Transcending the challenge of evolving resistance mechanisms in Pseudomonas aeruginosa through β-lactam-enhancer-mechanism-based cefepime/zidebactam

Multi-drug resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa harbor a complex array of β-lactamases and non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms. In this study, the activity of a β-lactam/β-lactam-enhancer, cefepime/zidebactam, and novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations was determined against an MDR phenotype-enriched, challenge panel of P. aeruginosa (n = 108). Isolates were multi-clonal as they belonged to at least 29 distinct sequence types (STs) and harbored metallo-β-lactamases, serine β-lactamases, penicillin binding protein (PBP) mutations, and other non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms. Ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam, and cefepime/taniborbactam demonstrated MIC90s of >128 mg/L, while cefepime/zidebactam MIC90 was 16 mg/L. In a neutropenic-murine lung infection model, a cefepime/zidebactam human epithelial-lining fluid-simulated regimen achieved or exceeded a translational end point of 1-log10 kill for the isolates with elevated cefepime/zidebactam MICs (16-32 mg/L), harboring VIM-2 or KPC-2 and alterations in PBP2 and PBP3. In the same model, to assess the impact of zidebactam on the pharmacodynamic (PD) requirement of cefepime, dose-fractionation studies were undertaken employing cefepime-susceptible P. aeruginosa isolates. Administered alone, cefepime required 47%-68% fT >MIC for stasis to ~1 log10 kill effect, while cefepime in the presence of zidebactam required just 8%-16% for >2 log10 kill effect, thus, providing the pharmacokinetic/PD basis for in vivo efficacy of cefepime/zidebactam against isolates with MICs up to 32 mg/L. Unlike β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, β-lactam enhancer mechanism-based cefepime/zidebactam shows a potential to transcend the challenge of ever-evolving resistance mechanisms by targeting multiple PBPs and overcoming diverse β-lactamases including carbapenemases in P. aeruginosa.IMPORTANCECompared to other genera of Gram-negative pathogens, Pseudomonas is adept in acquiring complex non-enzymatic and enzymatic resistance mechanisms thus remaining a challenge to even novel antibiotics including recently developed β-lactam and β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. This study shows that the novel β-lactam enhancer approach enables cefepime/zidebactam to overcome both non-enzymatic and enzymatic resistance mechanisms associated with a challenging panel of P. aeruginosa. This study highlights that the β-lactam enhancer mechanism is a promising alternative to the conventional β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor approach in combating ever-evolving MDR P. aeruginosa.

Activity of cefepime/zidebactam against MDR Escherichia coli isolates harbouring a novel mechanism of resistance based on four-amino-acid inserts in PBP3

BACKGROUND

Recent reports reveal the emergence of Escherichia coli isolates harbouring a novel resistance mechanism based on four-amino-acid inserts in PBP3. These organisms concomitantly expressed ESBLs or/and serine-/metallo-carbapenemases and were phenotypically detected by elevated aztreonam/avibactam MICs.

OBJECTIVES

The in vitro activities of the investigational antibiotic cefepime/zidebactam and approved antibiotics (ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam and others) were determined against E. coli isolates harbouring four-amino-acid inserts in PBP3.

METHODS

Whole-genome sequenced E. coli isolates (n = 89) collected from a large tertiary care hospital in Southern India (n = 64) and from 12 tertiary care hospitals located across India (n = 25) during 2016-18, showing aztreonam/avibactam MICs ≥1 mg/L (≥4 times the aztreonam epidemiological cut-off) were included in this study. The MICs of antibiotics were determined using the reference broth microdilution method.

RESULTS

Four-amino-acid inserts [YRIK (n = 30) and YRIN (n = 53)] were found in 83/89 isolates. Among 83 isolates, 65 carried carbapenemase genes [blaNDM (n = 39), blaOXA-48-like (n = 11) and blaNDM + blaOXA-48-like (n = 15)] and 18 isolates produced ESBLs/class C β-lactamases only. At least 16 unique STs were noted. Cefepime/zidebactam demonstrated potent activity, with all isolates inhibited at ≤1 mg/L. Comparator antibiotics including ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam showed limited activities.

CONCLUSIONS

E. coli isolates concurrently harbouring four-amino-acid inserts in PBP3 and NDM are an emerging therapeutic challenge. Assisted by the PBP2-binding action of zidebactam, the cefepime/zidebactam combination overcomes both target modification (PBP3 insert)- and carbapenemase (NDM)-mediated resistance mechanisms in E. coli.

In vitro activity of cefepime/zidebactam (WCK 5222) against recent Gram-negative isolates collected from high resistance settings of Greek hospitals

Cefepime/zidebactam is in clinical development for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections. MICs of cefepime/zidebactam (1:1) and comparators against Enterobacterales (n = 563), Pseudomonas (n = 172) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n =181) collected from 15 Greek hospitals (2014-2018) were determined by reference broth microdilution method. The isolates exhibited high carbapenem resistance rates [(Enterobacterales (75%), Pseudomonas (75%) and A. baumannii (98.3%)]. Cefepime/zidebactam showed MIC_50/90 of 0.5/2 mg/L, against Enterobacterales including metallo-β-lactamases (MBL)-producers. Reduced susceptibility rates to tigecycline (16.8%), colistin (47.4%), ceftazidime/avibactam (59.8%), and imipenem/relebactam (61%) indicated high prevalence of multi-drug resistance among Greek Enterobacterales. Cefepime/zidebactam exhibited MIC_50/90 of 8/16 mg/L against Pseudomonas including MBL-producers. The MIC_50/90 of ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam were high (≥32 mg/L). Cefepime/zidebactam showed MIC₉₀ of 64 mg/L against A. baumannii which is within its therapeutic scope. Other antibiotics including colistin showed limited activity against A. baumannii. The activity of cefepime/zidebactam against multi-drug-resistant isolates is attributable to zidebactam mediated novel β-lactam-enhancer mechanism.

Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Broad-Spectrum Anti-MRSA Agent Levonadifloxacin Compared with Linezolid for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: A Phase 3, Openlabel, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Levonadifloxacin is a novel broad-spectrum anti-MRSA agents belonging to the benzoquinolizine subclass of quinolone. It is developed for oral or intravenous administration for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive organisms including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To establish the non-inferiority of levonadifloxacin compared with linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and to compare the safety of the two antimicrobials.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, open-label, active- comparator study with 500 subjects. Oral levonadifloxacin 1000 mg was compared with oral linezolid 600 mg whereas IV levonadifloxacin 800mg was compared with IV linezolid 600 mg, each treatment was administered twice daily for 7-10 days. Non-inferiority was evaluated by comparing oral levonadifloxacin to oral linezolid and IV levonadifloxacin to IV linezolid for overall clinical response at TOC (Test of Cure) Visit.

RESULTS

The clinical cure rates observed at the TOC in the mITT (modified Intent to treat) populations for levonadifloxacin was numerically higher compared to linezolid in the IV sub-group [(91.0% verses 87.8%); treatment difference of 3.2% (95%CI, -4.5 to 10.9)] and in the oral sub-group (95.2% versus 93.6%); treatment difference of 1.6 % [95%CI, -4.2 to 7.3]). As the lowerbound of the 95% CI around the treatment difference was greater than -15% for both subgroups, the primary objective of the study was met. Therefore, both IV levonadifloxacin and oral levonadifloxacin were non-inferior to IV linezolid and oral linezolid, respectively. The majority of subjects in the micro-ITT population had a baseline infection caused by S. aureus with approximately 30% of subjects having MRSA. Levonadifloxacin (IV and oral) had a higher clinical cure rate at TOC for MRSA patients compared with linezolid (IV and oral), (95.0% vs. 89.3% respectively). Levonadifloxacin showed evidence of favourable clinical and microbiological efficacy in subjects with concurrent bacteraemia as well as in subjects with diabetes including diabetic foot infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens including MRSA. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that bioavailability of oral levonadifloxacin was 90% and similar pharmacokinetic profile of levonadifloxacin by both routes provide an option for IV to oral switch for the treatment of subjects. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between treatment groups and between IV (20.8% vs. 22.4%, for levonadifloxacin and linezolid, respectively) and oral therapy (16.0% vs. 13.5%, respectively), There were no SAEs or deaths related to study drug and the majority of the AEs observed were mild in nature. Overall, the administration of both IV and oral levonadifloxacin was well-tolerated in subjects with ABSSSI.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that IV and oral levonadifloxacin therapy has excellent clinical activity against MRSA and offers advantage compared to other quinolones which generally lack MRSA coverage. Levonadifloxacin is safe and well tolerated in the treatment of ABSSSI caused by Gram -positive pathogens including MRSA as well as non-inferior to IV and oral linezolid, respectively. Similar pharmacokinetic profile of IV and oral levonadifloxacin provides an option for IV to oral switch for the treatment of subjects. Both oral and IV levonadifloxacin have recently been granted approval in India for the treatment of ABSSSI including diabetic foot infections and concurrent bacteraemia in adults (18 years of age or older). ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT03405064. CTRI No.: CTRI/2017/06/008843.