderocol testing, iron-depleted CAMHB (iron concentration, ≤0.03 mg/L) was used [23]. In-house-prepared 96-well plates were used for cefiderocol, and 96-well plates, supplied by International Health Management Associates Inc. (Schaumburg, IL, USA), were used for reference antimicrobials. Three hundred and thirteen non-duplicate carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates were tested against cefiderocol, ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ciprofloxacin, colistin, imipenem/ relebactam, meropenem, meropenem/vaborbactam, minocycline, and piperacillin/tazobactam. Resistance to the carbapenems imipenem and meropenem has been previously confirmed by Etest (bioMérieux, Nürtingen, Germany). The concentration ranges tested in two-fold dilutions were cefiderocol, 0.03–32 mg/L; ceftazidime, 0.03–32 mg/L; ceftazidime/avibactam, 0.12/4–8/4 mg/L; ceftolozane/tazobactam, 0.25/4–8/4 mg/L; cipro-floxacin, 0.002–4 mg/L; colistin, 0.12–4 mg/L; imipenem/relebactam, 0.03/4–8/4 mg/L; meropenem, 0.06–16 mg/L; meropenem/vaborbactam, 0.06/8–8/8 mg/L; minocycline, 0.12–8 mg/L; and piperacillin/tazobactam, 0.5/4–64/4 mg/L. MICs were interpreted following EUCAST guidelines, and susceptibility rates were determined using EUCAST breakpoints where applicable [22]. For cefiderocol, the EUCAST non-species-related PK-PD breakpoints were applied [22]. Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and A. baumannii NCTC 13304 were used as quality control strains.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.S. and M.K.; methodology, H.S., P.G.H., M.K. and E.W.; investigation, C.M., D.S. and E.W.; resources, H.S.; data curation, H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.; writing—review and editing, H.S., P.G.H., M.K. and E.W.; supervision, H.S.; project administration, H.S. and M.K.; funding acquisition, H.S. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported in part by a research grant from Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan. We also acknowledge support for the Article Processing Charge from the DFG (German Research Foundation, 491454339).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
H.S. has received grants or research support from the German Research Foundation (DFG), the German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, has been a consultant for Debiopharm, Entasis, MSD, and Shionogi, and has received payments for lectures from Gilead, MSD, and Shionogi. P.G.H. received research support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF). E.W. is an acting partner of Antiinfectives Intelligence GmbH, a research organization providing services to pharmaceutical companies, and has been a consultant for Shionogi. M.K. was an acting partner of Antiinfectives Intelligence GmbH. Other authors: none to declare.
References
- Peleg, A.Y.; Seifert, H.; Paterson, D.L. Acinetobacter baumannii: Emergence of a successful pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 21, 538–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jones, C.L.; Clancy, M.; Honnold, C.; Singh, S.; Snesrud, E.; Onmus-Leone, F.; McGann, P.; Ong, A.C.; Kwak, Y.; Waterman, P.; et al. Fatal outbreak of an emerging clone of extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii with enhanced virulence. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 61, 145–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Higgins, P.G.; Dammhayn, C.; Hackel, M.; Seifert, H. Global spread of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pournaras, S.; Dafopoulou, K.; Del Franco, M.; Zarkotou, O.; Dimitroulia, E.; Protonotariou, E.; Poulou, A.; Zarrilli, R.; Tsakris, A.; Greek study group on Acinetobacter Antimicrobial Resistance. Predominance of international clone 2 OXA-23-producing-Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates in Greece, 2015: Results of a nationwide study. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 49, 749–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tacconelli, E.; Carrara, E.; Savoldi, A.; Harbarth, S.; Mendelson, M.; Monnet, D.L.; Pulcini, C.; Kahlmeter, G.; Kluytmans, J.; Carmeli, Y.; et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: The WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019.
