Performance of ceftazidime/avibactam susceptibility testing methods against clinically relevant Gram-negative organisms

Approaches to Testing Novel β-Lactam and β-Lactam Combination Agents in the Clinical Laboratory

The rapid emergence of multi-drug resistant Gram-negative pathogens has driven the introduction of novel β-lactam combination agents (BLCs) to the antibiotic market: ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol, and sulbactam-durlobactam. These agents are equipped with innovative mechanisms that confer broad Gram-negative activity, notably against certain challenging carbapenemases. While their introduction offers a beacon of hope, clinical microbiology laboratories must navigate the complexities of susceptibility testing for these agents due to their diverse activity profiles against specific β-lactamases and the possibility of acquired resistance mechanisms in some bacterial isolates. This review explores the complexities of these novel antimicrobial agents detailing the intricacies of their application, providing guidance on the nuances of susceptibility testing, interpretation, and result reporting in clinical microbiology laboratories.

Performance of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg and 10/4-μg Disks for Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a new β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combination, is active against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and has became available for clinical use in China in the latter half of 2019. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the disk diffusion test with ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg and 30/20-μg disks, compared with the reference broth microdilution method, with a collection of 467 Enterobacterales and 182 P. aeruginosa nonduplicate clinical isolates. The results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing indicated that the categorical agreement (CA) of ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing for all tested Enterobacterales isolates was 99.8%, with 0.5% very major errors (VMEs) and no major error (ME). The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing for all tested P. aeruginosa isolates was 87.9%, with 15.5% MEs and no VME. The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 30/20-μg disk testing for all tested Enterobacterales isolates was 99.4%, with 1.5% VMEs and no ME. The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 30/20-μg disk testing for all tested P. aeruginosa isolates was 91.8%, with 2.5% VMEs and 9.9% MEs. Overall, ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing showed superior performance and was more suitable for assessment of the susceptibility of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates. IMPORTANCE Multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa strains have become a global public threat, with the emergence and prevalence of plasmid-mediated extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC cephalosporinases, and carbapenemases disseminated worldwide. Ceftazidime-avibactam, which is commercially available, has shown excellent in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates. Moreover, ceftazidime-avibactam has shown promise in treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant and carbapenem-resistant isolates. The disk diffusion test for ceftazidime-avibactam is the most common antimicrobial susceptibility testing method in most laboratories in China. The accurate detection of ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility is of great significance for the rational clinical application of drugs. Here, we evaluated the performance of the ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg and 30/20-μg disk diffusion tests, compared with the reference broth microdilution method, with clinical Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates.

Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods

This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioMérieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6% and 0.0% (VITEK 2) and 56.9% and 0.0% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0% and 40.4% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.

Resistance to Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Meropenem/Vaborbactam and Imipenem/Relebactam in Gram-Negative MDR Bacilli: Molecular Mechanisms and Susceptibility Testing

Multidrug resistance (MDR) represents a serious global threat due to the rapid global spread and limited antimicrobial options for treatment of difficult-to-treat (DTR) infections sustained by MDR pathogens. Recently, novel β-lactams/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (βL-βLICs) have been developed for the treatment of DTR infections due to MDR Gram-negative pathogens. Although novel βL-βLICs exhibited promising in vitro and in vivo activities against MDR pathogens, emerging resistances to these novel molecules have recently been reported. Resistance to novel βL-βLICs is due to several mechanisms including porin deficiencies, increasing carbapenemase expression and/or enzyme mutations. In this review, we summarized the main mechanisms related to the resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam and imipenem/relebactam in MDR Gram-negative micro-organisms. We focused on antimicrobial activities and resistance traits with particular regard to molecular mechanisms related to resistance to novel βL-βLICs. Lastly, we described and discussed the main detection methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of such molecules. With increasing reports of resistance to novel βL-βLICs, continuous attention should be maintained on the monitoring of the phenotypic traits of MDR pathogens, into the characterization of related mechanisms, and on the emergence of cross-resistance to these novel antimicrobials.

German Multicenter Study Analyzing Antimicrobial Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam of Clinical Meropenem-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Using a Commercially Available Broth Microdilution Assay

Multidrug resistance is an emerging healthcare issue, especially concerning Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In this multicenter study, P. aeruginosa isolates with resistance against meropenem detected by routine methods were collected and tested for carbapenemase production and susceptibility against ceftazidime-avibactam. Meropenem-resistant isolates of P. aeruginosa from various clinical materials were collected at 11 tertiary care hospitals in Germany from 2017−2019. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined via microdilution plates (MICRONAUT-S) of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem at each center. Detection of the presence of carbapenemases was performed by PCR or immunochromatography. For meropenem-resistant isolates (n = 448), the MIC range of ceftazidime-avibactam was 0.25−128 mg/L, MIC90 was 128 mg/L and MIC50 was 16 mg/L. According to EUCAST clinical breakpoints, 213 of all meropenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates were categorized as susceptible (47.5%) to ceftazidime-avibactam. Metallo-β-lactamases (MBL) could be detected in 122 isolates (27.3%). The MIC range of ceftazidime-avibactam in MBL-positive isolates was 4−128 mg/L, MIC90 was >128 mg/L and MIC50 was 32 mg/L. There was strong variation in the prevalence of MBL-positive isolates among centers. Our in vitro results support ceftazidime-avibactam as a treatment option against infections caused by meropenem-resistant, MBL-negative P. aeruginosa.

The Ins and Outs of Susceptibility Testing for New β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations for Gram-Negative Organisms

Ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, and imipenem-relebactam are among the newest β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLIs) introduced to the North American antibiotic market. All have broad Gram-negative activity, including against certain carbapenemases. Despite this, susceptibility testing is warranted due to variable activity against certain β-lactamases (e.g., oxacillinases) and the presence of acquired resistance mechanisms in some isolates. Here, we discuss what we know about these new antimicrobial agents and how to navigate implementation of susceptibility testing and reporting of these agents in clinical laboratories.

Evaluation of MicroScan WalkAway for Determination of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Susceptibility in Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli

We evaluated the performance of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam MicroScan Neg multidrug-resistant MIC 1 (NMR1) panel for clinical carbapenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative bacilli isolates. We evaluated 212 clinically significant carbapenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative bacilli (139 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 73 KPC-producing Enterobacterales) from 71 Brazilian hospitals (2013 to 2020). Ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam MICs from the panel were compared with a broth microdilution (BMD) test as the reference method. Essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) were assessed. For P. aeruginosa, antimicrobial susceptibility testing error rates were calculated using the error-rate bound method. Discrepancies were initially observed with 11 isolates; 4 resolved after retesting, 2 in favor of the NMR1 and 2 in favor of the BMD method. The ceftazidime-avibactam EA (overall and evaluable) was 100% for P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales. The CA was 100% for Enterobacterales and 98.6% for P. aeruginosa. The ceftolozane-tazobactam EA was 98.6% and 100% (overall and evaluable, respectively), and the CA was 96.4% for P. aeruginosa. For ceftazidime/avibactam, no very major error (VME) was found, and the major error (ME) rate was 4.2% (2/48). For ceftolozane-tazobactam and P. aeruginosa, using the CLSI breakpoints, the minor error (mE) was 11.4%, and no VME or ME was found. While using EUCAST breakpoints, the VME was 11.4% with no ME. The mE becomes ME or VME in the absence of the intermediate category. All categorical errors were also within 1 log of MIC variation, and the adjusted error rate for CLSI/EUCAST was 0% (0/212). The NMR1 panel is an option to test ceftazidime-avibactam for KPC-producing Enterobacterales and carbapenem-nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa. When a MIC of 4 mg/liter for ceftolozane-tazobactam is obtained using this method, an alert could be created, and the results could be confirmed by an alternative method.

Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime-Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study

Objectives: Ceftazidime–avibactam is a novel synthetic beta-lactam + beta-lactamase inhibitor combination. We evaluated the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method and the disk diffusion method for the determination of ceftazidime–avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 302 clinical Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from two centers were conducted by broth microdilution (BMD), gradient diffusion strip method, and disk diffusion method for ceftazidime–avibactam. Using BMD as a gold standard, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. CA and EA rate > 90%, ME rate < 3%, and VME rate < 1.5% were considered as acceptable criteria. Polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing were performed to determine the carbapenem resistance genes of all 302 isolates.

