Compares bactericidal effects of two antibiotics against resistant bacteria, indicating the need for optimized treatment strategies.
Background/Objectives: Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) and ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) are critical therapeutic options for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections; however, their comparative pharmacodynamics against carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) remain incompletely defined. This study aimed to compare the bactericidal activity of C/T and CZA administered by intermittent infusion (II) or continuous infusion (CI) using a hollow fiber infection model (HFIM) against a clinical isolate of CRPA. Methods: Clinically relevant concentration–time profiles for C/T and CZA based on prescribing information were simulated in the HFIM. The standard P. aeruginosa strain ATCC 27853 and a GES-producing clinical CRPA isolate were utilized. The primary endpoint was bactericidal activity (≥3 log10 CFU/mL reduction from baseline), while secondary endpoints included regrowth prevention and resistance development based on population analysis profiles (PAPs). Results: Against the standard strain, both agents achieved rapid killing without regrowth. However, for the GES-producing clinical isolate, C/T failed to achieve bactericidal activity. In contrast, CZA demonstrated sustained bacterial killing activity with the most pronounced early-phase bactericidal activity with CI of CZA (−4.25 log10 CFU/mL at 24 h). The bactericidal activity was persistent over 7 days without bacterial regrowth after treatment discontinuation. Conversely, bacterial regrowth occurred with II of CZA after drug withdrawal. PAPs showed the lack of resistance development against CZA, whereas resistance to C/T developed within 48 h after initiating therapy. Conclusions: In this HFIM study, CI of CZA demonstrated the most sustained suppression of bacterial growth and prevented resistance emergence against the tested clinical isolate of CRPA producing GES β-lactamases. Future clinical studies are warranted to assess the effectiveness of the CI regimen.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: