Literature DB >> 30420477

Efficacy of Humanized Cefiderocol Exposures over 72 Hours against a Diverse Group of Gram-Negative Isolates in the Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model.

Sean M Stainton1,2, Marguerite L Monogue1, Masakatsu Tsuji3, Yoshinori Yamano3, Roger Echols4, David P Nicolau5,6.   

Abstract

Herein, we evaluated sustainability of humanized exposures of cefiderocol in vivo over 72 h against pathogens with cefiderocol MICs of 0.5 to 16 μg/ml in the neutropenic murine thigh model. In Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae displaying MICs of 0.5 to 8 μg/ml (n = 11), sustained kill was observed at 72 h among 9 isolates. Postexposure MICs revealed a single 2-dilution increase in one animal compared with controls (1/54 samples, 1.8%) at 72 h. Adaptive resistance during therapy was not observed.
Copyright © 2019 Stainton et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gram-negative bacteria; pharmacodynamics; pharmacokinetics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30420477      PMCID: PMC6355589          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01040-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


INTRODUCTION

Standard pharmacodynamic assessment studies designed to quantify antimicrobial efficacy typically occur over 24 h. However, prolonged (i.e., 72-h) studies have demonstrated additional insight into the characterization of a drug’s rate, extent, and robustness of antimicrobial activity (1, 2). The effect of humanized doses of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, was recently characterized across a wide array of clinical isolates in the neutropenic murine thigh infection model. Data from these 24-h pharmacodynamic studies revealed that cefiderocol humanized exposures produced predictable bacterial kill against multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative isolates with MICs (MICs) of ≤4 μg/ml (3). Little is known about the sustained antimicrobial effect of cefiderocol beyond 24 h. Furthermore, previous studies with siderophore monobactams demonstrated adaptive resistance in the presence of antibiotic pressure (4, 5). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the sustainability of cefiderocol activity in vivo over 72 h against Gram-negative pathogens and to characterize the phenotypic and genotypic profiles of organisms recovered postexposure. Shionogi & Co., Ltd., supplied cefiderocol vials (lot 12M01) for the purposes of in vivo testing. The cefiderocol dosing regimen utilized has been validated in several studies with the same mouse model to provide exposures equivalent to those in humans attained after administration of 2 g every 8 h (q8h) (3 h infusion) (3, 6, 7). Commercially available cefepime acquired from Cardinal Health, Inc. (1 g; lot 106014C; Sagent Pharmaceuticals) was also utilized. Cefepime vials were reconstituted and diluted with 0.9% normal saline and administered in volumes of 0.2 ml as subcutaneous injections at doses simulating those equivalent to 2 g q8h (3 h infusion) in humans (7). A total of 12 Gram-negative isolates (2 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, 4 Acinetobacter baumannii isolates, and 6 Enterobacteriaceae isolates) with cefiderocol MICs ranging from 0.5 to 16 μg/ml were provided by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., or IHMA, Inc. These isolates were selected from among those utilized in the previous 24-h pharmacodynamic study representing various species across a range of cefiderocol MICs, having shown modest efficacy despite lower MICs to cefiderocol (3). By use of iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (ID-CAMHB), as recommended by CLSI, isolates were screened for cefiderocol MICs in triplicate, and the modal value was reported (8). Cefepime MICs were determined in triplicate according to CLSI broth microdilution methods (9). For isolates shown to regrow at 72 h or to otherwise display an unexpected response (ranging from stasis to 4 log growth) despite cefiderocol MICs predictive of susceptibility (i.e., KP 543, EC 458, KP 539, AB 152, EC 462, KP 531), a bacterial sample from a single thigh of treated and control animals was collected and tested for its cefiderocol postexposure MIC at 24, 48, and 72 h. Any change in MIC of >2-fold compared with those in infected controls in the same period of exposure was considered meaningful. All retest MICs were performed in triplicate using ID-CAMHB. Subsequent whole-genome sequencing was performed on bacterial isolates after cefiderocol exposure and on paired in vivo controls. All genotypic analyses were performed with the CLC genomics workbench (version 11; Qiagen). Reads from whole-genome shotgun sequencing on an Illumina HiSeq (150-bp paired-end reads) were sampled down to a predicted coverage depth of 75× for each genome, and de novo assembly was performed. β-Lactamase genes were identified by use of the “find resistance” module, which utilizes the same database as that utilized by ResFinder (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/ResFinder/). All β-lactamase genes identified had 100% nucleotide sequence identity and length of the specified reference except for the endogenous class C β-lactamase gene of Escherichia coli, blaEC, which had 97% identity to the reference in each isolate. MLST was carried out on a guided assembly utilizing the most closely related closed genome in NCBI (Find Best Matches using K-mer Spectra tool) as the reference sequence. A minimum coverage depth of 30× for each of the 7 loci was obtained. MLST databases were acquired from PubMLST (https://pubmlst.org/), and the Achtman scheme was used for E. coli isolates. Genome assemblies from the two control isolates, 32a (E. coli) and 73a (Klebsiella pneumoniae), were annotated with the rapid annotation using subsystem technology (RAST) pipeline (10–12). Reads from the treated-isolate genomes were aligned to the annotated contigs of their respective control isolates, and the Basic Variant Detection tool was used to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small in/del mutations in the treated isolates. Positions with <20× or >300× read depths were ignored. If the mutation had an impact on the sequence of an annotated gene, the resultant amino acid variation was indicated. Reads from samples 32a and 73a were aligned to their own annotated assemblies for mutational analysis as described above. Any mutations identified this way were considered spurious and were not reported when identified in the genomes of the treated strains. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Hartford Hospital. Animals were prepared by using a previously described murine thigh infection model (13). All isolates were stored frozen at −80°C in skim milk (BD BioSciences, Sparks, MD). Before mouse thigh inoculation, two bacterial transfers were performed onto Trypticase soy agar plates containing 5% sheep blood (TSA II; Becton, Dickinson & Co., Sparks, MD). Subsequently, a suspension containing ∼107 CFU/ml was made for inoculation. Thigh infection was established via intramuscular injection of the inoculum (0.1 ml) into each thigh 2 h before the initiation of antimicrobial therapy. In total, 12 isolates (2 P. aeruginosa [MIC range, 2 to 4 μg/ml], 4 A. baumannii [MIC range, 0.5 to 16 μg/ml], and 6 Enterobacteriaceae [MIC range, 1 to 8 μg/ml]) were tested in the neutropenic thigh infection model. Cefiderocol preexposure and comparator MIC values are presented in Table 1. Control animals were dosed with vehicle. For isolates treated only with cefiderocol (i.e., no cefepime control), groups of 3 animals were assigned to 0-h control and to control, cefiderocol, or cefepime groups corresponding to 24-, 48-, and 72-h time points. Animals that did not survive to the time allotted were grouped with the interval corresponding to the time at which they were found deceased. After the animals were killed, the thighs were removed and individually homogenized in normal saline. Samples were serially diluted and plated on agar medium for enumeration of bacterial burden. Changes in CFU for each thigh relative to 0 h were determined at 24, 48, and 72 h, and average values (± standard deviations) were determined for each group. Efficacy was defined as a reduction in bacterial burden relative to 0 h control.
TABLE 1

MICs of preexposure cefiderocol and comparators against a collection of 12 P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, and Enterobacteriaceae isolates

IsolateMIC (μg/ml) fora:
CefiderocolFEPMEMCAZTZP
AB 1350.5ND128NDND
AB 152164128NDND
EC 4621>640.06>128>128
EC 45815120.06>128>64
PSA 15742816NDND
PSA 1595421NDND
KP 5314>64256>64>32
KP 5194>64512>32>32
KP 5394>5120.12128128
AB 874>16256>16>64
KP 5438>512NDNDND
AB 8416>6464>16>64

MEM, meropenem; FEP, cefepime; CAZ, ceftazidime; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; ND, no data.

MICs of preexposure cefiderocol and comparators against a collection of 12 P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, and Enterobacteriaceae isolates MEM, meropenem; FEP, cefepime; CAZ, ceftazidime; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; ND, no data. Average initial bacterial burden at 0 h among the isolates was 6.08 ± 0.25 log10 CFU/thigh for A. baumannii, 5.49 ± 0.23 log10 CFU/thigh for P. aeruginosa, 5.91 ± 0.44 log10 CFU/thigh for E. coli, and 5.92 ± 0.24 log10 CFU/thigh for K. pneumoniae. In isolates displaying initial kill at 24 h after human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol, a sustained antimicrobial effect was observed over the subsequent 48-h dosing period (Fig. 1 to 4). Cefepime-resistant isolates (EC 458, KP 539, KP 543; MIC, ≥512 μg/ml) showed kill on cefiderocol therapy, while validation of the model was confirmed as comparator animals receiving human-simulated exposures of cefepime grew >3 log10 CFU at 72 h (Fig. 4).
FIG 1

Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among A. baumannii isolates. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): A. baumannii 135, 0.5 (A); A. baumannii 152, 1 (B); A. baumannii 84, 16 (C); A. baumannii 87, 4 (D). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate.

FIG 4

Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol and cefepime compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among Enterobacteriaceae. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): E. coli 458, 1/512 (A); K. pneumoniae 539, 4/>512 (B); K. pneumoniae 543, 8/>512 (C). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate.

Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among A. baumannii isolates. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): A. baumannii 135, 0.5 (A); A. baumannii 152, 1 (B); A. baumannii 84, 16 (C); A. baumannii 87, 4 (D). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate. Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among P. aeruginosa isolates. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): P. aeruginosa 1574, 2 (A); P. aeruginosa 1595, 4 (B). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate. Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among Enterobacteriaceae. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): K. pneumoniae 531, 4 (A); K. pneumoniae 519, 4 (B); E. coli 462, 1 (C). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate. Efficacy of human-simulated exposures of cefiderocol and cefepime compared with same-period untreated controls at 24, 48, and 72 h among Enterobacteriaceae. Isolate cefiderocol preexposure MICs (μg/ml): E. coli 458, 1/512 (A); K. pneumoniae 539, 4/>512 (B); K. pneumoniae 543, 8/>512 (C). Absence of control data at any given interval indicates zero survival for that isolate. Results from the retest MICs after cefiderocol exposure showed a 2-dilution change in only one treated animal (1/54 samples [1.8%]). The MIC in this single sample increased from 1 to 4 μg/ml for isolate E. coli 462 at 72 h, while two additional samples from similarly infected animals with E. coli 462 showed no change after 72 h of cefiderocol exposure. As expected, isolates 40a, 41a, and 42b shared the same sequence type and horizontally transferred β-lactamases as isolate 32a, namely, ST410 (ST23 complex) and blaCMY-42, respectively (Table 2). Similarly, isolate 82a had the same ST and β-lactamase genes as 73a, i.e., ST258 and blaSHV-12 and blaKPC-2, respectively.
TABLE 2

Whole-genome sequencing for selected isolates from infected animals after 72 h of no treatment or cefiderocol exposure

IsolateSampleRegimen at 72 hMLSTβ-LactamaseLesion relative to control
E. coli 46232aControl410blaEC; blaCMY-42Not applicable
E. coli 46240aCefiderocol410blaEC; blaCMY-42None identified
E. coli 46241aCefiderocol410blaEC; blaCMY-42ΔpcnB, S100A in EMU65688.1
E. coli 46242bCefiderocol410blaEC; blaCMY-42None identified
K. pneumoniae 53173aControl258blaSHV-12; blaKPC-2Not applicable
K. pneumoniae 53182aCefiderocol258blaSHV-12; blaKPC-2None identified
Whole-genome sequencing for selected isolates from infected animals after 72 h of no treatment or cefiderocol exposure The single sample, E. coli 462 (sample 41a [Table 2]), which displayed elevated MICs to cefiderocol compared to the unexposed control isolate (sample 32a), is the only isolate in which mutations were identified coding for changes in annotated protein sequences. Notably, a 4-base deletion of “CCAG” was identified that resulted in a frameshift at amino acid position 54 in the RNA poly(A) polymerase gene pcnB. The other mutation found in 41a was an SNP in a transposase 38 nucleotides from the edge of contig 59. While the mutation did code for an amino acid change (S100A), it is notable that transposases and other multiple copy genes will be prone to erroneous mapping in de novo assembly. No deduced amino acid sequence changes were identified in the other cefiderocol-exposed samples of E. coli 462 (40a or 42b relative to 32a), nor were any changes found in K. pneumoniae 531 isolates (sample 82a relative to 73a [Table 2]), leaving the predicted deletion of pcnB in EC 462 sample 41 as the sole lesion identified in any of the postexposure bacteria. Examples of adaptive resistance following siderophore-conjugated monobactam exposure are well documented (4, 5). In such cases, despite supratherapeutic exposure of the siderophore antibiotic, bacterial growth similar to that in control animals was observed at 24 h. Moreover, resistant mutants rapidly evolved (4). In the current study, following human-simulated exposure of cefiderocol at 24 h, regrowth to the level of control was not observed. Furthermore, continued treatment at 48 and 72 h showed sustained kill in most isolates. For bacteria demonstrating cumulative regrowth (i.e., E. coli 462 and K. pneumoniae 531), the pattern of regrowth over the initial 24-h treatment period was inconsistent with the emergence of resistance observed with other siderophores (4, 5). Moreover, the phenomenon of adaptive resistance was not observed over the extended 72-h treatment period. The underlying mechanism behind this discordance between in vitro susceptibility and in vivo regrowth is not well understood. Documented cases of persister cells in the context of Gram-negative organisms against conventional antibiotic agents have been described in the literature (14). Previous investigations into the mutations noted in our single isolate revealed that deletion of this gene led to a large regulatory switch, leading to changes in expression in multiple systems, including downregulation of the ferrichrome receptor operon fhuABCD, although these mutational changes have failed to demonstrate a link to cefiderocol resistance (15, 16). Among a diverse group of Gram-negative isolates with a range of cefiderocol MICs, humanized exposures of the compound displayed sustained in vivo antibacterial effects over a 72-h period. Moreover, postexposure MIC studies revealed that the phenotypic profile for cefiderocol remained largely unchanged. Taken together, our current findings further illuminate the pharmacodynamic profile of this novel siderophore against resistant Gram-negative organisms.
  15 in total

1.  Landscape of RNA polyadenylation in E. coli.

Authors:  Alexandre Maes; Céline Gracia; Nicolas Innocenti; Kaiyang Zhang; Erik Aurell; Eliane Hajnsdorf
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Efficacy of Humanized Exposures of Cefiderocol (S-649266) against a Diverse Population of Gram-Negative Bacteria in a Murine Thigh Infection Model.

Authors:  Marguerite L Monogue; Masakatsu Tsuji; Yoshinori Yamano; Roger Echols; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Pharmacodynamic Profiling of a Siderophore-Conjugated Monocarbam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Assessing the Risk for Resistance and Attenuated Efficacy.

Authors:  Aryun Kim; Amy Kutschke; David E Ehmann; Sara A Patey; Jared L Crandon; Elise Gorseth; Alita A Miller; Robert E McLaughlin; Christina M Blinn; April Chen; Asha S Nayar; Brian Dangel; Andy S Tsai; Michael T Rooney; Kerry E Murphy-Benenato; Ann E Eakin; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Comparative efficacies of human simulated exposures of tedizolid and linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus in the murine thigh infection model.

Authors:  R A Keel; P R Tessier; J L Crandon; D P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2012-06-11       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Pharmacodynamics of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa neutropenic murine thigh model.

Authors:  Islam M Ghazi; Marguerite L Monogue; Masakatsu Tsuji; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 5.283

6.  Tigecycline displays in vivo bactericidal activity against extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae after 72-hour exposure period.

Authors:  Pamela R Tessier; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Humanized Exposures of Cefiderocol, a Siderophore Cephalosporin, Display Sustained in vivo Activity against Siderophore-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Islam M Ghazi; Marguerite L Monogue; Masakatsu Tsuji; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Pharmacology       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 2.547

8.  In Vitro Activity of the Siderophore Cephalosporin, Cefiderocol, against a Recent Collection of Clinically Relevant Gram-Negative Bacilli from North America and Europe, Including Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 Study).

Authors:  Meredith A Hackel; Masakatsu Tsuji; Yoshinori Yamano; Roger Echols; James A Karlowsky; Daniel F Sahm
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology.

Authors:  Ramy K Aziz; Daniela Bartels; Aaron A Best; Matthew DeJongh; Terrence Disz; Robert A Edwards; Kevin Formsma; Svetlana Gerdes; Elizabeth M Glass; Michael Kubal; Folker Meyer; Gary J Olsen; Robert Olson; Andrei L Osterman; Ross A Overbeek; Leslie K McNeil; Daniel Paarmann; Tobias Paczian; Bruce Parrello; Gordon D Pusch; Claudia Reich; Rick Stevens; Olga Vassieva; Veronika Vonstein; Andreas Wilke; Olga Zagnitko
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 3.969

10.  The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST).

Authors:  Ross Overbeek; Robert Olson; Gordon D Pusch; Gary J Olsen; James J Davis; Terry Disz; Robert A Edwards; Svetlana Gerdes; Bruce Parrello; Maulik Shukla; Veronika Vonstein; Alice R Wattam; Fangfang Xia; Rick Stevens
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Cefiderocol: Systematic Review of Mechanisms of Resistance, Heteroresistance and In Vivo Emergence of Resistance.

Authors:  Stamatis Karakonstantis; Maria Rousaki; Evangelos I Kritsotakis
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-27

Review 2.  Cefiderocol for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria: A Systematic Review of Currently Available Evidence.

Authors:  Chuanhai Wang; Deqing Yang; Yifan Wang; Wentao Ni
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 5.988

Review 3.  Efficacy and In Vitro Activity of Novel Antibiotics for Infections With Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens.

Authors:  Flora Cruz-López; Adrian Martínez-Meléndez; Rayo Morfin-Otero; Eduardo Rodriguez-Noriega; Héctor J Maldonado-Garza; Elvira Garza-González
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 6.073

4.  Development of Neutropenic Murine Models of Iron Overload and Depletion To Study the Efficacy of Siderophore-Antibiotic Conjugates.

Authors:  James M Kidd; Kamilia Abdelraouf; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Efficacy of Humanized Cefiderocol Exposure Is Unaltered by Host Iron Overload in the Thigh Infection Model.

Authors:  James M Kidd; Kamilia Abdelraouf; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 6.  Cefiderocol: A Review in Serious Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections.

Authors:  Yahiya Y Syed
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2021-08-24       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales: Considerations for Treatment in the Era of New Antimicrobials and Evolving Enzymology.

Authors:  Maxwell J Lasko; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 8.  Evaluating Cefiderocol in the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli: A Review of the Emerging Data.

Authors:  Daniele Roberto Giacobbe; Eugenio Ciacco; Corrado Girmenia; Federico Pea; Gian Maria Rossolini; Giovanni Sotgiu; Carlo Tascini; Mario Tumbarello; Pierluigi Viale; Matteo Bassetti
Journal:  Infect Drug Resist       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Assessment of sustained efficacy and resistance emergence under human-simulated exposure of cefiderocol against Acinetobacter baumannii using in vitro chemostat and in vivo murine infection models.

Authors:  Christian M Gill; Kamilia Abdelraouf; Merime Oota; Rio Nakamura; Miho Kuroiwa; Yoshino Ishioka; Miki Takemura; Yoshinori Yamano; David P Nicolau
Journal:  JAC Antimicrob Resist       Date:  2022-05-03

Review 10.  Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cefiderocol.

Authors:  Muhammad Bilal; Lobna El Tabei; Sören Büsker; Christian Krauss; Uwe Fuhr; Max Taubert
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2021-08-22       Impact factor: 6.447

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.