BMC microbiology · 2021
Avibactam potentiated the activity of both ceftazidime and aztreonam against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Qiuxia, Zou Hua, Chen Xian, Wu Menglu, Ma Deyu, Yu Hanbing, Niu Siqiang, Huang Shifeng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Treatment options for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia) infections were limited. We assessed the efficacy of ceftazidime (CAZ), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI), aztreonam (ATM), and aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) against a selection of 76 S. maltophilia out of the 1179 strains isolated from the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018.
METHODS: We investigated the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the 1179 S. maltophilia clinical isolates from the first affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018, a collection of 76 isolates were selected for further study of microbiological characterization. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of CAZ, CAZ-AVI, ATM and ATM-AVI were determined via the broth microdilution method. We deemed that CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ or ATM alone when CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI led to a category change from "Resistant" or "Intermediate" with CAZ or ATM alone to "Susceptible" with CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI, or if the MIC of CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was at least 4-fold lower than the MIC of CAZ or ATM alone.
RESULTS: For the 76 clinical isolates included in the study, MICs of CAZ, ATM, CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI ranged from 0.03-64, 1-1024, 0.016-64, and 0.06-64 μg/mL, respectively. In combined therapy, AVI was active at restoring the activity of 48.48% (16/33) and 89.71% (61/68) of S. maltophilia to CAZ and ATM, respectively. Furthermore, CAZ-AVI showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (77.63% vs. 56.58%, P < 0.001), and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 8 μg/mL, P < 0.05) when compared to CAZ. According to our definition, CAZ-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ alone for 81.58% (62/76) of the isolates. Similarly, ATM-AVI also showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (90.79% vs.10.53%, P < 0.001) and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 64 μg/mL, P < 0.001) when compared to ATM. According to our definition, ATM-AVI was also more active in vitro than ATM alone for 94.74% (72/76) of the isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: AVI potentiated the activity of both CAZ and ATM against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro. We demonstrated that CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI are both useful therapeutic options to treat infections caused by S. maltophilia.
METHODS: We investigated the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the 1179 S. maltophilia clinical isolates from the first affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018, a collection of 76 isolates were selected for further study of microbiological characterization. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of CAZ, CAZ-AVI, ATM and ATM-AVI were determined via the broth microdilution method. We deemed that CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ or ATM alone when CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI led to a category change from "Resistant" or "Intermediate" with CAZ or ATM alone to "Susceptible" with CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI, or if the MIC of CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was at least 4-fold lower than the MIC of CAZ or ATM alone.
RESULTS: For the 76 clinical isolates included in the study, MICs of CAZ, ATM, CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI ranged from 0.03-64, 1-1024, 0.016-64, and 0.06-64 μg/mL, respectively. In combined therapy, AVI was active at restoring the activity of 48.48% (16/33) and 89.71% (61/68) of S. maltophilia to CAZ and ATM, respectively. Furthermore, CAZ-AVI showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (77.63% vs. 56.58%, P < 0.001), and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 8 μg/mL, P < 0.05) when compared to CAZ. According to our definition, CAZ-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ alone for 81.58% (62/76) of the isolates. Similarly, ATM-AVI also showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (90.79% vs.10.53%, P < 0.001) and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 64 μg/mL, P < 0.001) when compared to ATM. According to our definition, ATM-AVI was also more active in vitro than ATM alone for 94.74% (72/76) of the isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: AVI potentiated the activity of both CAZ and ATM against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro. We demonstrated that CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI are both useful therapeutic options to treat infections caused by S. maltophilia.