Mazen A Sid Ahmed1,2, Hamad Abdel Hadi3, Abubaker A I Hassan4, Sulieman Abu Jarir3, Muna A Al-Maslamani3, Nahla Omer Eltai5, Khalid M Dousa6, Andrea M Hujer7,8, Ali A Sultan9, Bo Soderquist2, Robert A Bonomo7,8,10,11, Emad Bashir Ibrahim1, Jana Jass2, Ali S Omrani3. 1. Microbiology Division, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. 2. The Life Science Centre, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 3. Communicable Diseases Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. 4. Division of General Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 5. Biomedical Research Center, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. 6. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Louis Stokes Cleveland, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 9. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar. 10. Departments of Pharmacology, Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Proteomics and Bioinformatics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 11. The CWRU-Cleveland VAMC Center for Antimicrobial Resistance and Epidemiology (Case VA CARES), Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the in vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam against clinical isolates of MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Qatar, as well as the mechanisms of resistance. METHODS: MDR P. aeruginosa isolated between October 2014 and September 2015 from all public hospitals in Qatar were included. The BD PhoenixTM system was used for identification and initial antimicrobial susceptibility testing, while Liofilchem MIC Test Strips (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy) were used for confirmation of ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptibility. Ten ceftazidime/avibactam- and/or ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistant isolates were randomly selected for WGS. RESULTS: A total of 205 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were included. Of these, 141 (68.8%) were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam, 129 (62.9%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, 121 (59.0%) were susceptible to both and 56 (27.3%) were susceptible to neither. Twenty (9.8%) isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam but not to ceftolozane/tazobactam and only 8 (3.9%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam but not to ceftazidime/avibactam. Less than 50% of XDR isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam or ceftolozane/tazobactam. The 10 sequenced isolates belonged to six different STs and all produced AmpC and OXA enzymes; 5 (50%) produced ESBL and 4 (40%) produced VIM enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: MDR P. aeruginosa susceptibility rates to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam were higher than those to all existing antipseudomonal agents, except colistin, but were less than 50% in extremely resistant isolates. Non-susceptibility to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam was largely due to the production of ESBL and VIM enzymes. Ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam are possible options for some patients with MDR P. aeruginosa in Qatar.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the in vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam against clinical isolates of MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Qatar, as well as the mechanisms of resistance. METHODS: MDR P. aeruginosa isolated between October 2014 and September 2015 from all public hospitals in Qatar were included. The BD PhoenixTM system was used for identification and initial antimicrobial susceptibility testing, while Liofilchem MIC Test Strips (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy) were used for confirmation of ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptibility. Ten ceftazidime/avibactam- and/or ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistant isolates were randomly selected for WGS. RESULTS: A total of 205 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were included. Of these, 141 (68.8%) were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam, 129 (62.9%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, 121 (59.0%) were susceptible to both and 56 (27.3%) were susceptible to neither. Twenty (9.8%) isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam but not to ceftolozane/tazobactam and only 8 (3.9%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam but not to ceftazidime/avibactam. Less than 50% of XDR isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam or ceftolozane/tazobactam. The 10 sequenced isolates belonged to six different STs and all produced AmpC and OXA enzymes; 5 (50%) produced ESBL and 4 (40%) produced VIM enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: MDR P. aeruginosa susceptibility rates to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam were higher than those to all existing antipseudomonal agents, except colistin, but were less than 50% in extremely resistant isolates. Non-susceptibility to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam was largely due to the production of ESBL and VIM enzymes. Ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam are possible options for some patients with MDR P. aeruginosa in Qatar.
Authors: Thomas P Lodise; Nimish Patel; Andrea Kwa; Jeffrey Graves; Jon P Furuno; Eileen Graffunder; Ben Lomaestro; Jessina C McGregor Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Deanna J Buehrle; Ryan K Shields; Liang Chen; Binghua Hao; Ellen G Press; Ammar Alkrouk; Brian A Potoski; Barry N Kreiswirth; Cornelius J Clancy; M Hong Nguyen Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Baofeng Jia; Amogelang R Raphenya; Brian Alcock; Nicholas Waglechner; Peiyao Guo; Kara K Tsang; Briony A Lago; Biren M Dave; Sheldon Pereira; Arjun N Sharma; Sachin Doshi; Mélanie Courtot; Raymond Lo; Laura E Williams; Jonathan G Frye; Tariq Elsayegh; Daim Sardar; Erin L Westman; Andrew C Pawlowski; Timothy A Johnson; Fiona S L Brinkman; Gerard D Wright; Andrew G McArthur Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Krisztina M Papp-Wallace; Andrew R Mack; Magdalena A Taracila; Robert A Bonomo Journal: Infect Dis Clin North Am Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 5.982
Authors: Dafna Yahav; Christian G Giske; Alise Grāmatniece; Henrietta Abodakpi; Vincent H Tam; Leonard Leibovici Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Jade L L Teng; Elaine Chan; Asher C H Dai; Gillian Ng; Tsz Tuen Li; Christopher Lai; Alan K L Wu; Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Gustavo Henrique Rodrigues Vale de Macedo; Gabrielle Damasceno Evangelista Costa; Elane Rodrigues Oliveira; Glauciane Viera Damasceno; Juliana Silva Pereira Mendonça; Lucas Dos Santos Silva; Vitor Lopes Chagas; José Manuel Noguera Bazán; Amanda Silva Dos Santos Aliança; Rita de Cássia Mendonça de Miranda; Adrielle Zagmignan; Andrea de Souza Monteiro; Luís Cláudio Nascimento da Silva Journal: Pathogens Date: 2021-02-02
Authors: Mazen A Sid Ahmed; Faisal Ahmad Khan; Hamad Abdel Hadi; Sini Skariah; Ali A Sultan; Abdul Salam; Abdul Latif Al Khal; Bo Söderquist; Emad Bashir Ibrahim; Ali S Omrani; Jana Jass Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-19
Authors: Christian M Gill; Elif Aktaþ; Wadha Alfouzan; Lori Bourassa; Adrian Brink; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Rafael Canton; Yehuda Carmeli; Marco Falcone; Carlos Kiffer; Anna Marchese; Octavio Martinez; Spyros Pournaras; Michael Satlin; Harald Seifert; Abrar K Thabit; Kenneth S Thomson; Maria Virginia Villegas; David P Nicolau Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.267