Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against surveillance and 'problem' Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and non-fermenters from the British Isles.

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections (AMRHAI) Reference Unit, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
      Authors
    • Livermore DM 1
    • Mushtaq S 1
    • Meunier D 1
    • Hopkins KL 1
    • Hill R 1
    • Adkin R 1
    • Chaudhry A 1
    • Pike R 1
    • Staves P 1
    • Woodford N 1
    (10 authors)

ORCIDs linked to this article

The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 01 Aug 2017, 72(8):2278-2289
https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx136 PMID: 28520867 PMCID: PMC5890766

This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC

Abstract 

Background

We assessed the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against consecutive isolates collected in the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance from 2011 to 2015 and against 'problem' isolates sent to the UK national reference laboratory from July 2015, when routine testing began.

Methods

Susceptibility testing was by BSAC agar dilution with resistance mechanisms identified by PCR and interpretive reading.

Results

Data were reviewed for 6080 BSAC surveillance isolates and 5473 referred organisms. Ceftolozane/tazobactam had good activity against unselected ESBL producers in the BSAC series, but activity was reduced against ertapenem-resistant ESBL producers, which were numerous among reference submissions. AmpC-derepressed Enterobacter spp. were widely resistant, but Escherichia coli with raised chromosomal AmpC frequently remained susceptible, as did Klebsiella pneumoniae with acquired DHA-1-type AmpC. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae were mostly resistant, except for ceftazidime-susceptible isolates with OXA-48-like enzymes. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was active against 99.8% of the BSAC Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates; against referred P. aeruginosa it was active against 99.7% with moderately raised efflux, 94.7% with strongly raised efflux and 96.6% with derepressed AmpC. Resistance in P. aeruginosa was largely confined to isolates with metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) or ESBLs. MICs for referred Burkholderia spp. and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were 2-4-fold lower than those of ceftazidime.

Conclusions

Ceftolozane/tazobactam is active against ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae; gains against other problem Enterobacteriaceae groups were limited. Against P. aeruginosa it overcame the two most prevalent mechanisms (up-regulated efflux and derepressed AmpC) and was active against 51.9% of isolates non-susceptible to all other β-lactams, rising to 80.9% if ESBL and MBL producers were excluded.

Free full text 

Logo of jacLink to Publisher's site
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Aug; 72(8): 2278–2289.
Published online 2017 May 16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx136
PMCID: PMC5890766
PMID: 28520867

Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against surveillance and ‘problem’ Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and non-fermenters from the British Isles

David M. Livermore,1,2 Shazad Mushtaq,1 Daniele Meunier,1 Katie L. Hopkins,1 Robert Hill,1 Rachael Adkin,1 Aiysha Chaudhry,1 Rachel Pike,1 Peter Staves,1 Neil Woodford,1 and the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Standing Committee †: Current members are listed in the Acknowledgements.
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Background: We assessed the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against consecutive isolates collected in the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance from 2011 to 2015 and against ‘problem’ isolates sent to the UK national reference laboratory from July 2015, when routine testing began.

Methods: Susceptibility testing was by BSAC agar dilution with resistance mechanisms identified by PCR and interpretive reading.

Results: Data were reviewed for 6080 BSAC surveillance isolates and 5473 referred organisms. Ceftolozane/tazobactam had good activity against unselected ESBL producers in the BSAC series, but activity was reduced against ertapenem-resistant ESBL producers, which were numerous among reference submissions. AmpC-derepressed Enterobacter spp. were widely resistant, but Escherichia coli with raised chromosomal AmpC frequently remained susceptible, as did Klebsiella pneumoniae with acquired DHA-1-type AmpC. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae were mostly resistant, except for ceftazidime-susceptible isolates with OXA-48-like enzymes. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was active against 99.8% of the BSAC Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates; against referred P. aeruginosa it was active against 99.7% with moderately raised efflux, 94.7% with strongly raised efflux and 96.6% with derepressed AmpC. Resistance in P. aeruginosa was largely confined to isolates with metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) or ESBLs. MICs for referred Burkholderia spp. and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were 2–4-fold lower than those of ceftazidime.

Conclusions: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is active against ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae; gains against other problem Enterobacteriaceae groups were limited. Against P. aeruginosa it overcame the two most prevalent mechanisms (up-regulated efflux and derepressed AmpC) and was active against 51.9% of isolates non-susceptible to all other β-lactams, rising to 80.9% if ESBL and MBL producers were excluded.

Introduction

Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination, recently licensed for complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections.1 EUCAST breakpoints, with a fixed 4 mg/L concentration of tazobactam, are susceptible ≤1 mg/L/resistant >1 mg/L for Enterobacteriaceae and ≤4/>4 mg/L for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Tazobactam protects ceftolozane against ESBLs, with the combination’s efficacy against producers confirmed in the Phase III trials.1 Ceftolozane is also notably active against P. aeruginosa, with MICs lower than ceftazidime—hitherto the most active anti-pseudomonal β-lactam.2 This activity is retained for many strains with derepressed AmpC or up-regulated efflux,2 which are the major routes to resistance to established penicillins and cephalosporins in the species.3

Here, we review the activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against two large, contrasting series of Gram-negative isolates. First, we considered consecutive bloodstream isolates collected by the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance during 2011–15. Secondly, we reviewed isolates referred to PHE’s Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections (AMRHAI) Reference Unit in the first year that ceftolozane/tazobactam was tested; thereby providing a large snapshot of UK ‘problem’ organisms.

Materials and methods

BSAC surveillance

The BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance has been described previously.4 Results were reviewed from 2011, when testing of ceftolozane/tazobactam began, to 2015; 38–40 UK and Irish laboratories contributed annually, submitting up to seven consecutive bloodstream isolates each of Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Pseudomonas spp. and up to 14 Escherichia coli. Identifications were confirmed at AMRHAI by MALDI-TOF or API20E or API20NE strips (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France). Among Pseudomonas spp., only confirmed P. aeruginosa were considered; these comprised 95.1% of all Pseudomonas spp. collected. Susceptibility testing was by BSAC agar dilution.5 Enterobacteriaceae with cefotaxime or ceftazidime MICs ≥1 mg/L were further characterized by: (i) comparing cefepime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime MICs with and without 4 mg/L clavulanate to identify ESBL producers (with ≥8-fold potentiation of ≥1 cephalosporin); (ii) comparing cefotaxime MICs with and without 100 mg/L cloxacillin to identify AmpC producers (with ≥4-fold potentiation, no cephalosporin/clavulanate potentiation, and ≥8-fold higher MICs of cefotaxime and ceftazidime than cefepime); and (iii) by PCR for blaCTX-M and plasmid AmpC enzymes. Enterobacteriaceae with reduced carbapenem susceptibility were screened for carbapenemase genes by PCR, as were P. aeruginosa that were both (i) broadly resistant to β-lactams and (ii) positive for imipenem/EDTA synergy.

Reference submissions

MICs, determined by BSAC agar dilution,5 were reviewed for all non-fastidious Gram-negative bacteria referred to PHE’s AMRHAI Reference Unit over 1 year from July 2015, when routine testing of ceftolozane/tazobactam began. Around 90% of submission are from diagnostic laboratories in England, 9% from elsewhere in the UK and 1% from overseas, principally Ireland. We excluded isolates tested for internal and external quality assurance and repeat/multiple tests on the same isolate from the same submission. Testing employed a wide panel of antibiotics. To predict β-lactamase types, MICs of cefotaxime/clavulanate 2 mg/L, cefotaxime/cloxacillin 100 mg/L, ceftazidime/clavulanate 2 mg/L, ceftazidime/avibactam 2 mg/L, cefepime/clavulanate 2 mg/L and imipenem/EDTA 320 mg/L were compared with those of the same β-lactams alone.

Genes for KPC, VIM, NDM and OXA-48-like carbapenemases were sought by multiplex PCR. Enterobacteriaceae resistant to meropenem and imipenem but lacking genes for these common carbapenemases were subjected to further multiplex PCRs, seeking (i) blaIMP, blaVIM, blaSPM, blaGIM, blaSIM and blaNDM and (ii) blaFRI, blaGES, blaIMI and blaSME. Metallo-carbapenemase genes were sought in P. aeruginosa isolates showing ≥8-fold or greater imipenem/EDTA synergy together with broad resistance to penicillins and cephalosporins. blaVEB and blaPER genes were sought by PCR in most P. aeruginosa isolates with ceftazidime MICs >256 mg/L and ceftazidime/clavulanate MICs ≤32 mg/L. Referred Acinetobacter spp. isolates were screened for blaOXA-51-like to identify A. baumannii where this gene is universal and chromosomal.

Categorization of isolates

Detection of a β-lactamase gene was considered ‘definitive’ identification of a mechanism. Carbapenemase-negative isolates were categorized by in-house mathematical algorithms employing the principles of interpretive reading of phenotypes.6 Two levels of match were allowed: ‘hard’, where the phenotype was a perfect match; and ‘soft’, where the phenotype was less perfectly matched, but the mechanism remained the most likely. For example, to meet hard-match criteria for highly raised (putatively MexAB-OprM-mediated) efflux, a P. aeruginosa isolate required a carbenicillin MIC >512 mg/L with carbencillin:cefotaxime:piperacillin:ceftazidime MIC ratios in the ranges 1:0.25–1:0.03–0.12:0.015–0.06 (note these are ratios, not actual MICs, and are predicated on the fact that up-regulated MexAB-OprM raises MICs of these agents in rough proportion);4 to meet soft-match criteria the strain needed a carbenicillin MIC >512 mg/L and carbenicillin:cefotaxime:piperacillin:ceftazidime MIC ratios in the ranges 1:0.12–2:0.015–0.25:0.008–0.12. Some isolates did not match any of the phenotypes considered and were left as ‘unassigned’, then categorized according to their level of resistance to reference agents, principally ceftazidime.

Results

BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance isolates

The BSAC collection provided a random and geographically diverse sample of bloodstream isolates. Because no temporal trend was seen for ceftolozane/tazobactam (not shown), data for 2011 to 2015 were pooled (Table ​(Table1).1). Using EUCAST’s 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L Enterobacteriaceae breakpoint, susceptibility rates to ceftolozane/tazobactam were 91.5% for Enterobacter spp., 97.6% for Klebsiella spp. and 99.7% for E. coli, exceeding those for all other β-lactams tested except carbapenems. In the case of P. aeruginosa, 99.8% of isolates (1097/1099) were susceptible at EUCAST's 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L breakpoint, versus 97.9% for gentamicin, 97.6% for ceftazidime, 95.5% for piperacillin/tazobactam, 91.7% for meropenem (not tested in 2012 and 2013), 92.5% for imipenem (not tested in 2014) and 90.4% for ciprofloxacin.

Table 1

MIC distributions of ceftolozane/tazobactam for E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp. and P. aeruginosa in the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance Programme, 2011–15 inclusive

No. of isolates with indicated ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC (mg/L)
Organism≤0.030.060.120.250.51248163264128256>256Total%Sa
All
E. coli2671710775942053267699.7
Enterobacter spp.21816056811461272622821100991.5
Klebsiella spp.12338662192611422114241129697.6
P. aeruginosa7242756826411109999.8
ESBL (all)
E. coli14215166154228197.9
Enterobacter spp.31714641114785.1
Klebsiella spp.4115728911131311984.0
CTX-M group 1 ESBLsb
E. coli2913354123223397.9
Enterobacter spp.37421687.5
Klebsiella spp.3747142113138286.6
AmpC
E. coli6165112996.6
Enterobacter spp.314203520242061114450.0
ESBL + AmpC
Enterobacter74421112075
Klebsiella spp.111/1
Others
K1 K. oxytoca189922993.7
KPC Klebsiella1120/2
VIM Klebsiella11130/3
OXA-48 Enterobacteriaceae31263/6
aS, susceptible. Based on a breakpoint of 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L for Enterobacteriaceae and 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L for P. aeruginosa; percentage susceptibility is cited if > 10 isolates, otherwise the proportion of isolates found susceptible is shown.
bExcluding isolates also found to have carbapenemase and/or AmpC activity.

Almost all ESBL- and AmpC-producing E. coli (97.9% and 96.6%, respectively) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, as were 93.7% of Klebsiella oxytoca hyperproducing K1 β-lactamase. Susceptibility rates for ESBL-producing Klebsiella and Enterobacter were lower, at 84%–85%. Around half the ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance among ESBL-producing Klebsiella was low level, with MICs of 2[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L; but other isolates were substantially resistant, with MICs up to >256 mg/L. High MICs were not associated with particular ESBL types: 9/13 (69.2%) ESBL-producing isolates with MICs >8 mg/L had CTX-M group 1 enzymes, as did 85/140 (60.7%) with MICs ≤1 mg/L. It is possible that the more resistant isolates had larger amounts of ESBL, a different CTX-M variant, or multiple β-lactamases. Half of the AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacter spp. were resistant; significantly, these ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistant organisms also were much more resistant to cefotaxime and ceftazidime (geometric mean MICs 76.8 and 69.8 mg/L respectively) than were ceftolozane/tazobactam-susceptible AmpC enterobacters (geometric mean cefotaxime and ceftazidime MICs 6.5 and 5.0 mg/L, respectively). It is likely that this variation reflected the amount of AmpC enzyme.

Just 11/4981 (0.2%) BSAC E. coli, Klebsiella and Enterobacter spp. isolates had carbapenemases, 2 with KPC, 3 with VIM and 6 with OXA-48-like enzymes. Three of the six with OXA-48-like enzymes were susceptible to ceftazidime at breakpoint (≤1 mg/L); these also were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L. The remaining three OXA-48-like isolates, which were resistant to ceftazidime (MICs 16–128 mg/L), also were resistant to ceftolozane/tazobactam, as were all the isolates with KPC and VIM enzymes.

One of the two ceftolozane/tazobactam-resistant P. aeruginosa, with an MIC of 32[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, had a VIM carbapenemase; mechanisms remain uncertain in the other, with an MIC of 8[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L.

Isolates referred to PHE

The isolates examined in ceftolozane/tazobactam’s first year of testing comprised 3249 Enterobacteriaceae, 1414 P. aeruginosa and 810 other non-fermenters, including 419 Acinetobacter spp. They lack a denominator and are referred for numerous reasons. There is a considerable bias towards submitting isolates suspected of carbapenem resistance, but some have suspected colistin, aminoglycoside or tigecycline resistance; a few are referred owing to anomalous susceptibility, e.g. to ampicillin in P. aeruginosa. The overall performance data shown in Table ​Table22 should be considered with these biases in mind. Nevertheless two points are striking: first, that ceftolozane/tazobactam was more widely active against these ‘problem’ P. aeruginosa than any other β-lactam, whereas, secondly, gains against problem Enterobacteriaceae were modest, with carbapenems remaining more active.

Table 2

Overall susceptibilities of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa referred to AMRHAI

Enterobacteriaceae (n = 3249)
P. aeruginosa (n = 1414)
BP (mg/L)no. S%SBP (mg/L)no. S%S
ColistinS ≤ 2295190.8S ≤ 2135195.5
S ≤ 4136996.8
AmikacinS ≤ 8272984.0S ≤ 8103373.1
TigecyclineS ≤ 1244975.4———
ImipenemS ≤ 2236572.8S ≤ 423516.6
GentamicinS ≤ 2206263.5S ≤ 499170.1
MeropenemS ≤ 2230070.8S ≤ 214910.5
S ≤ 424517.3
TobramycinS ≤ 2174853.8S ≤ 4103172.9
CiprofloxacinS ≤ 0.5146545.1S ≤ 0.553537.8
Ceftolozane/tazobactamS ≤ 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4104832.3S ≤ 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4119384.4
CefepimeS ≤ 194729.1S ≤ 874452.6
TemocillinS ≤ 888027.1———
ErtapenemS ≤ 0.573122.5———
AztreonamS ≤ 167820.9———
Piperacillin/tazobactamS ≤ 8[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]453116.3S ≤ 16[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]466146.7
CeftazidimeS ≤ 150515.5S ≤ 880256.7
CefotaximeS ≤ 143213.3———
Amoxicillin/clavulanateS ≤ 81183.6———
AmpicillinS ≤ 8180.6———
Carbenicillin———S ≤ 12855539.3

BP, breakpoint; no. S, number susceptible; %S, percentage susceptible.

Enterobacteriaceae by inferred or proven mechanism

Table ​Table33 shows the MIC distributions of ceftolozane/tazobactam for referred Enterobacteriaceae by species and resistance type. Because there was little difference in their distributions, MICs are pooled for the hard- and soft-matched groups.

Table 3

MIC distributions of ceftolozane/tazobactam, by resistance group and species group, for Enterobacteriaceae referred to AMRHAI, July 2015–July 2016

Matching to mechanism
No. of isolates with indicated MIC (mg/L)
molecularhardasoftatotal≤0.250.5124816>16void%S at 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L BP
ESBL producers
Citrobacter spp.221150.0
E. coli3372536210057353821173261153.0
Enterobacter spp.4544964107466640.8
K. oxytoca3311133.3
K. pneumoniae22926255172723392324287426.3
rare fermenters2220.0
Serratia spp.1110.0
all61658674123896987494866142141.7
AmpC hyperproducers
Citrobacter spp.397463346887721.7
E. coli101191203515111181172250.8
Enterobacter spp.625246491353539513111512563118.4
Hafnia alvei1111211288.3
K. pneumoniae39104996103631251.0
M. morganii729332188.9
Providencia spp.1110.0
rare fermenters1110.0
Serratia spp.3043411610411150.0
all85467921638197123156141145114126.2
Isolates with both ESBL + AmpC activity
Citrobacter spp.11110.0
E. coli2814422114529427.1
Enterobacter spp.182201143922010.0
K. pneumoniae6281115812.5
all5318718.5
K1 hyperproducers
K. oxytoca88331175.0
KPC producers
Citrobacter spp.44220.0
E. coli3636129147218.3
Enterobacter spp.28281357843.6
K. oxytoca4411225
K. pneumoniae138138114442933261.4
rare fermenters2220.0
Serratia spp.44310.0
all21621621417634750323.2
GES carbapenemases
E. coli44130.0
Enterobacter spp.1110.0
K. oxytoca15151140.0
K. pneumoniae331110.0
rare fermenters1110.0
Serratia spp.1110.0
all2525221290.0
Other class A carbapenemases
Enterobacter spp.88331187.5
Serratia spp.4411250.0
all12123422175.0
MBL producers
Citrobacter spp.13131120.0
E. coli9595950.0
Enterobacter spp.2929290.0
K. oxytoca3330.0
K. pneumoniae1691691690.0
M. morganii2220.0
Providencia spp.4440.0
Serratia spp.1110.0
all31631613150.0
Isolates with both NDM + OXA-48 carbapenemases
E. coli4440.0
K. pneumoniae2828280.0
all3232320.0
OXA-48 producers ceftazidime ≤4 mg/L
Citrobacter spp.3312100
E. coli74742433871187.8
Enterobacter spp.2222168768. 2
K. oxytoca3312100
K. pneumoniae5050216209376
rare fermenters111100
Serratia spp.222100
all155155285742234181.9
OXA-48 producers ceftazidime >4 mg/L
Citrobacter spp.1010460.0
E. coli595946391351917.0
Enterobacter spp.232343435417.4
K. oxytoca441210.0
K. pneumoniae1001001135108722
Serratia spp.2220.0
all198198151091827241048.1
Impermeability
E. coli36366148431677.8
K. oxytoca1110.0
K. pneumoniae51512112882280.4
all888882536135178.4
WT, cephalosporin susceptible
Citrobacter spp.2211100
E. coli3535341100
Enterobacter spp.474730142197.9
K. oxytoca2211100
K. pneumoniae1818171100
M. morganii1414121192.9
Providencia spp.2211100
rare fermenters6642100
Serratia spp.19194761189.5
all14514510426113197.2
Unassigned, ceftazidime MIC ≤4 mg/L
Citrobacter spp.21150
E. coli75481314100
Enterobacter spp.12118283.3
K. oxytoca9125111.1
K. pneumoniae6117171781183.6
Providencia spp.22100
rare fermenters11100
Serratia spp.742157.1
all167673444157286.8
Unassigned, ceftazidime MIC 8-32 mg/L
Citrobacter spp.110.0
E. coli1011112420
Enterobacter spp.5111220
K. oxytoca3120.0
K. pneumoniae4911324832.0
rare fermenters110.0
all6911215279865.8
Unassigned, ceftazidime MIC ≥64 mg/L
Citrobacter spp.2110.0
E. coli8012136400.0
Enterobacter spp.161780.0
K. oxytoca2110.0
K. pneumoniae20497861020.0
all30411281311520.0

BP, breakpoint; %S, percentage susceptible.

aHard-matched, isolate’s antibiogram conforms precisely to expected phenotype for the mechanism; soft-matched, isolate’s antibiogram best matches the phenotype expected for the mechanism, but with minor discrepancies.

At its 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L breakpoint, ceftolozane/tazobactam was active against 41.7% of the ESBL producers, rising to 53.0% for E. coli and falling to 26.3% for Klebsiella pneumoniae. It was active also against 26.2% of AmpC hyperproducers, rising to 50.8% for E. coli and 88.9% for Morganella morganii, but falling to 18.4% for Enterobacter spp. The high susceptibility rate for AmpC-derepressed M. morganii reflects the vulnerability of Morganella AmpC to tazobactam,7 whilst frequent susceptibility in E. coli was associated with cefotaxime and ceftazidime MICs of 2–4 mg/L, a phenotype usually reflecting small elevations of chromosomal AmpC via promoter mutations.8 Frequent resistance among the AmpC Enterobacter spp. is in keeping with the fact that 554/649 (85.4%) of these referrals had high-level cefotaxime resistance (MIC ≥32 mg/L), as typically associated with total derepression of chromosomal enzyme. Klebsiella spp. have no chromosomal ampC, meaning AmpC phenotypes in this genus reflect acquired, plasmid-mediated enzymes: a 51.0% susceptibility rate accords with the observation that many examined by PCR (24/26) had blaDHA, a chromosomal ‘escape’ from M. morganii encoding a tazobactam-inhibited variant.9 Close relationships existed between ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC and ertapenem MICs for ESBL and AmpC producers, with the percentage of isolates susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam falling as ertapenem MIC increased (Figure ​(Figure1).1). Previous experience indicates that raised ertapenem MICs for such carbapenemase-negative isolates mostly reflect porin loss.10,11

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is dkx136f1.jpg

Susceptibility to ceftolozane/tazobactam among Enterobacteriaceae with ESBLs (grey bars, n = 674) or raised AmpC (white bars, n = 920) in relation to ertapenem MICs. Hard- and soft-matched isolates are included. None of the isolates included had a carbapenemase. Numbers on the bars indicate the numbers of isolates in the groups.

As with the BSAC series, ceftolozane/tazobactam was widely active (6/8 isolates susceptible) against K. oxytoca with high-level K1 enzyme, whereas activity against carbapenemase producers was very limited. All metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae were resistant, as were almost all with KPC and GES-5 enzymes. On the other hand, 9/12 with rare class A carbapenemases (i.e. IMI, SME or FRI types) remained susceptible, probably because these enzymes are poor cephalosporinases. OXA-48-like carbapenemases are poor cephalosporinases too, especially against ceftazidime.12 On this basis, we categorized the OXA-48 producers as either ceftazidime-susceptible/intermediate (MIC ≤4 mg/L, EUCAST criteria) or ceftazidime-resistant (MIC >4 mg/L), inferring that the latter group had additional mechanisms such as ESBLs. Despite the presence of tazobactam (which should inhibit ESBLs), ceftolozane/tazobactam MICs closely tracked those of unprotected ceftazidime: thus, 81.9% of the ceftazidime-susceptible/intermediate isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam at 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, versus 8.1% of ceftazidime-resistant isolates.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam was active against around 80% of Enterobacteriaceae isolates inferred to have reduced permeability without ESBL, AmpC or carbapenemase activity—a group also widely susceptible (MIC ≤1 mg/L, EUCAST) to cefotaxime (59.6%), ceftazidime (48.3%) and cefepime (56.2%). Ceftolozane/tazobactam also, unsurprisingly, had near-universal activity against cephalosporin-susceptible WTs. For isolates (mostly K. pneumoniae) with unassigned mechanisms, ceftolozane/tazobactam MICs tracked those of unprotected ceftazidime, with 86.8% susceptibility for isolates inhibited by ceftazidime at ≤4 mg/L, 5.8% for those with ceftazidime MICs of 8–32 mg/L and universal resistance among those with ceftazidime MICs ≥64 mg/L. It should, however, be stressed that these groups are diverse, and include several phenotypes under active investigation.

P. aeruginosa

The two largest groups of referred P. aeruginosa were those inferred to have increased efflux or derepressed AmpC. The increased efflux group was subcategorized into those with carbenicillin MICs of 256–512 mg/L and those with carbenicillin MICs >512 mg/L (Table ​(Table4).4). MICs of ceftolozane/tazobactam increased in tandem with those of carbenicillin, piperacillin and ceftazidime for these isolates (Table ​(Table4);4); nevertheless, even among efflux-type isolates with carbenicillin MICs >512 mg/L, 94.7% remained susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, versus 27.6% for ceftazidime and 5.9% for piperacillin/tazobactam. Among efflux-type isolates with carbenicillin MICs 256–512 mg/L, all but one (99.7%) were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 65.3% for ceftazidime and 39.4% for piperacillin/tazobactam. Ceftolozane/tazobactam retained activity against 96.6% of P. aeruginosa inferred to have derepressed AmpC, whereas ceftazidime was active against only 20.8%, rising to 94.5% for ceftazidime/avibactam. Carbenicillin, which has good stability to pseudomonal AmpC,13 remained active against 84.6% of AmpC-derepressed isolates at its 128 mg/L breakpoint. Isolates with ‘WT’ carbenicillin MICs of 32–128 mg/L and without additional mechanisms affecting piperacillin/tazobactam or ceftazidime were split according to imipenem non-susceptibility (MIC >4 mg/L), which was taken as a marker of OprD loss; ceftolozane/tazobactam MICs were independent of this trait.

Table 4

MIC distributions of ceftolozane/tazobactam for all referred P. aeruginosa by assigned group and for other non-fermenters

Match level
No. of isolates with indicated ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC, mg/L
%S at 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L
Categorymolecularhardasoftatotal≤0.250.5124816>16void
P. aeruginosa
AmpC hyperproducers1436149342513994196.6
carbenicillin hypersusceptible (MIC ≤16 mg/L)12637523281743100.0
normal efflux, carbenicillin MIC 32–128 mg/L; imipenem MIC ≤4 mg/L68169204441100.0
normal efflux, carbenicillin MIC 32–128 mg/L; imipenem MIC >4 mg/L1617323440159332100.0
raised efflux, carbenicillin MIC 256–512 mg/L2621363987182158419199.7
high efflux, carbenicillin MIC >512 mg/L12626152216637207194.7
ESBL producers10b213112283.2
GES carbapenemase producers1919162184.2
MBL producers12512511240.0
unassigned, ceftazidime MIC ≤8 mg/L799372562100.0
unassigned, ceftazidime MIC 16–128 mg/L402461554467.5
unassigned, ceftazidime MIC ≥256 mg/L4378111716.3
Other non-fermenters
A. baumannii335129213374268152no BP
Acinetobacter non-baumannii8444107651110no BP
Achromobacter spp.612331142no BP
Burkholderia spp.7614141689528no BP
Chryseobacterium spp.921231no BP
Elizabethkingia spp.26156104no BP
Pandoraea spp.241122no BP
Pseudomonas non-aeruginosa86242314532771no BP
S. maltophilia78916191035214no BP
others31712213213no BP

BP, breakpoint; %S, percentage susceptible.

aHard-matched, isolate’s antibiogram conforms precisely to expected phenotype for the mechanism; soft-matched, isolate’s antibiogram best matches the phenotype expected for the mechanism, but with minor discrepancies.
bblaVEB confirmed by PCR; other ESBL producers were identified by phenotype.

In contrast to this good activity against isolates with elevated efflux, derepressed AmpC or loss of OprD, resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam was near universal (96.8%–100%) among P. aeruginosa with MBLs or VEB ESBLs. Isolates with these enzymes also were broadly resistant to other penicillins and cephalosporins, with resistance rates >95%, though 72% of MBL producers remained intermediately susceptible to aztreonam according to EUCAST criteria, with MICs of 2–16 mg/L. Ceftolozane/tazobactam 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L was active against 16/19 GES carbapenemase-positive isolates, compared with 74% for ceftazidime 8 mg/L; however, 14 of these 19 were from a single outbreak, and the results may not be generalizable. Aside from MBL and ESBL producers, the only P. aeruginosa groups where ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance was frequent were the unassigned categories with ceftazidime MICs of 16–128 and ≥256 mg/L. Ceftolozane/tazobactam MICs for these isolates mostly were 8–16 mg/L, thus slightly lower than for MBL and ESBL producers.

Two wider associations were seen. First, across all 1414 P. aeruginosa, there was broad correlation between the MICs of ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime, with ceftolozane/tazobactam MICs 2–8-fold lower except for isolates with MBLs or ESBLs. Secondly, (Table ​(Table5)5) among 422 referred P. aeruginosa that were non-susceptible to all established β-lactams (i.e. carbenicillin MIC >128 mg/L, piperacillin/tazobactam >16[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, ceftazidime >8 mg/L, imipenem >4 mg/L and meropenem >4 mg/L), 51.9% were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, rising to 80.9% among the 267 lacking ESBLs, MBLs or GES enzymes.

Table 5

Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against P. aeruginosa non-susceptible to all other anti-pseudomonal β-lactams

No. of isolates with indicated ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC (mg/L)
≤0.250.5124816>16Total%S
All020907237231516542251.9
Excluding carbapenemase and known ESBL producers02090713521121826780.9

%S, percentage susceptible.

Non-susceptibility to other β-lactams defined as carbenicillin MIC >128 mg/L, ceftazidime MIC >8 mg/L, piperacillin/tazobactam MIC >16 mg/L and imipenem and meropenem MICs >4 mg/L, based on EUCAST breakpoints.

Other non-fermenters

MIC distributions of ceftolozane/tazobactam for other non-fermenters besides P. aeruginosa are shown in Table ​Table4.4. The A. baumannii submissions had a major bias towards carbapenem-resistant isolates, with 303/355 non-susceptible to imipenem at its 2 mg/L breakpoint, mostly (>95%) owing to OXA carbapenemases (not shown). Other species tend to be submitted owing to multiresistance, with many of the isolates from cystic fibrosis patients.

There are no ceftolozane/tazobactam breakpoints for non-fermenters besides P. aeruginosa but a few general points can be made. First, MICs for A. baumannii, Elizabethkingia spp. and Pandoraea spp. were mostly above the P. aeruginosa breakpoint of 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L, whereas MICs for non-baumannii Acinetobacter, Burkholderia spp., Chryseobacterium spp., non-aeruginosa Pseudomonas and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were mostly at or below this breakpoint. Secondly, 29/32 imipenem-susceptible A. baumannii were susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam 4[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L versus only 44/303 imipenem-non-susceptible isolates. Thirdly, the MICs of ceftolozane/tazobactam for S. maltophilia and Burkholderia spp. correlated with those of ceftazidime, but were 2–4-fold lower (Figure ​(Figure22).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is dkx136f2.jpg

MICs of ceftolozane/tazobactam in relation to those of ceftazidime for S. maltophilia and Burkholderia spp., pooled. Grey squares indicate the line of equivalence, numbers below this line indicate that ceftolozane/tazobactam is more active than ceftazidime.

Discussion

Ceftolozane/tazobactam combines a new oxyimino-cephalosporin with an established β-lactamase inhibitor. It is licensed for complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections, with efficacy including ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae up to the 1[medium mathematical space]+[medium mathematical space]4 mg/L breakpoint.1,14 Activity against P. aeruginosa is striking, but this species was poorly represented in the licensing trials. We reviewed the combination’s activity against: (i) consecutive bloodstream isolates collected in the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance; and (ii) ‘problem’ Gram-negative bacteria submitted to AMRHAI. The latter lack a denominator but provide a snapshot of organisms causing resistance concerns in the UK. For both collections we categorized isolates based on molecular data and interpretive reading.

The BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance showed ceftolozane/tazobactam to be active against 91.5%–99.7% of the major Enterobacteriaceae species. Activity included 97.9% of ESBL E. coli, but only 84%–85% of ESBL-producing Klebsiella and Enterobacter spp. and 50% of AmpC-derepressed Enterobacter. The latter result is in keeping with tazobactam being a poor inhibitor of Enterobacter AmpC7 and ceftolozane being a substrate; high resistance rates were likewise seen for referred AmpC-derepressed Enterobacter (Table ​(Table3),3), and have been observed previously.15 The 15%–16% resistance rates for ESBL-producing Enterobacter and Klebsiella in the BSAC Bacteraemia Surveillance are more surprising, since ESBLs are inhibited by tazobactam. About half this resistance was borderline, with MICs of 2 mg/L, but MICs for the remainder ranged up to 256 mg/L, with resistance not obviously associated with ESBL type. Plausible explanations are that some ESBL-producing Klebsiella and Enterobacter had secondary β-lactamases or permeability lesions. Farrell et al.16 previously reported 12.1% ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance in ‘ESBL phenotype’ E. coli and 69.6% resistance in ‘ESBL phenotype’ K. pneumoniae from 41 medical centres in Europe, Turkey and Israel; these high resistance rates seem unrepresentative of the generality of UK and Irish ESBL producers and closer to results for referred problem isolates (Table ​(Table3).3). They may reflect (i) larger proportions of ESBL producers with secondary mechanisms in the countries surveyed, or (ii) inclusion of strains with KPC enzymes, which can give a false ‘ESBL phenotype’ in terms of cephalosporin/clavulanate synergy. Frequent resistance to ertapenem among referred ESBL and AmpC producers is probably due to impermeability, and, among these isolates, ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance was common (Figure ​(Figure11).

Unlike the BSAC collections, the AMRHAI referrals provided numerous carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, most of which proved resistant to ceftolozane/tazobactam. This is unsurprising for MBL and KPC producers as (i) MBLs are not inhibited by tazobactam and (ii) KPC enzymes hydrolyse penicillanic acid sulphones, mitigating inhibition.17 Better activity might be expected against isolates with OXA-48-like enzymes, which are poorly active against oxyimino-cephalosporins,12 with any cephalosporin resistance arising from secondary mechanisms, principally ESBLs, which should be inhibited by tazobactam. Yet, in reality, ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptibility was largely restricted to those OXA-48-like isolates that were susceptible or intermediate to unprotected ceftazidime (MIC ≤4 mg/L) and therefore are inferred to lack secondary β-lactamases. Similar behaviour (not shown) was seen for ceftazidime/clavulanate. Plausible explanations, deserving investigation, are: (i) many resistant isolates additionally had permeability lesions or multiple β-lactamases, thus overwhelming the tazobactam; or (ii) OXA-48-like enzymes inactivate tazobactam and clavulanate.

In contrast to this mixed performance against Enterobacteriaceae, ceftolozane/tazobactam was the most active β-lactam against both series of P. aeruginosa isolates. For the BSAC isolates its modal MIC was 4-fold lower than for ceftazidime and the proportion non-susceptible was only 0.2%. More strikingly, ceftolozane/tazobactam was active, at breakpoint, against 99.7% and 94.7% of referred isolates with moderately and strongly increased efflux and against 96.6% with derepressed AmpC. These are the most common resistance mechanisms in P. aeruginosa in the UK18,19 and Western Europe,20–22 though MBLs and ESBLs, which ceftolozane/tazobactam did not overcome, are more prevalent in Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.23–25 Ceftolozane does not entirely escape efflux and AmpC, and its MICs are slightly raised, nevertheless it is less compromised than other cephalosporins and penicillins, and seems less prone to select for these traits.26

High-level ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance (MIC >16 mg/L) in P. aeruginosa was largely confined to isolates with MBLs or ESBLs, and these associations were so strong that AMRHAI now uses a ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC >16 mg/L as a predictor of these enzymes for the species. The lack of activity against ESBL-producing P. aeruginosa may seem surprising, since ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae were widely susceptible, but we note: (i) the predominant VEB ESBLs may be less susceptible to tazobactam than the CTX-M, TEM and SHV enzymes of Enterobacteriaceae; and (ii) tazobactam may be a poor permeant, or good efflux substrate, for P. aeruginosa. Piperacillin/tazobactam by analogy is poorly active against P. aeruginosa with acquired penicillinases.3

Ceftolozane/tazobactam offered no gain compared with earlier cephalosporins against Acinetobacter spp. or Elizabethkingia spp., but was more active than ceftazidime against Burkholderia spp. and S. maltophilia. β-Lactams remain controversial in infections due to these species, with medium-dependent MICs27 and no EUCAST breakpoints. Nevertheless they are often the next-most-active option after co-trimoxazole in vitro, and may be considered in sulphonamide-intolerant patients or those with co-trimoxazole-resistant strains. Ceftazidime, meropenem and temocillin have the lowest MICs among β-lactams for Burkholderia spp.,28 with ticarcillin/clavulanate and ceftazidime the most active against S. maltophilia.29 It now seems appropriate to add ceftolozane/tazobactam to this list. Activity against S. maltophilia may reflect tazobactam inhibiting the L-2 cephalosporinase, and this possibility deserves exploration.

In countries with conservative antimicrobial usage, such as the UK, new agents enter use as microbiologically directed treatments of problem infections, not as the empirical therapy modelled by Phase III trials. P. aeruginosa is the likely major target for ceftolozane/tazobactam, since β-lactams are core to anti-pseudomonal regimens and the combination inhibited many isolates resistant to all other β-lactams (Table ​(Table5).5). Results of a high-dosage ventilator-associated pneumonia trial, where P. aeruginosa is likely to be a frequent pathogen, are awaited with interest. In the meantime there is a growing catalogue of case reports of success in chronic and acute P. aeruginosa infections.30–34 These data are encouraging, although reports of resistance associated with AmpC sequence variants are a concern.26,35

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the PHE staff who contributed to characterization of these isolates, to the diagnostic laboratories contributing to the BSAC surveillance and to the companies that have sponsored this surveillance (see http://www.bsacsurv.org/about/sponsors-2/).

Current members of the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Standing Committee

Dr M. Allen, Dr D. F. G. Brown, Professor D. M. Livermore, Dr C. Longshaw and Professor A. P. G. MacGowan.

Funding

This analysis was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, UK.

Transparency declarations

D. M. L. has participated in Advisory Boards or ad hoc consultancy for Accelerate, Achaogen, Adenium, Allecra, AstraZeneca, Auspherix, Basilea, BioVersys, Centauri, Discuva, Meiji, Pfizer, Roche, Shionogi, Tetraphase, The Medicines Company, VenatoRx, Wockhardt, Zambon and Zealand, and has given paid lectures for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Beckman Coulter, Cardiome, Cepheid, Merck and Nordic. He has relevant shareholdings in: Dechra, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, PerkinElmer and Pfizer amounting to <10% of portfolio value. The remaining authors have no personal interests to declare. However, PHE’s AMRHAI Reference Unit has received financial support for conference attendance, lectures, research projects or contracted evaluations from numerous sources, including: Accelerate Diagnostics, Achaogen Inc., Allecra Therapeutics, Amplex, AstraZeneca UK Ltd, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Becton Dickinson Diagnostics, bioMérieux, Bio-Rad Laboratories, BSAC, Cepheid, Check-Points BV, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Department of Health, Enigma Diagnostics, Food Standards Agency, GlaxoSmithKline Services Ltd, Henry Stewart Talks, IHMA Ltd, Kalidex Pharmaceuticals, Melinta Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., Meiji Seika Pharmo Co., Ltd, Mobidiag, Momentum Biosciences Ltd, Nordic Pharma Ltd, Norgine Pharmaceuticals, Rempex Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Roche, Rokitan Ltd, Smith & Nephew UK Ltd, Trius Therapeutics, VenatoRx Pharmaceuticals and Wockhardt Ltd.

References

1. Sucher AJ, Chahine EB, Cogan P. et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam: a new cephalosporin and β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Ann Pharmacother 2015; 49: 1046–56. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2. Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y. et al. Activity of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia group strains and isolates. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009; 34: 402–6. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
3. Livermore DM. Multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: our worst nightmare? Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 634–40. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
4. Reynolds R, Hope R, Williams L; BSAC Working Parties on Resistance Surveillance. Survey, laboratory and statistical methods for the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Programmes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62 Suppl 2: ii15–28. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5. A guide to sensitivity testing. Report of the Working Party on Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl D: 1–50. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
6. Livermore DM, Winstanley TG, Shannon KP.. Interpretative reading: recognizing the unusual and inferring resistance mechanisms from resistance phenotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48 Suppl 1: 87–102. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
7. Akova M, Yang Y, Livermore DM.. Interactions of tazobactam and clavulanate with inducibly- and constitutively-expressed Class I β-lactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 199–208. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
8. Normark S, Lindquist S, Lindberg F.. Chromosomal β-lactam resistance in enterobacteria. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1986; 49: 38–45. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
9. Poirel L, Guibert M, Girlich D. et al. Cloning, sequence analyses, expression, and distribution of ampC-ampR from Morganella morganii clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 769–76. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
10. Doumith M, Ellington MJ, Livermore DM. et al. Molecular mechanisms disrupting porin expression in ertapenem-resistant Klebsiella and Enterobacter spp. clinical isolates from the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 63: 659–67. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
11. Babouee Flury B, Ellington MJ, Hopkins KL. et al. Association of novel nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms in ampD with cephalosporin resistance and phylogenetic variations in ampC, ampR, ompF, and ompC in Enterobacter cloacae isolates that are highly resistant to carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60: 2383–90. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
12. Poirel L, Héritier C, Tolün V. et al. Emergence of oxacillinase-mediated resistance to imipenem in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 15–22. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
13. Livermore DM, Yang YJ.. β-Lactamase lability and inducer power of newer β-lactam antibiotics in relation to their activity against β-lactamase-inducibility mutants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Dis 1987; 155: 775–82. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
14. Papp-Wallace KM, Bonomo RA.. New β-lactamase inhibitors in the clinic. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2016; 30: 441–64. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
15. Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Ge Y.. Chequerboard titration of cephalosporin CXA-101 (FR264205) and tazobactam versus β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: 1972–4. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
16. Farrell DJ, Sader HS, Mendes RE. et al. Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam tested against organisms from urinary tract pathogens collected from 41 medical centers in Europe, Turkey and Israel (2014). In: Abstracts of the Twenty-sixth European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. Abstract P0337. ESCMID, Basel, Switzerland.
17. Papp-Wallace KM, Bethel CR, Distler AM. et al. Inhibitor resistance in the KPC-2 β-lactamase, a preeminent property of this class A β-lactamase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54: 890–7. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
18. Williams RJ, Livermore DM, Lindridge MA. et al. Mechanisms of β-lactam resistance in British isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Med Microbiol 1984; 17: 283–93. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
19. Chen HY, Yuan M, Livermore DM.. Mechanisms of resistance to β-lactam antibiotics amongst Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected in the UK in 1993. J Med Microbiol 1995; 43: 300–9. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20. Cavallo JD, Leblanc F, Fabre R. et al. Survey of the antibiotic sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in France and the distribution of β-lactam resistance mechanisms: the GERPB 1999 study. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2001; 49: 534–9. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
21. Bonfiglio G, Laksai Y, Franchino L. et al. Mechanisms of β-lactam resistance amongst Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated in an Italian survey. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42: 697–702. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
22. Cabot G, Ocampo-Sosa AA, Tubau F. et al. Overexpression of AmpC and efflux pumps in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from bloodstream infections: prevalence and impact on resistance in a Spanish multicenter study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55: 1906–11. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
23. Al-Agamy MH, Shibl AM, Tawfik AF. et al. Extended-spectrum and metallo-β-lactamases among ceftazidime-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J Chemother 2012; 24: 97–100. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
24. Strateva T, Ouzounova-Raykova V, Markova B. et al. Widespread detection of VEB-1-type extended-spectrum β-lactamases among nosocomial ceftazidime-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Sofia, Bulgaria. J Chemother 2007; 19: 140–5. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
25. Edelstein MV, Skleenova EN, Shevchenko OV. et al. Spread of extensively resistant VIM-2-positive ST235 Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia: a longitudinal epidemiological and clinical study. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 867–76. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
26. Cabot G, Bruchmann S, Mulet X. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance development requires multiple mutations leading to overexpression and structural modification of AmpC. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 3091–9. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
27. Bonfiglio G, Livermore DM.. Effect of media composition on the susceptibility of Xanthomonas maltophilia to β-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28: 837–42. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
28. Bonacorsi S, Fitoussi F, Lhopital S. et al. Comparative in vitro activities of meropenem, imipenem, temocillin, piperacillin, and ceftazidime in combination with tobramycin, rifampin, or ciprofloxacin against Burkholderia cepacia isolates from patients with cystic fibrosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 213–7. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
29. Chang YT, Lin CY, Chen YH. et al. Update on infections caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia with particular attention to resistance mechanisms and therapeutic options. Front Microbiol 2015; 6: 893. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
30. Sousa-Dominguez A, Perez-Rodríguez MT, Nodar A. et al. Successful treatment of MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa skin and soft-tissue infection with ceftolozane/tazobactam. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 72: 1262–3. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
31. Castón JJ, De la Torre Á, Ruiz-Camps I. et al. Salvage therapy with ceftolozane-tazobactam for multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61: e02136-16. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
32. Hernández-Tejedor A, Merino-Vega CD, Martín-Vivas A. et al. Successful treatment of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa breakthrough bacteremia with ceftolozane/tazobactam. Infection 2017; 45: 115–7. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
33. Vickery SB, McClain D, Wargo KA.. Successful use of ceftolozane-tazobactam to treat a pulmonary exacerbation of cystic fibrosis caused by multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharmacotherapy 2016; 36: e154–9. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
34. Gelfand MS, Cleveland KO.. Ceftolozane/tazobactam therapy of respiratory infections due to multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61: 853–5. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
35. Berrazeg M, Jeannot K, Ntsogo Enguéné VY. et al. Mutations in β-lactamase AmpC increase resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59: 6248–55. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx136

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://academic.oup.com/jac/article-pdf/72/8/2278/24332344/dkx136.pdfUnpaywall

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

69
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/20296233
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/20296233

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1093/jac/dkx136

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
9
91
1

Article citations

Go to all (69) article citations

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.