In vitrosynergistic activity of aztreonam (AZT) plus novel and old β‐lactamase inhibitor combinations against metallo‐β‐lactamase‐producing AZT‐resistantEnterobacterales. Issue 10 (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cervino, Ivan; Gonzalez, Deborah; Nastro, Marcela; Vega, Juana; Reyes, Ana Paula; Buriano, Gisella; Vay, Carlos; Famiglietti, Angela; Rodriguez, Carlos Hernan
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical microbiology. Volume 70:Issue 10(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: avibactam‐aztreonam -- clavulanic acid‐aztreonam -- monobactam -- NDM -- sulbactam -- tazobactam; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; 616.9041
• DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.001427
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-2615

Abstract

Abstract : N/A: The emergence of metallo‐β‐lactamase (MBL)‐producing Enterobacterales, mainly New Delhi metallo‐β‐lactamase (NDM), represents a clinical threat due to the limited therapeutic alternatives. Aztreonam (AZT) is stable to MBLs, but most MBL‐producing Enterobacterales isolates usually co‐harbour other β‐lactamases that confer resistance to AZT and, consequently, its use is restricted in these isolates. We compared the ability of sulbactam (SUL), tazobactam (TAZ), clavulanic acid (CLA) and avibactam (AVI) to restore the AZT activity in MBL‐producing AZT‐resistant Enterobacterales isolates. A collection of 64 NDM‐producing AZT‐resistant Enterobacterales from five hospitals in Buenos Aires city, Argentina, were studied during the period July‐December 2020. MICs were determined using the agar dilution method with Mueller‐Hinton agar according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommendations. AVI, SUL and TAZ were used at a fixed concentration of 4 mg l −1, whereas CLA was used at a fixed concentration of 2 mg l −1 . A screening method based on disc diffusion to evaluate this synergy was also conducted. Detection of bla KPC, bla OXA, bla NDM, bla VIM, bla CTXM‐1, bla PER‐2 and bla CIT was performed by PCR. The AZT‐AVI combination restored the AZT activity in 98.4% of AZT‐resistant strains, whereas CLA, TAZ and SUL did so in 70.3, 15.6 and 12.5%, respectively, in isolates co‐harbouring extended‐spectrum β‐lactamases, but were inactive in isolates harbouring AmpC‐type enzymes and/or KPC. The synergy screening test showed an excellent negative predictive value to confirm the absence of synergy, but positive results should be confirmed by a quantitative method. The excellent in vitro performance of the AZT‐CLA combination represents a much more economical alternative to AZT‐AVI, which could be of use in the treatment of MBL‐producing, AZT‐resistant Enterobacterales .