4.7 Article

In-vitro activity of oral third-generation cephalosporins plus clavulanate against ESBL-producing Enterobacterales isolates from the MERINO trial

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106858

关键词

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; Oral cephalosporins; Beta-lactamase inhibitors; Gram-negative resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales as a cause of community-acquired uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is on the rise. Currently, there are minimal oral treatment options. New combinations of existing oral third-generation cephalosporins paired with clavulanate may overcome resistance mechanisms seen in these emerging uropathogens. Ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae containing CTX-M-type ESBLs or AmpC, in addition to narrow-spectrum OXA and SHV enzymes, were selected from blood culture isolates obtained from the MERINO trial. Min-imum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of third-generation cephalosporins (cefpodoxime, ceftibuten, cefixime, cefdinir), both with and without clavulanate, were determined. One hundred and one isolates were used with ESBL, AmpC and narrow-spectrum OXA genes (e.g. OXA-1, OXA-10) present in 84, 15 and 35 isolates, respectively. Susceptibility to oral third-generation cephalosporins alone was very poor. Ad-dition of 2 mg/L clavulanate reduced the MIC50 values (cefpodoxime MIC50 2 mg/L, ceftibuten MIC50 2 mg/L, cefixime MIC50 2 mg/L, cefdinir MIC50 4 mg/L) and restored susceptibility (33%, 49%, 40% and 21% susceptible, respectively) in a substantial number of isolates. This finding was less pronounced in isolates co-harbouring AmpC. In-vitro activity of these new combinations may be limited in real-world Enterobac-terales isolates co-harbouring multiple antimicrobial resistance genes. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data would be useful for further evaluation of their activity.Crown Copyright & COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据