Alatoom Adnan, Elsayed Hashim, Lawlor Karen, AbdelWareth Laila, El-Lababidi Rania, Cardona Lysettee, Mooty Mohammad, Bonilla Maria-Fernanda, Nusair Ahmad, Mirza Imran
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Clinical Microbiology Section, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Al-Maryah Island, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Clinical Microbiology Section, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Al-Maryah Island, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;62:39-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jun 10.
This study compared the activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains.
All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC 0.125μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC 0.38μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC ≥256μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC ≥256μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC 1.5μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC 0.75μg/ml).
Ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime-avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane-tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime-avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme.
本研究比较了头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦和头孢他啶/阿维巴坦对120株细菌的活性,这些细菌包括产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)菌株、耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌科细菌(CRE)以及铜绿假单胞菌,它们分离自阿联酋阿布扎比克利夫兰诊所收治的患者。
采用Etest试纸条最低抑菌浓度(MIC)法检测体外敏感性,并使用PCR对CRE菌株产生的碳青霉烯酶进行特征分析。
所有29株ESBL分离株对头孢他啶/阿维巴坦敏感(MIC为0.125μg/ml),而除1株外所有分离株对头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦敏感(MIC为0.38μg/ml)。27株(45%)CRE分离株对头孢他啶/阿维巴坦敏感(MIC≥256μg/ml),而只有6株(10%)分离株对头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦敏感(MIC≥256μg/ml)。极少NDM-1分离株对头孢他啶/阿维巴坦敏感,而大多数OXA-48分离株敏感。29株(94%)铜绿假单胞菌分离株对头孢他啶/阿维巴坦敏感(MIC为1.5μg/ml),而30株(97%)分离株对头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦敏感(MIC为0.75μg/ml)。
头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦和头孢他啶/阿维巴坦对ESBL和铜绿假单胞菌显示出相当的活性,头孢他啶/阿维巴坦对ESBL分离株的MIC较低,而头孢洛扎/他唑巴坦对铜绿假单胞菌的MIC较低。头孢他啶/阿维巴坦对所有CRE分离株(携带NDM-1酶的分离株除外)显示出更好的活性。