This article reviews resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam as an aspect of its primary pharmacology, linked thematically with recent reviews of the basic in vitro and in vivo translational biology of the combination (J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; 77: 2321-40 and 2341-52). In Enterobacterales or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, single-step exposures to 8× MIC of ceftazidime/avibactam yielded frequencies of resistance from <∼0.5 × 10-9 to 2-8 × 10-9, depending on the host strain and the β-lactamase harboured. β-Lactamase structural gene mutations mostly affected the avibactam binding site through changes in the Ω-loop: e.g. Asp179Tyr (D179Y) in KPC-2. Other mutations included ones proposed to reduce the permeability to ceftazidime and/or avibactam through changes in outer membrane structure, up-regulated efflux, or both. The existence, or otherwise, of cross-resistance between ceftazidime/avibactam and other antibacterial agents was also reviewed as a key element of the preclinical primary pharmacology of the new agent. Cross-resistance between ceftazidime/avibactam and other β-lactam-based antibacterial agents was caused by MBLs. Mechanism-based cross-resistance was not observed between ceftazidime/avibactam and fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides or colistin. A low level of general co-resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam was observed in MDR Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. For example, among 2821 MDR Klebsiella spp., 3.4% were resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam, in contrast to 0.07% of 8177 non-MDR isolates. Much of this was caused by possession of MBLs. Among 1151 MDR, XDR and pandrug-resistant isolates of P. aeruginosa from the USA, 11.1% were resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam, in contrast to 3.0% of 7452 unselected isolates. In this case, the decreased proportion susceptible was not due to MBLs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nichols et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: