Avibactam potentiated the activity of both ceftazidime and aztreonam against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro
- BMC Microbiol. 2021 Feb 22;21(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02108-2.
- 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1 Friendship Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
- 2. Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Chongqing Health Center for Women And Children, 120 Longshan Road, Yubei District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
- 3. Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 59, Haier Road, Laoshan District, Qingdao, 266061, China.
- 4. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Qingdao Women's and Children's Hospital, No.6, Tongfu Road, Shibei District, Qingdao, 266061, China.
- 5. Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1 Friendship Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China. [email protected].
- 6. Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1 Friendship Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China. [email protected].
- # Contributed equally.
Background: Treatment options for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia) infections were limited. We assessed the efficacy of ceftazidime (CAZ), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI), aztreonam (ATM), and aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) against a selection of 76 S. maltophilia out of the 1179 strains isolated from the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018.
Methods: We investigated the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the 1179 S. maltophilia clinical isolates from the first affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018, a collection of 76 isolates were selected for further study of microbiological characterization. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of CAZ, CAZ-AVI, ATM and ATM-AVI were determined via the broth microdilution method. We deemed that CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ or ATM alone when CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI led to a category change from "Resistant" or "Intermediate" with CAZ or ATM alone to "Susceptible" with CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI, or if the MIC of CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was at least 4-fold lower than the MIC of CAZ or ATM alone.
Results: For the 76 clinical isolates included in the study, MICs of CAZ, ATM, CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI ranged from 0.03-64, 1-1024, 0.016-64, and 0.06-64 μg/mL, respectively. In combined therapy, AVI was active at restoring the activity of 48.48% (16/33) and 89.71% (61/68) of S. maltophilia to CAZ and ATM, respectively. Furthermore, CAZ-AVI showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (77.63% vs. 56.58%, P < 0.001), and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 8 μg/mL, P < 0.05) when compared to CAZ. According to our definition, CAZ-AVI was more active in vitro than CAZ alone for 81.58% (62/76) of the isolates. Similarly, ATM-AVI also showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (90.79% vs.10.53%, P < 0.001) and MIC50 (2 μg/mL vs. 64 μg/mL, P < 0.001) when compared to ATM. According to our definition, ATM-AVI was also more active in vitro than ATM alone for 94.74% (72/76) of the isolates.
Conclusions: AVI potentiated the activity of both CAZ and ATM against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro. We demonstrated that CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI are both useful therapeutic options to treat infections caused by S. maltophilia.