PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 23, 2015Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy167 citationsOpen Access

In Vitro Selection of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae with KPC-3 Carbapenemase

View Full Paper
DLDavid M. LivermoreMWMarina WarnerDJDorota Jamrozy

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Ceftazidime-avibactam is active against most Enterobacteriaceae isolates with KPC carbapenemases. We investigated whether this activity could be compromised by mutation. Single-step and multistep selections were attempted using ceftazidime-avibactam (avibactam fixed at 1 or 4 μg/ml) versus two strains each of Enterobacter cloacae and Klebsiella pneumoniae, all with the KPC-3 enzyme. Mutant bla KPC alleles were sequenced, and their parentage was confirmed by typing. Ceftazidime-avibactam selected mutants at up to 16× MIC, with frequencies of ca. 10(-9). This contrasted with previous experience for ceftaroline-avibactam, where mutant frequencies under similar conditions were 256 μg/ml and those of ceftazidime with 4 μg/ml avibactam from 0.25 to 1 μg/ml to 4 to 128 μg/ml; ceftaroline-avibactam MICs rose less, typically from 0.5 to 1 μg/ml to 1 to 8 μg/ml. The MICs of carbapenems and cephalosporins except ceftazidime and piperacillin-tazobactam were reduced for many mutants. Sequencing of blaKPC revealed point and insertion changes in 12/13 mutants investigated, representing all four parents; one mutant lacked bla KPC changes and possibly had reduced permeability. Amino acid changes commonly involved Ω loop alterations or 1 to 6 amino acid insertions immediately C-terminal to this loop. The most frequent change, seen in four mutants from three strains, was Asp179Tyr, replacing a residue that ordinarily forms a salt bridge to stabilize the Ω loop. Since ceftaroline-avibactam was less affected than ceftazidime-avibactam, we postulate that these mutations increase ceftazidimase specificity rather than conferring avibactam resistance. The clinical relevance remains uncertain.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Livermore et al. (2015) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a5ba178be34a306a6d335afhttps://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00678-15
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A standard numbering scheme for the class A β -lactamases1991 · 1,075 citations
  2. 2In vitro activity of temocillin against multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp. and Enterobacter spp., and evaluation of high-level temocillin resistance as a diagnostic marker for OXA-48 carbapenemase2013 · 62 citations
  3. 3PCR characterization and typing of Klebsiella pneumoniae using capsular type-specific, variable number tandem repeat and virulence gene targets2010 · 306 citations
  4. 4Widespread acquisition of antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter isolates from UK retail poultry and evidence for clonal expansion of resistant lineages2013 · 60 citations
  5. 5In vitro activity of ceftaroline (PPI-0903M, T-91825) against bacteria with defined resistance mechanisms and phenotypes2007 · 133 citations