Treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a case for cefiderocol

References

• O’Donnell JN, Bidell MR, Lodise TP. Approach to the treatment of patients with serious multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Pharmacotherapy. 2020;40:952–969.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ibrahim D, Jabbour JF, Kanj SS. Current choices of antibiotic treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2020;33:464–473.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blomquist KC, Nix DE. A critical evaluation of newer β-lactam antibiotics for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Ann Pharmacother. 2021;55:1010–1024. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028020974003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nguyen L, Garcia J, Gruenberg K, et al. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas infections: hard to treat, but hope on the horizon? Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20:23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Babiker A, Clarke LG, Saul M, et al. Changing epidemiology and decreased mortality associated with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria from 2000 – 2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e4521–e4530.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sader HS, Huband MD, Carvalhaes CG, et al. Frequency and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria isolated from patients hospitalized with pneumonia in US medical centers during 2018. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 2):S756.
   Google Scholar
• Shortridge D, Arends SJR, Duncan LR, et al. Ceftolozane–tazobactam activity against difficult-to-treat resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa from bloodstream infections in US hospitals. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 2):S580.
   Google Scholar
• Gajdács M, Bátori Z, Burián K. Interplay between phenotypic resistance to relevant antibiotics in Gram-negative urinary pathogens a data-driven analysis of 10 years’ worth of antibiogram data. Life (Basel). 2021;11:1059.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tamma PD, Aitken SL, Bonomo RA, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance on the treatment of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72:1109–1116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States. 2019. [cited 2021 Jul 19]. Available from 2021 Jul 19: https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. 2017. [cited 2021 Dec 10]. Available from 2021 Dec 10: https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/WHO-PPL-Short_Summary_25Feb-ET_NM_WHO.pdf?ua=1 .
   Google Scholar
• Lodise TP Jr, Patel N, Kwa A, et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality among patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections: impact of delayed appropriate antibiotic selection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:3510–3515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Micek ST, Wunderink RG, Kollef MH, et al. An international multicenter retrospective study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia: impact of multidrug resistance. Crit Care. 2015;19:219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Vena A, Croxatto A, et al. How to manage Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Drugs Context. 2018;7:212527.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raman G, Avendano EE, Chan J, et al. Risk factors for hospitalized patients with resistant or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018;7:79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai B, Echols R, Magee G, et al. Prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections in the United States predominated by Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4:ofx176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tartof SY, Kuntz JL, Chen LH, et al. Development and assessment of risk scores for carbapenem and extensive β-lactam resistance among adult hospitalized patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1:e183927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rebold N, Morrisette T, Lagnf AM, et al. Early multicenter experience with imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8:ofab554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peña C, Suarez C, Gozalo M, et al. Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases REIPI. Prospective multicenter study of the impact of carbapenem resistance on mortality in Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1265–1272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luyt CE, Sahnoun T, Gautier M, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with SARS-CoV-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring ECMO: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carvalhaes CG, Shortridge D, Sader HS, et al. Activity of meropenem-vaborbactam against bacterial isolates causing pneumonia in patients in U.S. hospitals during 2014 to 2018. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e02177–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patel TS, Kaye KS, Krishnan J, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of meropenem/vaborbactam and meropenem against a collection of real-world clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 2):S251.
   Google Scholar
• Shortridge D, Streit JM, Carvalhaes C, et al. Activity of meropenem-vaborbactam and comparators against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from patients with pneumonia in European hospitals. Presented at 31st ECCMID 2021; 2021 July 9–12; Abstract 01048.
   Google Scholar
• Klatt M, Dillman N, Eschenauer G, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, imipenem/relebactam, and cefiderocol against P. aeruginosa, including drug-resistant isolates, at an academic medical center. Presented at 31st ECCMID 2021; 2021 July 9–12; Abstract 01228.
   Google Scholar
• Lob S, Hackel M, Young K, et al. In vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against Gram-negative pathogens from patients with bloodstream infections in the United States and Canada – SMART 2018. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(Suppl 1):S789–790.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalhaes CG, Mendes RE, Flamm RK, et al. Comparative antimicrobial susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria isolated from patients with bloodstream infections and pneumonia when tested against tazobactam combinations. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 2):S746.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen S, Hackel M, Hayes J, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of cefiderocol against carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria from hospitalized patients in the United States: SIDERO-WT-2014–2017. Presented at ASM Microbe 2019; 2019 Jun 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA; Poster AAR-764.
   Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Carvalhaes CG, Streit JM, et al. Antimicrobial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam and comparators tested against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from United States Medical Centers in 2016–2018. Microb Drug Resist. 2021;27:342–349.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shortridge D, Streit JM, Mendes R, et al. Activity of cefiderocol and comparators against US isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, including carbapenem-resistant isolates. Presented at 31st ECCMID 2021; 2021 Jul 9–12; Abstract 01606.
   Google Scholar
• Golden AR, Adam HJ, Baxter M, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacilli isolated from patients in Canadian intensive care units. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;97:115012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazmierzak KM, de Figueiredo MLN, Lemos Luengas EV, et al. In vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected in Latin America as part of the ATLAS global surveillance program, 2017–2019. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7 (Suppl 1):S788.
   Google Scholar
• Kresken M, Korte-Berwanger M, Gatermann SG, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against aerobic Gram-negative bacterial pathogens from Germany. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56:106128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karlowsky JA, Kazmierczak KM, Bouchillon SK, et al. In vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected in Asia-Pacific countries: results from the INFORM Global Surveillance Program, 2012 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e02569–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teo JQ, Lim JC, Tang CY, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance and mechanisms in carbapenem-nonsusceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mSphere. 2021;6:e01026–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsueh SC, Lee YJ, Huang YT, et al. In vitro activities of cefiderocol, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam and other comparative drugs against imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, all associated with bloodstream infections in Taiwan. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:380–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shortridge D, Pfaller MA, Duncan LR, et al. Antimicrobial activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam tested against contemporary (2015–2017) P. aeruginosa isolates from a global surveillance program. ASM Microbe 2018; 2018 Jun 7–11; Atlanta, Georgia, USA.; Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Karlowsky JA, Lob SH, Young K, et al. Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Gram-negative isolates from patients with lower respiratory tract infections – SMART United States 2018-2019. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfaller MA, Shortridge D, Sader HS, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam activity against drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing healthcare-associated infections in Latin America: report from an antimicrobial surveillance program (2013–2015). Braz J Infect Dis. 2017;21:627–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Carvalhaes CG, Duncan LR, et al. Susceptibility trends of ceftolozane/tazobactam and comparators when tested against European Gram-negative bacterial surveillance isolates collected during 2012–18. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75:2907–2913.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lob S, Kazmierczak K, Chen W, et al. In vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa from ICU and non-ICU patients with respiratory tract infections in the Asia-Pacific region – SMART 2016–2018. Presented at ICID 2020; 2020 February 20–23; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Poster 1361.
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie T, Nguyen S, Hayes J, et al. Cefiderocol activity against North American clinical isolates SIDERO-WT-2014–2017. Presented at ASM Microbe 2019; 2019 June 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA; Poster AAR-762.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen S, Fam D, Hackel MS, et al. Susceptibility of phenotypic subsets of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to cefiderocol and comparator agents from SIDERO-WT 2014–2019. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(Suppl 1):S491.
   Google Scholar
• Iregui A, Khan Z, Landman D, et al. Activity of cefiderocol against Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii endemic to medical centers in New York City. Microb Drug Resist. 2020;26:722–726.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Falagas ME, Skalidis T, Vardakas KZ, et al. Activity of cefiderocol (S-649266) against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria collected from inpatients in Greek hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:1704–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naas T, Lina G, Santerre Henriksen A, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol and comparators against isolates of Gram-negative pathogens from a range of infection sources: SIDERO-WT-2014-2018 studies in France. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3:dlab081.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stracquadanio S, Torti E, Longshaw C, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol and comparators against isolates of Gram-negative pathogens from a range of infection sources: SIDERO-WT-2014-2018 studies in Italy. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;25:390–398.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cercenado E, Cardenoso L, Penin R, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol and comparators against isolates of Gram-negative bacterial pathogens from a range of infection sources: SIDERO‑WT‑2014-2018 studies in Spain. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;26:292–300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu PY, Ko WC, Lee WS, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, cefepime/enmetazobactam, cefepime/zidebactam, eravacycline, omadacycline, and other comparative agents against carbapenem-non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii isolates associated from bloodstream infection in Taiwan between 2018–2020. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2021;S1684-1182(21)00186–9 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2021.08.012. Online ahead of print .
   Google Scholar
• Karlowsky JA, Lob SH, Kazmierczak KM, et al. In vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from intraabdominal and urinary tract infection samples: SMART Surveillance United States 2015–2017. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;21:223–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lob S, Hackel M, Badal R, et al. In vitro activity of imipenem-relebactam (mk-7655) against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Latin America – SMART 2015. Presented at ASM Microbe 2017; 2017 June 1–5; New Orleans, LA, USA; Poster 46.
   Google Scholar
• Lob SH, Karlowsky JA, Young K, et al. In vitro activity of imipenem-relebactam against resistant phenotypes of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from intraabdominal and urinary tract infection samples – SMART surveillance Europe 2015–2017. J Med Microbiol. 2020;69:207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lob S, Kazmierczak K, Chen W, et al. Activity of imipenem/relebactam against clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa and K. pneumoniae collected in Asia/Pacific Countries – SMART 2016-2018. Presented at ICID 2020; 2020 February 20–23; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Poster 2418.
   Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Duncan LR, Doyle TB, et al. Antimicrobial activity of ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and comparator agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa from cystic fibrosis patients. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3:dlab126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horcajada JP, Montero M, Oliver A, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32:e00031–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young K, Painter RE, Raghoobar SL, et al. In vitro studies evaluating the activity of imipenem in combination with relebactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol. 2019;19:150.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wi YM, Greenwood-Quaintance KE, Schuetz AN, et al. Activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam against carbapenem-resistant, non-carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and associated resistance mechanisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;62:e01970–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Papp-Wallace KM, Mack AR, Taracila MA, et al. Resistance to novel β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. The price of progress. Infect Dis Clinics North Am. 2020; 34:773–819.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ortiz de la Rosa JM, Nordmann P, Poirel L. ESBLs and resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam combinations in Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:1934–1939.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mushtaq S, Meunier D, Vickers A, et al. Activity of imipenem/relebactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing ESBLs and carbapenemases. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76:434–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zincke D, Balasubramanian D, Silver LL, et al. Characterization of a carbapenem-hydrolyzing enzyme, PoxB, in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60:936–945.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arca-Suárez J, Lasarte-Monterrubio C, Rodiño-Janeiro BK, et al. Molecular mechanisms driving the in vivo development of OXA-10-mediated resistance to ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam during treatment of XDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76:91–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ito A, Sato T, Ota M, et al. In vitro antibacterial properties of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;62:e01454–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ito A, Nishikawa T, Ota M, et al. Stability and low induction propensity of cefiderocol against chromosomal AmpC β-lactamases of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73:3049–3052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simner PJ, Beisken S, Bergman Y, et al. Cefiderocol activity against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates exhibiting ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8:ofab311.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mushtaq S, Sadouki Z, Vickers A, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e01582–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito-Horiyama T, Ishii Y, Ito A, et al. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin S-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:4384–4386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraile-Ribot PA, Zamorano L, Orellana R, et al. Activity of imipenem-relebactam against a large collection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates and isogenic β-lactam-resistant mutants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e02165–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, et al. Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:4943–4960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vabomere (meropenem and vaborbactam for injection, for intravenous use). Prescribing Information. Melinta Therapeutics, LLC, Lincolnshire IL 60069 USA; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Vaborem (meropenem/vaborbactam 1 g/1 g powder for concentrate for solution for infusion). Summary of Product Characteristics. Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A.; 1 Avenue de la Gare, L-1611; Luxembourg; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, et al. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Biotechnol Adv. 2019;37(1):177–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Martinez J-M, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Molecular epidemiology and mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(11):4783–4788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin S, Chen P, You B, et al. Molecular typing and carbapenem resistance mechanisms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from a Chinese burn center from 2011 to 2016. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoki T, Yoshizawa H, Yamawaki K, et al. Cefiderocol (S-649266), a new siderophore cephalosporin exhibiting potent activities against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other Gram-negative pathogens including multi-drug resistant bacteria: structure activity relationship. Eur J Med Chem. 2018;155:847–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito A, Nishikawa T, Matsumoto S, et al. Siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol utilizes ferric iron transporter systems for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:7396–7401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes MD, Taracila MA, Rutter JD, et al. Deciphering the evolution of cephalosporin resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio. 2018;9:e02085–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamma PD, Beisken S, Bergman Y, et al. Modifiable risk factors for the emergence of ceftolozane-tazobactam resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e4599–e4606.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vanegas JM, Cienfuegos AV, Ocampo AM, et al. Similar frequencies of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates producing KPC and VIM carbapenemases in diverse genetic clones at tertiary-care hospitals in Medellin, Colombia. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52:3978–3986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osawa K, Shigemura K, Kitagawa K, et al. Molecular characteristics of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from urine in Hyogo, Japan. Int J Urol. 2019;26:127–133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verma N, Prahraj AK, Mishra B, et al. Detection of carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa by phenotypic and genotypic methods in a tertiary care hospital of East India. J Lab Physicians. 2019;11:287–291.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraile-Ribot PA, Fernández J, Gomis-Font MA, et al. In vivo evolution of GES β-lactamases driven by ceftazidime/avibactam treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021;65:e0098621.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jorgensen SCJ, Rybak MJ. Meropenem and vaborbactam: stepping up the battle against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38:444–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabet M, Tarazi Z, Griffith DC. Activity of meropenem-vaborbactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in a neutropenic mouse thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;63:e01665–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty LA, Henig O, Patel TS, et al. Overview of meropenem-vaborbactam and newer antimicrobial agents for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:1461–1472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman M, Prasad KN, Gupta S, et al. Prevalence and molecular characterization of New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamases in multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii from India. Microb Drug Resist. 2018;24:792–798.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hishinuma T, Uchida H, Tohya M, et al. Emergence and spread of VIM-type metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates in Japan. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;23:265–268.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Croughs PD, Klaassen CHW, van Rosmalen J, et al. Unexpected mechanisms of resistance in Dutch Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected during 14 years of surveillance. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;52:407–410.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carugati M, Piazza A, Peri AM, et al. Fatal respiratory infection due to ST308 VIM-1-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a lung transplant recipient: case report and review of the literature. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20:635.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tamma PD, Smith TT, Adebayo A, et al. Prevalence of bla CTX-M genes in Gram-negative bloodstream isolates across 66 hospitals in the United States. J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59:e00127–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poulakou G, Lagou S, Karageorgopoulos DE, et al. New treatments of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karvouniaris M, Pontikis K, Nitsotolis T, et al. New perspectives in the antibiotic treatment of mechanically ventilated patients with infections from Gram-negatives. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2021;19:825–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamano Y. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against a broad range of clinically important Gram-negative bacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(Suppl 7):S544–S551.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sadek M, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas spp. using the NitroSpeed-Carba NP test. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;99:115280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill CM, Aktaþ E, Alfouzan W, et al. ERACE-PA Global Study Group. The ERACE-PA global surveillance program: ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam in vitro activity against a global collection of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;40(12):2533–2541.
   Google Scholar
• Gill CM, Asempa TE, Nicolau DP. Development and application of a pragmatic algorithm to guide definitive carbapenemase testing to identify carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(11):738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behzadi P, Baráth Z, Gajdács M. It’s not easy being green: a narrative review on the microbiology, virulence and therapeutic prospects of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics. 2021;10:42.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz Iglesias Y, Van Bambeke F. Activity of antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro model of biofilms in the context of cystic fibrosis: influence of the culture medium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e02204–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sindeldecker D, Stoodley P. The many antibiotic resistance and tolerance strategies of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biofilm. 2021;3:100056.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Timsit JF, Ruppé E, Barbier F, et al. Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:266–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen IH, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL. Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam alone and in combination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e01764–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carrara E, Savoldi A, Piddock LJV, et al. Clinical management of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a worldwide cross-sectional survey addressing the use of antibiotic combinations. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28:66–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scudeller L, Righi E, Chiamenti M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021;57:106344.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jorgensen SCJ, Trinh TD, Zasowski EJ, et al. Real-world experience with ceftazidime-avibactam for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6:ofz522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avycaz. Ceftazidime-avibactam for injection for intravenous use. Prescribing Information. Allergan USA, Inc; Madison NJ 07940 USA; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Zavicefta. Ceftazidime-avibactam (2 g/0.5 g powder for concentrate for solution for infusion). Summary of product characteristics. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals Operations Support Group; Ringaskiddy, County Cork, Ireland; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenlehner FM, Sobel JD, Newell P, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus doripenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a phase 3 randomized trial program. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:754–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmeli Y, Armstrong J, Laud PJ, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam or best available therapy in patients with ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa complicated urinary tract infections or complicated intra-abdominal infections (REPRISE): a randomised, pathogen-directed, phase 3 study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:661–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres A, Zhong N, Pachl J, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:285–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazuski JE, Gasink LB, Armstrong J, et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection: results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 program. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62:1380–1389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerbaxa. Ceftolozane-tazobactam for injection for intravenous use. Prescribing Information. Merck & Co., Inc.; Whitehouse Stations NJ 08889 USA; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Zerbaxa. Ceftolozane-tazobactam (1 g/0.5 g powder for solution for infusion). Summary of product characteristics. Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Waarderweg 39, 2031 BN Haarlem, The Netherlands; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Lucasti C, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase II trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane-tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with meropenem in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:5350–5357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infections in an era of multidrug resistance: results from a randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1462–1471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenlehner FM, Umeh O, Steenbergen J, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cUTI). Lancet. 2015;385:1949–1956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollef MH, Nováček M, Kivistik Ü, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19:1299–1311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidar G, Philips NJ, Shields RK, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: clinical effectiveness and evolution of resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:110–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recarbrio. Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam for injection for intravenous use. Prescribing Information. Merck & Co., Inc.; Whitehouse Station NJ 08889 USA; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Recarbrio. Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam(500 mg/500 mg/250 mg powder for solution for infusion). Summary of product characteristics. Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. Waarderweg 39, 2031 BN Haarlem, The Netherlands; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sims M, Mariyanovski V, McLeroth P, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:2616–2626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motsch J, Murta de Oliveira C, Stus V, et al. RESTORE-IMI 1: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/relebactam vs colistin plus imipenem in patients with imipenem-nonsusceptible bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70:1799–1808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titov I, Wunderink RG, Roquilly A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/ relebactam versus piperacillin/tazobactam in adults with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e4539–e4548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye KS, Bhowmick T, Metallidis S, et al. Effect of meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam on clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication in complicated urinary tract infection: the TANGO I randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:788–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderink RG, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Rahav G, et al. Effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus best-available therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections: the TANGO II randomized clinical trial. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;7:439–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alosaimy S, Lagnf AM, Morrisette T, et al. Real-world, multicenter experience with meropenem-vaborbactam for Gram-negative bacterial infections including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8:ofab371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GG, Newell P, Gasink LB, et al. Clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: pooled data from the ceftazidime/avibactam Phase III clinical trial programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73:2519–2523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MGP. The role of iron and siderophores in infection, and the development of siderophore antibiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(Suppl 7):S529–S537.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cornelis P, Dingemans J. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adapts its iron uptake strategies in function of the type of infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013;3:75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luscher A, Moynié L, Auguste PS, et al. TonB-dependent receptor repertoire of Pseudomonas aeruginosa for uptake of siderophore-drug conjugates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e00097–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ito A, Ishibashi N, Ishii R, et al. Changes of responsible iron-transporters for the activity of cefiderocol against Pseudomonas aeruginosa depending on the culture conditions. Presented at ASM Microbe 2019; 2019 Jun 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA; Poster AAR-772.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumoto S, Kanazawa S, Sato T, et al. Activities of cefiderocol with simulated human plasma concentrations against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli in an in vitro chemostat model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(11):e01128–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sato T, Yamawaki K. Cefiderocol: discovery, chemistry, and in vivo profiles of a novel siderophore cephalosporin. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(Suppl 7):S538–S543.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pybus CA, Felder-Scott C, Obuekwe V, et al. Cefiderocol retains antibiofilm activity in multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021;65:e01194–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Banin E, Vasil ML, Greenberg EP. Iron and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:11076–11081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackel MA, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, et al. 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). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00093–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackel MA, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, et al. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against carbapenem-nonsusceptible and multidrug-resistant isolates of Gram-negative bacilli collected worldwide in 2014 to 2016. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01968–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazmierczak KM, Tsuji M, Wise MG, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, against a recent collection of clinically relevant carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacilli, including serine carbapenemase- and metallo-β-lactamase-producing isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 Study). Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53:177–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlowsky JA, Hackel MA, Takemura M, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Gram-negative pathogens to cefiderocol in five consecutive annual multinational SIDERO-WT surveillance studies (2014–2019). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022 Feb 15;66(2):e0199021.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Longshaw C, Tsuji M, Hackel MM, et al. 679. In vitro activity of cefiderocol (CFDC), a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against difficult-to-treat-resistant (DTR) Gram-negative bacterial pathogens from the multi-national sentinel surveillance study, SIDERO-WT (2014–2017). Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 2):S309–S310.
   Google Scholar
• Soriano M, Nguyen SN, Hayes J, et al. Comparative activity of cefiderocol against Pseudomonas aeruginosa by infection source and census region in the United States: SIDERO-WT-2014–2017. Presented at ASM Microbe 2019; 2019 June 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA; Poster Saturday AAR-766.
   Google Scholar
• Rolston KVI, Gerges B, Shelburne S, et al. Activity of cefiderocol and comparators against isolates from cancer patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e01955–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lonsway DR, Bhatnagar A, Balbuena R, et al. Characterization of a pan-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa containing blaNDM-1 and blaIMP-1. Presented at ASM Microbe 2019; 2019 June 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA; Poster AAR-622.
   Google Scholar
• Simner PJ, Patel R, Burnham C-AD. Cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing considerations: the Achilles’ heel of the Trojan horse? J Clin Microbiol. 2020;59:e00951–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumoto S, Singley CM, Hoover J, et al. Efficacy of cefiderocol against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in immunocompetent-rat respiratory tract infection models recreating human plasma pharmacokinetics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00700–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura R, Ito-Horiyama T, Takemura M, et al. In vivo pharmacodynamic study of cefiderocol, a novel parenteral siderophore cephalosporin, in murine thigh and lung infection models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(9):e02031–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Monogue ML, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, et al. Efficacy of humanized exposures of cefiderocol (S-649266) against a diverse population of Gram-negative bacteria in a murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e01022–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghazi IM, Monogue ML, Tsuji M, et al. Humanized exposures of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, display sustained in vivo activity against siderophore-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharmacology. 2018;101:278–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetroja. Cefiderocol for injection for intravenous use. Prescribing Information. Shionogi Inc., Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Fetcroja. Cefiderocol (1 g powder for concentrate for solution for infusion). summary of product characteristics. Shionogi B.V., 151 Kingsfordweg, 1043GR Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Portsmouth S, van Veenhuyzen D, Echols R, et al. Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:1319–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderink RG, Matsunaga Y, Ariyasu M, et al. Cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for the treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (APEKS-NP): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:213–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassetti M, Echols R, Matsunaga Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of cefiderocol or best available therapy for the treatment of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CREDIBLE-CR): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, pathogen-focused, descriptive, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:226–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsunaga Y, Ariyasu M, Takemura M, et al. Cefiderocol treatment for serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant bacteria: post-hoc analysis of outcomes by pathogen in the CREDIBLE-CR study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(Suppl 1):S212.
   Google Scholar
• Edgeworth JD, Merante D, Patel S, et al. Compassionate use of cefiderocol as adjunctive treatment of native aortic valve endocarditis due to extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68:1932–1934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens RW, Clancy M. Compassionate use of cefiderocol in the treatment of an intraabdominal infection due to multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a case report. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39:1113–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alamarat ZI, Babic J, Tran TT, et al. Long-term compassionate use of cefiderocol to treat chronic osteomyelitis caused by extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a pediatric patient. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e01872–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zingg S, Nicoletti GJ, Kuster S, et al. Cefiderocol for extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections: real-world experience from a case series and review of the literature. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7:ofaa185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bavaro DF, Romanelli R, Stolfa S, et al. Recurrent neurosurgical site infection by extensively drug-resistant P. aeruginosa treated with cefiderocol: a case report and literature review. Infect Dis (Lond). 2021;53:206–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grande Perez C, Maillart E, Miendje Deyi VY, et al. Compassionate use of cefiderocol in a pancreatic abscess and emergence of resistance. Infect Dis Now. 2021; 51: 399–401.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kufel WD, Steele JM, Riddell SW, et al. Cefiderocol for treatment of an empyema due to extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical observations and susceptibility testing considerations. IDCases. 2020;21:e00863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodro M, Hernández-Meneses M, Ambrosioni J, et al. Salvage treatment with cefiderocol regimens in two intravascular foreign body infections by MDR Gram-negative pathogens, involving non-removable devices. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10:575–581.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bleibtreu A, Dortet L, Bonnin RA, et al. Susceptibility testing is key for the success of cefiderocol treatment: a retrospective cohort study. Microorganisms. 2021;9:282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grasa CD, Gómez-Gil MR, San Román Pacheco S, et al. Compassionate use of cefiderocol for VIM metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a toddler with Burkitt lymphoma. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;26:91–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cipko K, Kizny Gordon A, Adhikari S, et al. Cefiderocol treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii retained spinal hardware infection causing reversible acute interstitial nephritis: recto: cefiderocol causing acute interstitial nephritis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;109:108–111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chavda A, Gilchrist M, Samarasinghe D. Education: a compassionate use of cefiderocol to treat osteomyelitis caused by an XDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3(Suppl 1):i18–i20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streling AP, Al Obaidi MM, Lainhart WD, et al. Evolution of cefiderocol non-susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient without previous exposure to the antibiotic. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e4472–e4474.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borghesi L, Viaggi V, Franzetti M, et al. Successful prolonged cefiderocol treatment of a chronic left pleural empyema caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient affected by COVID-19: a case report. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;27:157–159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meschiari M, Volpi S, Faltoni M, et al. Real-life experience with compassionate use of cefiderocol for difficult-to-treat resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (DTR-P) infections. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3:dlab188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Satlin MJ, Fam D, Longshaw C, et al. Clinical response by minimum inhibitory concentrations in carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections under cefiderocol compassionate use program. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(Suppl 1): S717.
   Google Scholar
• Nordmann P, Shields RK, Doi Y, et al. MIC increase manuscript. Mechanisms of reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol among isolates from the CREDIBLE-CR and APEKS-NP clinical trials. Microbial Drug Resist. 2022;28:398–407.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest. 2009;136:1237–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–1596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucena A, Dalla Costa LM, Nogueira KS, et al. Nosocomial infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa: molecular epidemiology, risk factors, clinical features and outcomes. J Hosp Infect. 2014;87:234–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan Italy 2021. [ cited 2021 October 26]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urological-infections-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar