Karen Tan1, James Nguyen1, Kevin Nguyen1, Holly K Huse2, Paul H Nieberg3, Annie Wong-Beringer1,4. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Southern California (USC) School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Microbiology, Huntington Hospital, Pasadena, CA, USA. 3. Department of Infectious Disease, Huntington Hospital, Pasadena, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Huntington Hospital, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Carbapenem-heteroresistant (cHR) Enterobacteriaceae strains have been reported worldwide; however, the prevalence among clinical ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates obtained from patients with repeated hospital admissions remains largely unknown. METHODS: Heteroresistance was screened by disc diffusion and confirmed by a modified population analysis profiling (PAP) method against ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem and ceftolozane/tazobactam. MIC testing was performed by broth microdilution against carbapenems and a panel of agents with potential activity against ESBL-producing strains. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three ESBL-producing meropenem-susceptible Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were selected for testing. A total of 519 bacteria/carbapenem combinations were screened by disc diffusion; 84 combinations were identified as cHR. Modified PAP confirmed 70 bacteria/carbapenem combinations as heteroresistant; most (63%, 44/70) confirmed cHR colonies grew within the ertapenem zone of inhibition, followed by imipenem (30%, 21/70), then meropenem (7%, 5/70). In total, one-third of the unique patient isolates (32%, 55/173) were identified as being heteroresistant to at least one carbapenem; of those patients, 16% (9/55) had a carbapenem-non-susceptible isolate on subsequent visits. Only two cHR isolates screened positive for ceftolozane/tazobactam heteroresistance (1%, 2/173), of which one was confirmed heteroresistant by modified PAP. cHR isolates were more likely to be collected from a non-urinary source (e.g. respiratory) compared with non-cHR isolates (31% versus 19%, P = 0.02). MIC distributions of all tested antibiotic agents did not differ between non-cHR and cHR isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise concerns for the continued use of carbapenems as first-line therapy for ESBL infections and for the potential selection for strains with full carbapenem resistance.
OBJECTIVES:Carbapenem-heteroresistant (cHR) Enterobacteriaceae strains have been reported worldwide; however, the prevalence among clinical ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates obtained from patients with repeated hospital admissions remains largely unknown. METHODS: Heteroresistance was screened by disc diffusion and confirmed by a modified population analysis profiling (PAP) method against ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem and ceftolozane/tazobactam. MIC testing was performed by broth microdilution against carbapenems and a panel of agents with potential activity against ESBL-producing strains. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three ESBL-producing meropenem-susceptible Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were selected for testing. A total of 519 bacteria/carbapenem combinations were screened by disc diffusion; 84 combinations were identified as cHR. Modified PAP confirmed 70 bacteria/carbapenem combinations as heteroresistant; most (63%, 44/70) confirmed cHR colonies grew within the ertapenem zone of inhibition, followed by imipenem (30%, 21/70), then meropenem (7%, 5/70). In total, one-third of the unique patient isolates (32%, 55/173) were identified as being heteroresistant to at least one carbapenem; of those patients, 16% (9/55) had a carbapenem-non-susceptible isolate on subsequent visits. Only two cHR isolates screened positive for ceftolozane/tazobactam heteroresistance (1%, 2/173), of which one was confirmed heteroresistant by modified PAP. cHR isolates were more likely to be collected from a non-urinary source (e.g. respiratory) compared with non-cHR isolates (31% versus 19%, P = 0.02). MIC distributions of all tested antibiotic agents did not differ between non-cHR and cHR isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise concerns for the continued use of carbapenems as first-line therapy for ESBL infections and for the potential selection for strains with full carbapenem resistance.
Authors: András Fodor; Birhan Addisie Abate; Péter Deák; László Fodor; Ervin Gyenge; Michael G Klein; Zsuzsanna Koncz; Josephat Muvevi; László Ötvös; Gyöngyi Székely; Dávid Vozik; László Makrai Journal: Pathogens Date: 2020-06-29