4.3 Article

Antimicrobial activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam tested against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected from patients with bloodstream infections isolated in United States hospitals (2013-2015) as part of the Program to Assess Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) surveillance program

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 92, Issue 2, Pages 158-163

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.05.011

Keywords

Ceftolozane-tazobactam; Surveillance; P. aeruginosa; ESBL; Bloodstream isolates

Funding

  1. Merck Co.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the in vitro activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam and comparators against 2647 Enterobacteriaceae and 355 Pseudomonas aeruginosa nonduplicate isolates collected from hospitalized patients with bloodstream infections in US hospitals from 2013 to 2015.Ceftolozane-tazobactam (95.5% susceptible), amikacin (99.2% susceptible), and meropenem (98.4% susceptible) were the most active against Enterobacteriaceae. For Enterobacteriaceae, 1.4% (n = 37) were carbapenem-resistant (CRE), and 10.2% (n = 271) exhibited an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) non-CRE phenotype. The most common ESBL enzyme detected was bla(CTX-)(15)-like (n = 159). Whereas ceftolozane-tazobactam showed good activity against ESBL non-CRE phenotype Enterobacteriaceae (87.1% susceptible), it lacked useful activity against CRE strains. Ceftolozane-tazobactam was the most potent (MIC50/90, 0.5/1 mg/L) (beta-lactam agent tested against P. aeruginosa isolates, with 97.5% susceptible. Only colistin was more active (98.9% susceptible). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was the most active beta-lactam agent tested against P. aeruginosa and demonstrated higher in vitro activity than available cephalosporins and piperacillin-tazobactam when tested against Enterobacteriaceae. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available