Next Article in Journal
How Does Antimicrobial Stewardship Affect Inappropriate Antibiotic Therapy in Urological Patients?
Previous Article in Journal
Carbapenem-Sparing Strategies for ESBL Producers: When and How
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

In Vitro Susceptibility to Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Comparators in Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales from Five Latin American Countries

by
Tobias Manuel Appel
1,
María Fernanda Mojica
1,
Elsa De La Cadena
1,2,
Christian José Pallares
1,2,3,
Marcela A. Radice
4,
Paulo Castañeda-Méndez
5,6,
Diego A. Jaime-Villalón
6,
Ana C. Gales
7,
José M. Munita
8 and
María Virginia Villegas
1,2,3,*
1
Grupo de Resistencia Antimicrobiana y Epidemiología Hospitalaria (RAEH), Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá 110121, Colombia
2
Grupo de Resistencia Bacteriana, Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento e Investigaciones Médicas (CIDEIM), Cali 760031, Colombia
3
Comité de Infecciones y Vigilancia Epidemiológica, Centro Médico Imbanaco, Cali 760043, Colombia
4
Departamento de Microbiología, Inmunología, Biotecnología y Genética, Cátedra de Microbiología, Universidad de Buenos Aires—CONICET, Buenos Aires C1113AAD, Argentina
5
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México 14050, Mexico
6
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital San Angel Inn Universidad, Ciudad de México 03330, Mexico
7
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo 04039-032, Brazil
8
Genomics and Resistant Microbes (GeRM) Group, Millennium Initiative for Collaborative Research On Bacterial Resistance (MICROB-R), Santiago, Región Metropolitana 7650568, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2020, 9(2), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020062
Submission received: 19 December 2019 / Revised: 13 January 2020 / Accepted: 23 January 2020 / Published: 5 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Mechanism and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance)

Abstract

:
Background: High rates of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems in Enterobacterales have been reported in Latin America. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) is the combination of a third-generation cephalosporin and a non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor, which has shown activity against isolates producing class A, C and D β-lactamases. Herein, we evaluated the activity of CZA and comparators against clinical isolates of Enterobacterales in Latin America. Methods: The activity of CZA and comparators was evaluated against clinical isolates of Enterobacterales from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico that were collected between January 2016 and October 2017. One specific phenotypic subset was evaluated. A carbapenem non-susceptible (CNS) phenotype was defined as any isolate displaying a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥1 mg/L for ertapenem. Results: CZA was active against 95.8% of all isolates and 77.5% of CNS isolates. Fosfomycin (FOS) and tigecycline (TGC) were the second most active antibiotics with 93.4% of Enterobacterales being susceptible. Conclusions: The results of this study underline the potential therapeutic role of CZA in Latin America.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to public health. Enterobacterales are some of the most common and pathogenic microorganisms that have acquired resistance to several classes of antimicrobials [1]. Particularly concerning is the resistance to carbapenems since these agents are often considered the last resort antibiotics. In addition, infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteria are associated with higher costs and mortality rates [2,3].
The most frequently found carbapenem resistance mechanism is the production of carbapenemases, among which Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC) are the most widely distributed worldwide and are endemic in several countries of the Latin American region [4]. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) is the combination of a third-generation cephalosporin and a non-β-lactam inhibitor capable of inhibiting several class D, C and A β-lactamases, including the KPC-family enzymes. Several in vitro, in vivo and clinical studies have reported favorable results with CZA against carbapenemase-producing enterobacteria, while being less toxic than other agents commonly used to treat carbapenem-resistant bacteria, such as colistin and aminoglycosides [5,6,7].
Herein, we evaluated the activity of CZA and comparators against 2252 clinical isolates of Enterobacterales from 20 healthcare institutions located in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico between January 2016 and October 2017.

2. Results

The distribution of the 2252 isolates of Enterobacterales per country and species is shown in Table 1. Overall, 95.8% (2158/2252) of the isolates were susceptible to CZA (minimum inhibitory concentration of 90% of isolates (MIC90) ≤1 mg/L). The highest susceptibility was observed in Escherichia coli (97.9%), followed by Serratia marcescens (94.5%), Klebsiella aerogenes (93.3%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (92.1%) and isolates of the Enterobacter cloacae complex with a susceptibility of 92.0% (Table 2). Fosfomycin (FOS) and tigecycline (TGC) were the second most active antibiotics with 93.4% of Enterobacterales susceptible, followed by the carbapenems meropenem (MEM) (88.7%), imipenem (IMI) (87.1%) and ertapenem (ETP) (82.4%).
In all five countries, the susceptibility of Enterobacterales to CZA was similarly high, ranging from 99.1% in Chile (MIC90 ≤ 1 mg/L), 98.9% in Mexico (MIC90 ≤ 1 mg/L), 97.4% in Argentina (MIC90 ≤ 1 mg/L), 96.5% in Brazil (minimum inhibitory concentration of 50% of isolates (MIC50) ≤ 1 mg/L, MIC90 2 mg/L) to 94.3% in Colombia (MIC50 ≤ 1 mg/L, MIC90 2 mg/L). Comparable results were observed for FOS (92.5%–97.4%) and TGC (81.5%–95.8%). For carbapenem non-susceptible (CNS) Enterobacterales, CZA was active against 77.5% of all tested strains (MIC50 2 mg/L, MIC90 ≥ 128 mg/L). The activity of CZA was the highest in CNS isolates from Chile (94.8%, MIC50 2 mg/L, MIC90 8 mg/L), followed by Mexico (93.3%, MIC50 ≤ 1 mg/L, MIC90 1 mg/L), Brazil (88.6%, MIC50 ≤ 1 mg/L, MIC90 32 mg/L), Argentina (80%, MIC50 ≤ 1 mg/L, MIC90 64 mg/L), and Colombia (71.3%, MIC50 2 mg/L, MIC90 ≥ 128 mg/L) (Table 1).
For all species of Enterobacterales, regardless of their susceptibility profile, CZA was the compound with the highest activity when compared with other β-lactam agents. For isolates of E. coli and E. cloacae complex, CZA was superior to all other antimicrobials tested. In the case of K. pneumoniae and K. aerogenes, the activity of FOS was slightly superior to CZA, whereas for S. marcescens both antimicrobials showed a susceptibility of 94.5%.
From the 2252 isolates tested, 396 (17.6%) were found to be CNS; of note, 46.2% were identified as K. pneumoniae. CZA was active against 77.5% of the CNS isolates (MIC50 2 mg/L, MIC90 ≥ 128 mg/L), with the highest activity against S. marcescens (81.5%), while the lowest susceptibility was observed for K. pneumoniae (74.3%). For this group, the activity of CZA was superior to all β-lactams and superior or equal to that of FOS for isolates of E. cloacae complex, K. aerogenes and S. marcescens.

3. Discussion

This study showed that 95.8% of clinical isolates of Enterobacterales from five Latin American countries, collected between January 2016 and October 2017, were susceptible to CZA (MIC90 ≤ 1 mg/L). The susceptibility to CZA between species ranged from 97.9% for E. coli to 92.0% for isolates of E. cloacae complex. Furthermore, 77.5% of CNS isolates remained susceptible to CZA. These results underline the potential therapeutic role of CZA for patients infected with KPC-producing and other carbapenemase-producing enterobacteria, which are prevalent in the Latin American region [4,7].
Although the present study might be limited by the small number of isolates from Mexico and Brazil and the fact that they are from a single center in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, our results are similar to most reports described previously by other authors. In a study by Flamm et al. [8], CZA was evaluated against 130 clinical urinary isolates of Enterobacterales collected in 2011 from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, finding a MIC90 of 0.25 mg/L. Of the evaluated strains, 0.8% were resistant to MEM. Similarly, Karlowsky et al. [9] evaluated the activity of CZA and comparators against clinical isolates of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa collected between 2012 and 2015 from six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela). In this study, CZA was active against 99.7% of 7665 Enterobacterales, which is similar to our findings. Furthermore, 5.1% of all isolates were carbapenem (MEM) non-susceptible. In the MEM non-susceptible subgroup, the authors observed that CZA was active against 95.4% of isolates, which is significantly higher compared to our observations.
The differences in CZA susceptibility of the non-susceptible subgroups could be explained by the different hospitals and geographical areas included in the study, as well as the changes in the epidemiology of resistance mechanisms between the study periods. For example, in the case of Brazil, susceptibility rates to CZA in this study were inferior to those observed previously against K. pneumoniae isolates in a surveillance study by Rossi et al. (100% susceptible) [10]. An increase in class B β-lactamases (which were detected in 0.2% of all Enterobacterales by Karlowsky et al.) or the emergence of different mechanisms of resistance to CZA in class A β-lactamase-producing K. pneumoniae as reported in the literature could explain this difference [11,12].

4. Materials and Methods

Isolates were collected in each of the participating institutions between January 2016 and October 2017. Upon reception, species confirmation was performed using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (Biomeriéux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France). Susceptibility testing was performed in the laboratory of the research group Resistencia Antimicrobiana y Epidemiología Hospitalaria (RAEH), Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined by broth microdilution using customized Sensititre plates (TREK Diagnostic Systems, East Grinstead, West Sussex, UK), with E. coli ATCC 25922 as quality control, following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [13]. Antibiotics evaluated included: ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA; 1/4–128/4 mg/L), ceftazidime (CAZ; 2–32 mg/L), cefepime (FEP; 2–64 mg/L), piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP; 2/4–128/4 mg/L), ertapenem (ETP; 0.25–32 mg/L), imipenem (IMP; 0.25–128 mg/L), meropenem (MEM; 0.25–128 mg/L), tigecycline (TGC; 0.25–8 mg/L) and fosfomycin (FOS; 8–128 mg/L). With the exception of FOS and TGC, results were interpreted according to the CLSI 2018 breakpoints [14]. FOS breakpoints for Enterobacterales were extrapolated from the E. coli breakpoint by CLSI (FOS non-susceptible MIC ≥128 mg/L). United States Food and Drug Administration product package insert criteria were used as breakpoints for TGC (susceptible: ≤2 mg/L; intermediate: 4 mg/L; resistant: ≥8 mg/L) [15]. The specific phenotypic subset defined as a carbapenem non-susceptible (CNS) phenotype included isolates displaying a MIC ≥1 mg/L for ETP.

5. Conclusions

We report excellent activity of CZA against diverse Enterobacterales collected in Latin America. The lower rates of CZA susceptibility among CNS isolates in our study highlights the importance of active surveillance programs in order to follow the evolution of resistance mechanisms against the antibiotic armamentarium, including newly introduced antimicrobial agents.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F.M., E.D.L.C., C.J.P. and M.V.V.; Methodology, E.D.L.C. and M.F.M.; Validation, M.F.M. and M.V.V.; Formal Analysis, T.M.A., M.F.M. and E.D.L.C.; Investigation, E.D.L.C., M.F.M., M.A.R., P.C.-M., D.A.J.-V., A.C.G. and J.M.M.; Data Curation, E.D.L.C. and C.J.P.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, T.M.A.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.F.M., E.D.L.C., C.J.P., M.A.R., P.C.-M., D.A.J.-V., A.C.G., J.M.M. and M.V.V.; Supervision, E.D.L.C., M.A.R., P.C.-M., D.A.J.-V., A.C.G. and J.M.M.; Project Administration, E.D.L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

C.J.P. and M.V.V. have received consulting fees and/or research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, WEST and GPC pharma. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

CAZCeftazidime
CNSCarbapenem non-susceptible
CZACeftazidime/avibactam
ETPErtapenem
FEPCefepime
FOSFosfomycin
IMIImipenem
MEMMeropenem
MICMinimum inhibitory concentration
TGCTigecycline
TZPPiperacillin/tazobactam

References

  1. Iredell, J.; Brown, J.; Tagg, K. Antibiotic Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications. BMJ 2016, 8, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Falagas, M.E.; Tansarli, G.S.; Karageorgopoulos, D.E.; Vardakas, K.Z. Deaths Attributable to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 1170–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bartsch, S.M.; McKinnell, J.A.; Mueller, L.E.; Miller, L.G.; Gohil, S.K.; Huang, S.S.; Lee, B.Y. Potential Economic Burden of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in the United States. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 48.e9–48.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Logan, L.K.; Weinstein, R.A. The Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: The Impact and Evolution of a Global Menace. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 215 (Suppl. 1), S28–S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Keepers, T.R.; Gomez, M.; Celeri, C.; Nichols, W.W.; Krause, K.M. Bactericidal Activity, Absence of Serum Effect, and Time-kill Kinetics of Ceftazidime-Avibactam against β-lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 5297–5305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Zasowski, E.J.; Rybak, J.M.; Rybak, M.J. The β-Lactams Strike Back: Ceftazidime-Avibactam. Pharmacotherapy 2015, 35, 755–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Karaiskos, I.; Lagou, S.; Pontikis, K.; Rapti, V.; Poulakou, G. The “Old” and the “New” Antibiotics for MDR Gram-Negative Pathogens: For Whom, When, and How. Front Public Health 2019, 7, 151:1–151:25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Flamm, R.K.; Sader, H.S.; Farrell, D.J.; Jones, R.N. Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Comparator Agents Tested against Urinary Tract Isolates from a Global Surveillance Program (2011). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 80, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Karlowsky, J.A.; Kazmierczak, K.M.; Bouchillon, S.K.; de Jonge, B.L.M.; Stone, G.G.; Sahm, D.F. In Vitro Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam against Clinical Isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Collected in Latin American Countries: Results from the INFORM Global Surveillance Program, 2012 to 2015. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Rossi, F.; Cury, A.P.; Franco, M.R.G.; Testa, R.; Nichols, W.W. The In Vitro Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam against 417 Gram-Negative Bacilli Collected in 2014 and 2015 at a Teaching Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 21, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Nelson, K.; Hemarajata, P.; Sun, D.; Rubio-Aparicio, D.; Tsivkovski, R.; Yang, S.; Sebra, R.; Kasarskis, A.; Nguyen, H.; Hanson, B.M.; et al. Resistance to Ceftazidime-Avibactam Is Due to Transposition of KPC in a Porin-Deficient Strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae with Increased Efflux Activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e00989:1–e00989:13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Shields, R.K.; Chen, L.; Cheng, S.; Chavda, K.D.; Press, E.G.; Snyder, A.; Pandey, R.; Doi, Y.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Nguyen, M.H.; et al. Emergence of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Resistance Due to Plasmid-Borne blaKPC-3 Mutations during Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e02097:1–e02097:11. [Google Scholar]
  13. CLSI. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard-Thenth Edition; CLSI Document M07-A10; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 28th ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pfizer. Tygacil® (Tigecycline) Injection, Powder, Lyophilized, for Solution, Prescribing Information; Pfizer Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Susceptibility of Enterobacterales to ceftazidime/avibactam and comparators by country.
Table 1. Susceptibility of Enterobacterales to ceftazidime/avibactam and comparators by country.
MicroorganismNumber of IsolatesPercentage of Susceptibility
CZACAZFEPTZPETPIMIMEMTGCFOS
Argentina233
E. coli16097.553.891.36095.696.396.998.198.1
CNS757.1014.314.3-14.328.628.657.1
K. pneumoniae6598.552.361.549.281.587.789.293.896.9
CNS121008.38.38.3-33.341.77591.7
E. cloacae complex41007575757575757575
CNS0
S. marcescens4757575757575757575
CNS10000-0000
Brazil85
E. coli209565658070757590100
CNS683.314.314.342.9-14.314.357.185.7
K. pneumoniae23874.38.71321.717.421.773.995.7
CNS1883.3000-0066.794.4
E. cloacae complex241002529.258.362.583.387.579.279.2
CNS9100011.144.4-66.755.666.777.8
S. marcescens1810010061.166.783.388.983.388.983.3
CNS2100000-0050100
Chile443
E. coli34799.170.376.791.188.894.296.594.594.8
CNS3994.923.125.651.3-53.869.25992.3
K. pneumoniae6698.543.951.560.678.890.983.393.990.9
CNS1492.90014.3-57.121.492.971.4
E. cloacae complex211008110090.590.510010095.285.7
CNS210010010050-100100100100
S. marcescens910066.766.777.866.710088.9100100
CNS310033.333.333.3-10066,7100100
Colombia1396
E. coli81397.379.381.891.490.794.795.196.194.1
CNS7672.4000-44.747.464.576.3
K. pneumoniae44190.252.456.761.768.974.176.291.291.6
CNS13768.6000-18.223.47380.3
E. cloacae complex8287.847.647.654.958.5787890.280.5
CNS3473.511.811.820.6-29.438.276.570.6
S. marcescens6093.361.763.363.36566.773.376.793.3
CNS21814.84.819-1923.852.481
Mexico95
E. coli6910034.839.173.98791.397.195.794.2
CNS910011.1011.1-44.477.866.711.1
K. pneumoniae1510066.766.74086.786.786.7100100
CNS2100000-5050100100
E. cloacae complex1190.927.318.29.163.618.272.790.9100
CNS475000-2525100100
CAZ: ceftazidime; CZA: ceftazidime/avibactam; ETP: ertapenem; FEP: cefepime; FOS: fosfomycin; IMI: imipenem; MEM: meropenem; TGC: tigecycline; TZP: piperacillin/tazobactam
Table 2. Susceptibility of Enterobacterales to ceftazidime/avibactam according to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (mg/L) distribution and susceptibility to comparators.
Table 2. Susceptibility of Enterobacterales to ceftazidime/avibactam according to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (mg/L) distribution and susceptibility to comparators.
MicroorganismNumber of IsolatesCeftazidime/AvibactamSusceptibility to Comparators (% Isolates Susceptible)
Cumulative Percentage of Isolates at Each MIC (mg/L)
≤1248163264≥128MIC50MIC90%SCAZFEPTZPETPIMIMEMTGCFOS
Enterobacterales22528993.895.295.896.196.997.7100≤1295.86467.77982.487.188.793.493.4
CNS39644.766.974.777.578.883.187.61002≥12877.58.612.126.8-31.635.968.981.3
E. coli140993.496.997.697.998.298.599100≤1≤197.971.875.790.390.391.895.595.694.8
CNS13743.870.177.480.381.884.789.11002≥12880.316.821.946.7-44.553.361.382.5
K. pneumoniae61081.888.29192.192.493.995.4100≤1492.15053.459.27075.676.691.392.5
CNS18345.462.971.674.375.480.385.21002≥12874.32.74.913.7-20.822.474.382
E. cloacae complex11279.588.490.2929296.597.4100≤149242.946.451.863.471.479.579.579.5
CNS4146.370.775.680.580.590.392.710023280.57.314.619.5-3943.980.573.2
K. aerogenes3086.79093.393.396.696.6100100≤1293.366.77083.373.383.383.39096.7
CNS85062.5757587.587.5100100≤1647512.512.550-37.537.55075
S. marcescens9181.392.394.594.594.594.595.6100≤1294.562.664.869.270.373.67880.294.5
CNS2740.77481.481.481.481.485.11002≥12881.57.47.418.5-25.925.955.681.5
CAZ: ceftazidime; CZA: ceftazidime/avibactam; ETP: ertapenem; FEP: cefepime; FOS: fosfomycin; IMI: imipenem; MEM: meropenem; MIC50: minimum inhibitory concentration of 50% of isolates; MIC90: minimum inhibitory concentration of 90% of isolates; TGC: tigecycline; TZP: piperacillin/tazobactam; %S: isolates susceptible.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Appel, T.M.; Mojica, M.F.; De La Cadena, E.; Pallares, C.J.; Radice, M.A.; Castañeda-Méndez, P.; Jaime-Villalón, D.A.; Gales, A.C.; Munita, J.M.; Villegas, M.V. In Vitro Susceptibility to Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Comparators in Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales from Five Latin American Countries. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020062

AMA Style

Appel TM, Mojica MF, De La Cadena E, Pallares CJ, Radice MA, Castañeda-Méndez P, Jaime-Villalón DA, Gales AC, Munita JM, Villegas MV. In Vitro Susceptibility to Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Comparators in Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales from Five Latin American Countries. Antibiotics. 2020; 9(2):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Appel, Tobias Manuel, María Fernanda Mojica, Elsa De La Cadena, Christian José Pallares, Marcela A. Radice, Paulo Castañeda-Méndez, Diego A. Jaime-Villalón, Ana C. Gales, José M. Munita, and María Virginia Villegas. 2020. "In Vitro Susceptibility to Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Comparators in Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales from Five Latin American Countries" Antibiotics 9, no. 2: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020062

APA Style

Appel, T. M., Mojica, M. F., De La Cadena, E., Pallares, C. J., Radice, M. A., Castañeda-Méndez, P., Jaime-Villalón, D. A., Gales, A. C., Munita, J. M., & Villegas, M. V. (2020). In Vitro Susceptibility to Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Comparators in Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales from Five Latin American Countries. Antibiotics, 9(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020062

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