Results: A total of 302 strains were enrolled, among which 182 strains were from center 1 and 120 strains were from center 2. A percentage of 18.21% (55/302) of the enrolled isolates were resistant to ceftazidime–avibactam. The CA rates of the gradient diffusion strip method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 98.65% (73/74), respectively, and the EA rates were 97.37% (222/228) and 98.65% (73/74), respectively. The CA rates of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 95.95% (71/74), respectively. No VMEs were found by using the gradient diffusion strip method, while the ME rate was 0.40% (1/247). No MEs were found by using the disk diffusion method, but the VME rate was 5.45% (3/55). Therefore, all the parameters of the gradient diffusion strip method were in line with acceptable criteria. For 31 bla_KPC, 33 bla_NDM, 7 bla_IMP, and 2 bla_VIM positive isolates, both CA and EA rates were 100%; no MEs or VMEs were detected by either method. For 15 carbapenemase-non-producing resistant isolates, the CA and EA rates of the gradient diffusion strips method were 100%. Whereas the CA rate of the disk diffusion method was 80.00% (12/15), the VME rate was 20.00% (3/15).

Conclusion: The gradient diffusion strip method can meet the needs of clinical microbiological laboratories for testing the susceptibility of ceftazidime–avibactam drugs. However, the VME rate > 1.5% (5.45%) by the disk diffusion method. By comparison, the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method was better than that of the disk diffusion method.

Comparison of Etest and broth microdilution for evaluating the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae to ceftaroline and of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime/avibactam

OBJECTIVES

Decreased susceptibility to ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) and ceftaroline (CPT) has been reported during antimicrobial resistance surveillance and therapy. Conventional laboratories are unable to provide timely susceptibility testing for CZA and CPT because these antimicrobial agents are not incorporated in automated susceptibility testing systems.

METHODS

We evaluated Etest and the Sensititre broth microdilution (BMD) method for testing CZA against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli and CPT against important Gram-positive cocci bloodstream isolates. Genotypes of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales were also determined using the Xpert® Carba-R assay.

RESULTS

Etest showed ≥90% agreement with Sensititre BMD for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) (n = 187), carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CREC) (n = 28) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 35); however, the very major error rate exceeded 3%. Agreement between Etest and Sensititre BMD was <90% for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) (n = 81), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (n = 92) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) (n = 170). Both agents remained potent with a high susceptibility rate by Sensititre BMD as follows: CZA against CRKP (95.0%), CREC (89.3%) and CRPA (84.5%); and CPT against MSSA (100.0%), MRSA (95.3%) and S. pneumoniae (94.3%). CZA was active against blaKPC-carrying CRKP (98.5% susceptible), and resistance in the majority of CZA-resistant Enterobacterales isolates (6 of 10 CRKP and 2 of 3 CREC) was due to the presence of a metallo-β-lactamase gene.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that interpretation of susceptibility results obtained by Etest for both agents should be undertaken cautiously and remains challenging.

Ceftazidime - Avibactam susceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in a pilot study in Turkey

This study aimed to detect carbapenemase genes and to determine the in vitro susceptibility of Ceftazidime-Avibactam (CZA) in Enterobacterales isolates. Carbapenemase genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction. CZA sensitivity of isolates was evaluated with broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion methods. A total of 318 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates were included. Most of the isolates (n = 290, 91.2%) were identified as Klebsiella pneumoniae. The most common carbapenemase type was OXA-48 (n = 82, 27.6%). CZA susceptibility was evaluated in 84 isolates with OXA-48 and KPC carbapenemase activity. Both BMD and disk diffusion methods revealed that 95.2% of the isolates were sensitive to CZA; whereas, 4 (4.76%) isolates were resistant to CZA. Among colistin resistant isolates, 96.5% (n = 80) of them were susceptible to CZA. Our study demonstrated high in vitro efficacy of CZA in Enterobacterales isolates producing OXA-48 carbapenemase. High susceptibility rates against colistin resistant isolates which generally are also pan drug resistant, makes CZA a promising therapeutic choice for difficult-to-treat infections. Due to its high correlation with the BMD, disk diffusion method is a suitable and more practical method in detecting CZA in vitro activity.