First Study of Antimicrobial Activity of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated from Patients with Urinary Tract Infection in Tehran, Iran

References

• Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13(5):269–284. doi:10.1038/nrmicro343225853778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeter K, Katouli M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a review of their pathogenesis and prevalence in clinical settings and the environment. Infect Epidemiol Med. 2016;2:25–32. doi:10.18869/modares.iem.2.1.25
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen L, Garcia J, Gruenberg K, MacDougall C. Multidrug-resistant pseudomonas infections: hard to treat, but hope on the horizon? Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(8):1–10. doi:10.1007/s11908-018-0629-629368250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikhail S, Singh NB, Kebriaei R, et al. Evaluation of the synergy of ceftazidime-avibactam in combination with meropenem, amikacin, aztreonam, colistin, or fosfomycin against well-characterized multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(8):e00779–00719. doi:10.1128/AAC.00779-1931182535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlowsky JA, Kazmierczak KM, Bouchillon SK, de Jonge BLM, Stone GG, Sahm DF. Activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against clinical isolates of enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected in Latin American countries: results from the INFORM global surveillance program, 2012 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(4):e01814–e01818. doi:10.1128/AAC.01814-1830670424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shortridge D, Pfaller MA, Arends SR, Raddatz J, DePestel DD, Flamm RK. Comparison of the in vitro susceptibility of ceftolozane-tazobactam with the cumulative susceptibility rates of standard antibiotic combinations when tested against Pseudomonas aeruginosa from ICU patients with bloodstream infections or pneumonia. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;2:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• García-Fernández S, García-Castillo M, Bou G, et al. Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales isolates recovered from intensive care unit patients in Spain: the SUPERIOR multicentre study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53(5):682–688. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.02.00430769199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shortridge D, Castanheira M, Pfaller MA, Flamm RK. Ceftolozane-tazobactam activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from US hospitals: report from the PACTS antimicrobial surveillance program, 2012 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(7):e00465–e00417. doi:10.1128/AAC.00465-1728483953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karami P, Mohajeri P, Mashouf RY, et al. Molecular characterization of clinical and environmental Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated in a burn center. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019;26(7):1731–1736. doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.07.00931762651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alatoom A, Elsayed H, Lawlor K, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial activity between ceftolozane–tazobactam and ceftazidime–avibactam against multidrug-resistant isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;62:39–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2017.06.00728610832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLSI. M100 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial. Clinical and Laboratory Standas Institute 950 West Valley Road, Suite 2500; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Laudy AE, Róg P, Smolińska-Król K, et al. Prevalence of ESBL-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Warsaw, Poland, detected by various phenotypic and genotypic methods. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0180121. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.018012128658322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachdeva R, Sharma B, Sharma R. Evaluation of different phenotypic tests for detection of metallo-β-lactamases in imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Lab Physicians. 2017;9(4):249. doi:10.4103/JLP.JLP_118_1628966485
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daoud Z, Salem Sokhn E, Masri K, Matar GM, Doron S. Escherichia coli isolated from urinary tract infections of lebanese patients between 2005 and 2012: epidemiology and profiles of resistance. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:26. doi:10.3389/fmed.2015.0006125984513
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franco MRG, Caiaffa-Filho HH, Burattini MN, Rossi F. Metallo-beta-lactamases among imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Brazilian university hospital. Clinics. 2010;65(9):825–829. doi:10.1590/S1807-5932201000090000221049207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bert F, Branger C, Lambert-Zechovsky N. Identification of PSE and OXA β-lactamase genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa using PCR–restriction fragment length polymorphism. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;50(1):11–18. doi:10.1093/jac/dkf06912096001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Park Y-J, Kim M, et al. Prevalence of Ambler class A and D β-lactamases among clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Korea. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(1):122–127. doi:10.1093/jac/dki16015890715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shakibaie MR, Shahcheraghi F, Hashemi A, Adeli NS. Detection of TEM, SHV and PER type extended-spectrum ß-lactamase genes among clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burnt patients at Shafa-Hospital, Kerman, Iran. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2008;11(2):104–111.
   Google Scholar
• Poirel L, Naas T, Nicolas D, et al. Characterization of VIM-2, a carbapenem-hydrolyzing metallo-β-lactamase and its plasmid-and integron-borne gene from a Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolate in France. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(4):891–897. doi:10.1128/AAC.44.4.891-897.200010722487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omeroglu EE. Determination of the genetic diversity of different bioluminescent bacteria by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2015;8:7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker E, Lyman A, Gupta K, Mahoney MV, Snyder GM, Hirsch EB. Clinical management of an increasing threat: outpatient urinary tract infections due to multidrug-resistant uropathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(7):960–965. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw39627313263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez GV, Babiker A, Master RN, Luu T, Mathur A, Bordon J. Antibiotic resistance among urinary isolates from female outpatients in the United States in 2003 and 2012. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(5):2680–2683. doi:10.1128/AAC.02897-1526883714
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Flamm RK, Carvalhaes CG, Castanheira M. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, and meropenem stratified by U.S. Census divisions: results from the 2017 INFORM program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(12):e01587–18. doi:10.1128/AAC.01587-1830224535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castanheira M, Duncan LR, Mendes RE, Sader HS, Shortridge D. Activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterobacteriaceae isolates collected from respiratory tract specimens of hospitalized patients in the United States during 2013 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(3):e02125–17. doi:10.1128/AAC.02125-1729263073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Huband MD, Castanheira M, Flamm RK. Pseudomonas aeruginosa antimicrobial susceptibility results from four years (2012 to 2015) of the international network for optimal resistance monitoring program in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(3):e02252–16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02252-1628069652
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Horn K, Sneed D, Goldstein E. Comparative “real world” in vitro activity of two new antimicrobials (ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam) against ceftazidime non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa and resistant Enterobacteriaceae from california long term acute care hospitals. Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;3(1):1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Tato M, Garcia-Castillo M, Bofarull AM, Canton R. In vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae recovered in Spanish medical centres: results of the CENIT study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46(5):502–510. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.07.00426315199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland C, Nicolau D. 415In vitro potency of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa displaying multidrug resistance. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014;S159. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofu052.281
   Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Castanheira M, Flamm RK. Antimicrobial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against gram-negative bacteria isolated from patients hospitalized with pneumonia in U.S. Medical centers, 2011 to 2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(4):e02083–16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02083-1628069649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buehrle DJ, Shields RK, Chen L, et al. Evaluation of the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam against meropenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(5):3227–3231. doi:10.1128/AAC.02969-1526976862
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphries RM, Hindler JA, Wong-Beringer A, Miller SA. Activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam against beta-lactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12):e01858–01817. doi:10.1128/AAC.01858-1728993338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GG, Newell P, Bradford PA. In vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against isolates from patients in a Phase 3 clinical trial for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(7):e02584–17. doi:10.1128/AAC.02584-1729686147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sader HS, Castanheira M, Flamm RK, Huband MD, Jones RN. Ceftazidime-avibactam activity against aerobic gram negative organisms isolated from intra-abdominal infections in United States Hospitals, 2012-2014. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17(4):473–478. doi:10.1089/sur.2016.03627104633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GG, Bradford PA, Yates K, Newell P. In vitro activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against urinary isolates from patients in a Phase 3 clinical trial programme for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(5):1396–1399. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw56128088768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Meunier D, et al. Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against surveillance and ‘problem’Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and non-fermenters from the British Isles. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(8):2278–2289. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx13628520867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendes RE, Castanheira M, Woosley LN, Stone GG, Bradford PA, Flamm RK. Molecular beta-lactamase characterization of aerobic gram-negative pathogens recovered from patients enrolled in the ceftazidime-avibactam Phase 3 trials for complicated intra-abdominal infections, with efficacies analyzed against susceptible and resistant subsets. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(6):e02447–16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02447-1628348155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Duin D, Bonomo RA. Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Ceftolozane/Tazobactam: second-generation beta-Lactam/beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(2):234–241. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw24327098166
   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(11):1380–1389. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw13326962078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castanheira M, Doyle T, Davis A, Mendes R, Sader H. Intrinsic resistance mechanisms detected among ceftazidime-avibactam-susceptible and-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates collected from United States Hospitals (2015), Sunday-166. ASM Microbe. 2017;1.
   Google Scholar
• Okur DS, Yuruyen C, Gungor O, et al. Genotypic characterization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from Turkish children with cystic fibrosis. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:675–685. doi:10.2147/IDR.S18315131114258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar