In-vitro evaluation of a dual carbapenem combination against carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter baumannii

Impact of the microbiome on human, animal, and environmental health from a One Health perspective

The microbiome encompasses the genomes of the microorganisms that inhabit specific environments. One Health is an emerging concept, recognised as a cohesive, harmonising approach aimed at sustainably improving the well-being of humans, animals, and the environment. The microbiome plays a crucial role in the One Health domain, facilitating interactions among humans, animals, and the environment, along with co-evolution, co-development, co-metabolism, and co-regulation with their associated humans and animals. In addition, the microbiome regulates environmental health through interactions with plant microbiota, which actively participate in substance cycling (particularly the carbon and nitrogen cycles) and influence the overall energy flow in the biosphere. Moreover, antibiotic resistance genes present in microbiota can lead to widespread drug resistance in both humans and animals. This review explores the impact of the microbiome on humans, animals, and the environment, highlighting the significance of focusing on this field in One Health research.

Carbapenem Combinations for Infections Caused by Carbapenemase-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Experimental In Vitro and In Vivo Analysis

In the context of difficult-to-treat carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections, we evaluated imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem combinations against eleven carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa isolates. According to the widespread global distribution of high-risk clones and carbapenemases, four representative isolates were selected: ST175 (OXA-2/VIM-20), ST175 (VIM-2), ST235 (GES-5), and ST111 (IMP-33), for efficacy studies using a sepsis murine model. Minimum inhibitory concentration (mg/L) ranges were 64–256 for imipenem and 16–128 for meropenem and doripenem. In vitro, imipenem plus meropenem was synergistic against 72% of isolates and doripenem plus meropenem or imipenem against 55% and 45%, respectively. All combinations were synergistic against the ST175, ST235, and ST155 clones. In vivo, meropenem diminished the spleen and blood bacterial concentrations of four and three isolates, respectively, with better efficacy than imipenem or doripenem. The combinations did not show efficacy compared with the more active monotherapies, except for imipenem plus meropenem, which reduced the ST235 bacterial spleen concentration. Mortality decreased with imipenem plus meropenem or doripenem for the ST175 isolate. Results suggest that carbapenem combinations are not an alternative for severe infections by carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa. Meropenem monotherapy showed in vivo efficacy despite its high MIC, probably because its dosage allowed a sufficient antimicrobial exposure at the infection sites.

Effectiveness of a Double-Carbapenem combinations against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

The emergence of carbapenem-resistant organisms posed considerable threat to global health while only limited treatment options are available and led to efforts to discover a novel way to treat them. To evaluate in vitro synergistic activity of meropenem plus ertapenem, a total of 203 carbapenem-resistant strains, collected from 12 provinces and municipalities in China, were examined with a dual carbapenem combination therapy. The statistical software R was used for analysis. Two hundred and one (201) of carbapenem-resistant strains mainly produced four types of carbapenemase: KPC-2 (n = 142, 69.95%), OXA-232 (n = 7, 3.45%), NDM (n = 38, 18.72%; 36 NDM-1, 1 NDM-4, 1 NDM-5), and IMP (n = 15, 7.39%; 1 IMP-26, 10 IMP-30, 4 IMP-4). Fifty-one out of two hundred and three (51/203 or 25.12%) of the examined strains showed a synergistic effect for the meropenem plus ertapenem combination throughout the checkerboard method, while only three isolates showed potential clinically relevant synergy (3/203, 1.48%). An additive effect was observed in 55/203 (27.09%) of the examined strains. Ninety-seven of the examined isolates (47.78%) showed fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) greater or equal to 2 (indicating antagonism). The synergistic activity of meropenem plus ertapenem combination suggests this combination can be a possible way to treat the infection caused by the carbapenem-resistant organisms, especially for IMP or NDM producer with a lesser minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the infected individual who was not recommended to use colistin or tigecycline.

In search for a synergistic combination against pandrug-resistant A. baumannii; methodological considerations

PURPOSE

Pending approval of new antimicrobials, synergistic combinations are the only treatment option against pandrug-resistant A. baumannii (PDRAB). Considering the lack of a standardized methodology, the aim of this manuscript is to systematically review the methodology and discuss unique considerations for assessing antimicrobial combinations against PDRAB.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of a systematic review (conducted in PubMed and Scopus from inception to April 2021) of studies evaluating antimicrobial combination against A. baumannii, based on antimicrobials that are inactive in vitro alone.

RESULTS

Eighty-four publications were reviewed, using a variety of synergy testing methods, including; gradient-based methods (n = 11), disk-based methods (n = 6), agar dilution (n = 2), checkerboard assay (n = 44), time-kill assay (n = 50), dynamic in vitro PK/PD models (n = 6), semi-mechanistic PK/PD models (n = 5), and in vivo animal models (n = 11). Several variations in definitions of synergy and interpretation of each method were observed and are discussed. Challenges related to testing combinations of antimicrobials that are inactive alone (with regards to concentrations at which the combinations are assessed), as well as other considerations (assessment of stasis vs killing, clinical relevance of re-growth in vitro after initial killing, role of in vitro vs in vivo conditions, challenges of clinical testing of antimicrobial combinations against PDRAB infections) are discussed.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates the need for consensus on a standardized methodology and clinically relevant definitions for synergy. Modifications in the methodology and definitions of synergy as well as a roadmap for further development of antimicrobial combinations against PDRAB are proposed.

Systematic Review of Antimicrobial Combination Options for Pandrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Antimicrobial combinations are at the moment the only potential treatment option for pandrug-resistant A. baumannii. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Scopus for studies reporting the activity of antimicrobial combinations against A. baumannii resistant to all components of the combination. The clinical relevance of synergistic combinations was assessed based on concentrations achieving synergy and PK/PD models. Eighty-four studies were retrieved including 818 eligible isolates. A variety of combinations (n = 141 double, n = 9 triple) were tested, with a variety of methods. Polymyxin-based combinations were the most studied, either as double or triple combinations with cell-wall acting agents (including sulbactam, carbapenems, glycopeptides), rifamycins and fosfomycin. Non-polymyxin combinations were predominantly based on rifampicin, fosfomycin, sulbactam and avibactam. Several combinations were synergistic at clinically relevant concentrations, while triple combinations appeared more active than the double ones. However, no combination was consistently synergistic against all strains tested. Notably, several studies reported synergy but at concentrations unlikely to be clinically relevant, or the concentration that synergy was observed was unclear. Selecting the most appropriate combinations is likely strain-specific and should be guided by in vitro synergy evaluation. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of such combinations.

Efficacy of dual carbapenem treatment in a murine sepsis model of infection due to carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter baumannii

Objectives

To evaluate the in vivo efficacy of a dual carbapenem combination containing imipenem plus meropenem against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii producing carbapenemases OXA-23 or OXA-58.

Methods

An experimental model of peritonitis using C57BL/6J female mice was developed and the minimum lethal doses were calculated for infections due to OXA-23 or OXA-58 producers of A. baumannii clinical isolates. The efficacies of the carbapenems in monotherapy and in combination were tested.

Results

Meropenem was better than imipenem in mice infected with either of the carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAb) strains. The combination of meropenem plus imipenem significantly improved the clearance of CRAbs from spleen compared with non-treated groups. The carbapenem-containing combination was better than imipenem for treating mice infected with both carbapenemase producers. In blood, the carbapenem combination significantly decreased the bacterial load of the OXA-23 producers compared with imipenem or meropenem used in monotherapy.

Conclusions

These results suggest that dual carbapenem combination could be an option for the treatment of infections due to carbapenemase-producing A. baumannii such as OXA-23 and OXA-58 producers.