- Poirel, L.; Nordmann, P. Carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii: Mechanisms and epidemiology. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2006, 12, 826–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Garnacho-Montero, J.; Dimopoulos, G.; Poulakou, G.; Akova, M.; Cisneros, J.M.; De Waele, J.; Petrosillo, N.; Seifert, H.; Timsit, J.F.; Vila, J.; et al. Task force on management and prevention of Acinetobacter baumannii infections in the ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2015, 41, 2057–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cisneros, J.M.; Rosso-Fernández, C.M.; Roca-Oporto, C.; De Pascale, G.; Jiménez-Jorge, S.; Fernández-Hinojosa, E.; Matthaiou, D.K.; Ramírez, P.; Díaz-Miguel, R.O.; Estella, A.; et al. Magic Bullet Working Group WP1. Colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (Magic Bullet study): An investigator-driven, open-label, randomized, noninferiority controlled trial. Crit. Care. 2019, 23, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pormohammad, A.; Mehdinejadiani, K.; Gholizadeh, P.; Nasiri, M.J.; Mohtavinejad, N.; Dadashi, M.; Karimaei, S.; Safari, H.; Azimi, T. Global prevalence of colistin resistance in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 139, 103887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, R.K.; Paterson, D.L.; Tamma, P.D. Navigating available treatment options for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2023, 76 (Suppl. 2), S179–S193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.J.; McCarthy, M.W. Cefiderocol: A novel siderophore cephalosporin. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2018, 27, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ito, A.; Sato, T.; Ota, M.; Takemura, M.; Nishikawa, T.; Toba, S.; Kohira, N.; Miyagawa, S.; Ishibashi, N.; Matsumoto, S.; et al. In vitro antibacterial properties of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 62, e01454-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hackel, M.A.; Tsuji, M.; Yamano, Y.; Echols, R.; Karlowsky, J.A.; Sahm, D.F. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against a recent collection of clinically relevant Gram-negative bacilli from North America and Europe, including carbapenem-nonsusceptible isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 Study). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e00093-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shortridge, D.; Streit, J.M.; Mendes, R.; Castanheira, M. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against U.S. and European Gram-negative clinical isolates collected in 2020 as part of the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0271221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delgado-Valverde, M.; Portillo-Calderón, I.; Recacha, E.; Pérez-Palacios, P.; Pascual, A. In vitro activity of cefiderocol compared to other antimicrobials against a collection of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli from Southern Spain. Microbiol Spectr. 2023, 11, e0493622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ito-Horiyama, T.; Ishii, Y.; Ito, A.; Sato, T.; Nakamura, R.; Fukuhara, N.; Tsuji, M.; Yamano, Y.; Yamaguchi, K.; Tateda, K. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin S-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4384–4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Poirel, L.; Kieffer, N.; Nordmann, P. Stability of cefiderocol against clinically significant broad-spectrum oxacillinases. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 52, 866–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wunderink, R.G.; Matsunaga, Y.; Ariyasu, M.; Clevenbergh, P.; Echols, R.; Kaye, K.S.; Kollef, M.; Menon, A.; Pogue, J.M.; Shorr, A.F.; et al. Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): A randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassetti, M.; Echols, R.; Matsunaga, Y.; Ariyasu, M.; Doi, Y.; Ferrer, R.; Lodise, T.P.; Naas, T.; Niki, Y.; Paterson, D.L.; et al. Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): A randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 226–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falcone, M.; Tiseo, G.; Leonildi, A.; Della Sala, L.; Vecchione, A.; Barnini, S.; Farcomeni, A.; Menichetti, F. Cefiderocol- compared to colistin-based regimens for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0214221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters, Version 13.0. Published on 1 January 2023. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_13.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2023).
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 32nd ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; CLSI: Wayne, PA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Ballesté-Delpierre, C.; Ramírez, Á.; Muñoz, L.; Longshaw, C.; Roca, I.; Vila, J. Assessment of in vitro cefiderocol susce,tibility and comparators against an epidemiologically diverse collection of Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poirel, L.; Sadek, M.; Nordmann, P. Contribution of PER-type and NDM-type β-Lactamases to cefiderocol resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e0087721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, X.; Lei, T.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.; Leptihn, S.; Yu, Y.; Hua, X. Structural basis of PER-1-mediated cefiderocol resistance and synergistic inhibition of PER-1 by cefiderocol in combination with avibactam or durlobactam in Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0082822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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] [PubMed]
- Woodford, N.; Ellington, M.J.; Coelho, J.M.; Turton, J.F.; Ward, M.E.; Brown, S.; Amyes, S.G.; Livermore, D.M. Multiplex PCR for genes encoding prevalent OXA carbapenemases in Acinetobacter spp. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2006, 27, 351–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, P.G.; Lehmann, M.; Seifert, H. Inclusion of OXA-143 primers in a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for genes encoding prevalent OXA carbapenemases in Acinetobacter spp. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biniossek, L.; Gerson, S.; Xanthopoulou, K.; Zander, E.; Kaase, M.; Seifert, H.; Higgins, P.G. Novel Multiplex PCR for Detection of the Most Prevanlent Carbapenemase Genes in Gram-Negative Bacteria within Germany. In Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meeting of German Society of Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM), Ulm, Germany, 11–14 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 20776-1:2019; Clinical Laboratory Testing and In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems—Susceptibility Testing of Infectious Agents and Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test devices—Part 1. Reference Method for Testing the In Vitro Activity of Antimicrobial Agents Against Rapidly Growing Aerobic Bacteria Involved in Infectious Diseases. International Organization for Standardization. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/70464.html (accessed on 3 February 2023).
Table 1.
Distribution of carbapenemases among 313 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates.
| Carbapenem Resistance Mechanism | No. of Isolates with Respective Mechanism a |
|---|---|
| blaOXA-23-like | 234 |
| blaOXA-40-like | 56 |
| blaOXA-58-like | 6 |
| blaOXA-235-like | 2 |
| blaNDM-1 | 6 |
| blaIMP-26 | 1 |
| upregulated blaOXA-51 | 13 |
a Of the isolates, 2 isolates co-harbored blaOXA-23 and blaNDM-1, 1 isolate co-harbored blaOXA-23, blaNDM-1, and blaPER-7, 3 isolates, blaOXA-23 and blaGES-11, 1 isolate, blaOXA-23 and blaGES-12, 1 isolate, blaOXA-40 and blaGES-11, 1 isolate, blaOXA-23 and blaOXA-40, and 1 isolate, blaOXA-23 and blaOXA-58.
Table 2.
MIC distributions, MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L), and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 313 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates.
Table 2.
MIC distributions, MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L), and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 313 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates.
| Antimicrobial Agent | MIC (mg/L) | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %I | %R | |
| Cefiderocol a,b | 17 | 49 | 16 | 128 | 38 | 8 c | 32 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 10 d | 0.5 | 4 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 81.8 | - | 18.2 | |
| Ceftazidime a | 1 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 277 d | ≥64 | ≥64 | 2 -≥ 64 | - | - | - | ||||||
| Ceftazidime/avibactam a,e | 2 | 7 | 14 | 290 f | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | - | ||||||||
| Ceftolozane/tazobactam a,e | 2 | 5 | 8 | 33 | 265 f | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 1/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | - | |||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 3 | 0 g | 1 | 309 h | ≥8 | ≥8 | 0.125 -≥ 8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 99.0 | ||||||||
| Colistin | 8 | 208 | 82 c | 1 | 14 h | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 95.2 | - | 4.8 | |||||||
| Imipenem/relebactam e | 0 c | 16 | 297 f | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | - | 100.0 | |||||||||
| Meropenem l | 0 c | 11 | 16 | 286 i | ≥32 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 96.5 | ||||||||
| Meropenem/vaborbactam a,e | 15 | 298 f | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/8 -≥ 16/8 | - | - | - | ||||||||||
| Minocycline a | 2 k | 5 | 25 | 34 | 52 | 46 | 51 | 98 f | 4 | ≥16 | ≤0.125 -≥ 16 | - | - | - | ||||
| Piperacillin/tazobactam a,e | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 309 j | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | 8 -≥ 128/4 | - | - | - | |||||||
a no EUCAST breakpoint available; b for cefiderocol, the EUCAST non-species related PK-PD susceptible breakpoint is applied; c susceptible breakpoint values are indicated in boldface; d ≥64 mg/L; e for ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam, and meropenem/vaborbactam, only the respective β-lactam compound concentration is given; f ≥16 mg/L; g for ciprofloxacin, the resistant breakpoint is depicted in bold face; h ≥8 mg/L; i ≥32 mg/L; j ≥128 mg/L; k ≤0.125 mg/L; l for meropenem, the non-meningitis breakpoint is applied.
Table 3.
MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L) and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 313 carba-penem-resistant A. baumannii isolates harboring different carbapenemases.
Table 3.
MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L) and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 313 carba-penem-resistant A. baumannii isolates harboring different carbapenemases.
| Antimicrobial Agent | blaOXA-23-like (n = 227) | blaOXA-40-like (n = 54) | Other Carbapenemases (n = 32) d | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | |
| Cefiderocol a,b | 0.5 | 4 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 82.4 | 17.6 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 92.6 | 7.4 | 1 | 32 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 59.4 | 40.6 |
| Ceftazidime a | ≥64 | ≥64 | 2 -≥ 64 | - | - | ≥64 | ≥64 | 4 -≥ 64 | - | - | ≥64 | ≥64 | 4 -≥ 64 | - | - |
| Ceftazidime/avibactam a | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - |
| Ceftolozane/tazobactam a | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 1/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - |
| Ciprofloxacin | ≥8 | ≥8 | 0.12 -≥ 8 | 0.4 c | 99.6 | ≥8 | ≥8 | 0.12 -≥ 8 | 1.9 c | 98.1 | ≥8 | ≥8 | ≥8 -≥ 8 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Colistin | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 96.0 | 4.0 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 92.6 | 7.4 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 93.8 | 6.2 |
| Imipenem/relebactam | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Meropenem | ≥32 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 99.6 | ≥32 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 98.1 | 16 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 71.9 |
| Meropenem/vaborbactam a | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/8 -≥ 16/8 | - | - | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/4 -≥ 16/8 | - | - | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/4 -≥ 16/8 | - | - |
| Minocycline a | 8 | ≥16 | 0.25 -≥ 16 | - | - | 4 | ≥16 | ≤0.12 -≥ 16 | - | - | 2 | ≥16 | ≤0.12 -≥ 16 | - | - |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam a | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | 8/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | 16/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - |
a no EUCAST breakpoint available; b for cefiderocol, the EUCAST non-species related PK-PD susceptible breakpoint is applied; c for ciprofloxacin, % intermediate is depicted. d other carbapenemases were blaOXA-58-like (5 isolates); blaOXA-235-like (2), blaNDM-1 (3); blaIMP-26 (1); and combinations of two or more carbapenemases including blaOXA-23+NDM-1 (2), blaNOXA-23+NDM-1+PER-7 (1), blaNOXA-23+GES-11 (3), blaNOXA-23+GES-12 (1), and blaNOXA-40-like+GES-11 (1); and upregulated blaOXA-51 (13).
Table 4.
Distribution of carbapenem resistance mechanisms in 57 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates with cefiderocol MICs ≥ 4 mg/L.
Table 4.
Distribution of carbapenem resistance mechanisms in 57 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates with cefiderocol MICs ≥ 4 mg/L.
| Cefiderocol MIC | No. of Isolates with Respective MIC | Carbapenem Resistance Mechanism | No. of Isolates with Respective Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 mg/L | 32 | upregulated blaOXA-51 | 2 |
| blaOXA-23 | 16 | ||
| blaOXA-23 + upregulated blaOXA-51 | 7 | ||
| blaOXA-23+GES-11 | 1 | ||
| blaOXA-23+GES-12 | 1 | ||
| blaOXA-40-like | 3 | ||
| blaNDM-1 | 1 | ||
| blaOXA-23+NDM-1 | 1 | ||
| 8 mg/L | 9 | blaOXA-23 | 7 |
| blaNDM-1 | 1 | ||
| blaIMP-26 | 1 | ||
| 16 mg/L | 1 | blaOXA-23 | 1 |
| 32 mg/L | 5 | blaOXA-23 | 1 |
| blaOXA-40-like+GES-11 | 1 | ||
| upregulated blaOXA-51 | 1 | ||
| blaOXA-23+NDM-1+PER-7 | 1 | ||
| blaNDM-1 | 1 | ||
| >32 mg/L | 10 | blaOXA-23 | 8 |
| blaOXA-40-like | 1 | ||
| blaOXA-23+NDM-1 | 1 |
Table 5.
MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L) and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 266 carba-penem-resistant A. baumannii isolates representing the most frequent international clonal lineages IC 1, IC 2, and IC 5.
Table 5.
MIC50 and MIC90 values (mg/L) and antimicrobial susceptibilities of 266 carba-penem-resistant A. baumannii isolates representing the most frequent international clonal lineages IC 1, IC 2, and IC 5.
| Antimicrobial Agent | IC 1 (n = 26) | IC 2 (n = 196) | IC 5 (n = 44) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | MIC50 | MIC90 | MIC range | %S | %R | |
| Cefiderocol a,b | 0.5 | 32 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 69.2 | 30.8 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.06 -≥ 64 | 83.7 | 16.3 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.06–4 | 95.5 | 4.5 |
| Ceftazidime a | ≥64 | ≥64 | 4 -≥ 64 | - | - | ≥64 | ≥64 | 8 -≥ 64 | - | - | ≥64 | ≥64 | 4 -≥ 64 | - | - |
| Ceftazidime/avibactam a | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 4/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 4/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - |
| Ceftolozane/tazobactam a | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 2/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 4/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 1/4 -≥ 16/4 | - | - |
| Ciprofloxacin | ≥8 | ≥8 | 4 -≥ 8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ≥8 | ≥8 | ≥8 -≥ 8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ≥8 | ≥8 | ≥8 -≥ 8 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Colistin | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 96.2 | 3.8 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 -≥ 8 | 94.9 | 5.1 | 2 | 2 | 1 -≥ 8 | 93.2 | 6.8 |
| Imipenem/relebactam | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ≥16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 16/4 | ≥16/4 | 8/4 -≥ 16/4 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Meropenem | ≥32 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 96.2 | ≥32 | ≥32 | 8 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 95.9 | ≥32 | ≥32 | 16 -≥ 32 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Meropenem/vaborbactam a | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/8 -≥ 16/8 | - | - | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | 8/8 -≥ 16/8 | - | - | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 | ≥16/8 -≥ 16/8 | - | - |
| Minocycline a | 2 | 4 | 0.25 -≥ 16 | - | - | 8 | ≥16 | 0.5 -≥ 16 | - | - | 1 | 4 | 0.25–8 | - | - |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam a | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | 16/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | 32/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 | ≥128/4 -≥ 128/4 | - | - |
a no EUCAST breakpoint available; b for cefiderocol, the EUCAST non-species related PK-PD susceptible breakpoint is applied.
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Seifert, H.; Müller, C.; Stefanik, D.; Higgins, P.G.; Wohlfarth, E.; Kresken, M. In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against a Global Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071172
AMA Style
Seifert H, Müller C, Stefanik D, Higgins PG, Wohlfarth E, Kresken M. In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against a Global Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(7):1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071172
Chicago/Turabian StyleSeifert, Harald, Carina Müller, Danuta Stefanik, Paul G. Higgins, Esther Wohlfarth, and Michael Kresken. 2023. "In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against a Global Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates" Antibiotics 12, no. 7: 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071172
APA StyleSeifert, H., Müller, C., Stefanik, D., Higgins, P. G., Wohlfarth, E., & Kresken, M. (2023). In Vitro Activity of Cefiderocol against a Global Collection of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates. Antibiotics, 12(7), 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071172
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
