Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 2026 Mar 23;70(5):e01602-25. doi: 10.1128/aac.01602-25

Comparative outcomes of ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem-vaborbactam for KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections

Sara M Karaba 1,✉, Dariusz A Hareza 1, Jose M Munita 2, Jose R W Martinez 2, Yehudit Bergman 3, Armani M Hawes 1, Zackery P Bulman 4, Sara E Cosgrove 1, Patricia J Simner 1,5, Pranita D Tamma 1,3
Editor: Sarah Doernberg6
PMCID: PMC13148039  PMID: 41870149

ABSTRACT

Thirty-day mortality was similar in a propensity-score-weighted cohort of 73 patients with KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections treated with ceftazidime-avibactam or meropenem-vaborbactam. Emergence of resistance was higher in the ceftazidime-avibactam group (12% vs 0%); putative resistance mechanisms included porin mutations (Klebsiella pneumoniae) and R2 loop structural changes in AmpC (Enterobacter cloacae complex).

KEYWORDS: carbapenemases, CRE, antimicrobial resistance

INTRODUCTION

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) represent a major global health threat. Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) are a predominant driver of carbapenem resistance worldwide (1–5). Among clinical CRE isolates from across the United States in 2019 to 2021, 83% were carbapenemase-producing, with approximately 80% harboring blaKPC genes (6). The global spread of blaKPC has been largely facilitated by the dissemination of K. pneumoniae clonal group 258, with the blaKPC gene typically embedded within the TN4401 transposon, enhancing mobility (5, 7–9). More recent reports suggest widespread transmission of blaKPC across diverse bacterial species, lineages, plasmid types, and transposon locations, highlighting a growing challenge in containment and treatment (10–13).

In the United States, KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections are primarily treated with ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) or meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB) (14). The lack of clinical trials comparing these agents makes it difficult for clinicians to preferentially select between them. Observational data suggest that 30-day mortality is approximately 24% for patients receiving CZA and 18% for those treated with MVB (15–20). The emergence of resistance has been observed in approximately 13% (CZA-treated) and 8% (MVB-treated) of cases (15–19).

Although the combined endpoints of mortality and resistance emergence seem to favor MVB, the available data have limitations. Most studies derive outcome estimates from independent cohorts treated with either CZA or MVB, preventing direct comparisons within the same patient population (15–18). In one study directly comparing CZA and MVB within the same cohort, carbapenemase testing was performed for only 34% of isolates (19). Even when comparators are available, observational studies are prone to confounding by indication—sicker or more complex patients may be more likely to receive one agent over the other. Furthermore, several studies did not confirm CZA or MVB susceptibility using reference broth microdilution (BMD), raising concerns about potential misclassification (17–20).

To address several of these limitations, we aimed to expand the existing literature by comparing the odds of mortality and resistance emergence in patients treated with CZA or MVB for KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections.

Setting and participants: We conducted a prospective observational study of unique, consecutive patients with KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections who received CZA or MVB for at least 72 h between January 2020 and December 2023 at three Johns Hopkins Health System hospitals. Eligible patients had an isolate resistant to at least one carbapenem but susceptible to the administered treatment (CZA or MVB) based on BMD results. Patients with infections caused by organisms harboring blaNDM, blaVIM, blaIMP, or blaOXA-48-like genes were excluded. Day 1 was defined as the date of collection of the first positive culture.

Outcomes: The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. For patients with a recurrent clinical culture growing the same KPC-producing species within 90 days of the index infection, development of resistance to the antibiotic prescribed (i.e., CZA or MVB) was explored. The development of resistance was defined as a change from susceptible to resistant comparing the index and subsequent isolate, applying Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria (21).

Data extraction: The following data were entered into a REDCap database, with agreement by at least two infectious diseases physicians (S.M.K., D.A.H., P.D.T.): demographics, pre-existing medical conditions, severity of illness, source of infection and source control measures, bacterial species, genetic resistance markers, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data, antibiotic treatment, and outcomes. Baseline data were collected on day 1 of illness. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins University with a waiver of informed consent.

Microbiologic and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST): After routine clinical microbiology evaluations for species identification and AST, isolates were stored at −80°C. Isolates were sub-cultured from frozen stock onto tryptic soy broth agar. Species identification was confirmed using MALDI TOF MS. MICs for CZA and MVB (both for index and subsequent isolates) were determined using custom frozen reference BMD panels (22). Susceptibility was assessed according to CLSI criteria (21).

Whole genome sequencing (WGS): The Illumina MiSeq platform was used to construct assemblies to confirm the presence of blaKPC genes and to determine putative mechanisms of resistance in subsequent isolates that developed resistance to the treatment agent received. Further information on WGS methods and analysis is described in the Supplemental methods.

Statistical analysis: Baseline data were compared using Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) with propensity scores was applied to ensure comparability between the exposed (CZA) and unexposed (MVB) groups. Variables used to generate propensity scores were determined a priori and are described in Table 1. Patients in the CZA group were weighted by the inverse of their propensity score, while those in the MVB group were weighted by one minus the inverse of their propensity score, creating a pseudo-population for outcome analysis. Balance between groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with absolute SMDs between −0.20 and 0.20 indicative of adequate balance (23). The odds ratio (OR) for 30-day mortality was estimated using logistic regression via the “kmatch ipw” function in Stata (version 17.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX). A two-sided P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

TABLE 1.

Baseline characteristics of 73 patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam or meropenem-vaborbactam for Enterobacterales infections harboring blaKPC genes

Characteristics Full cohort Inverse probability weighted cohorta
Total
(N = 73)
Ceftazidime-avibactam
(57, 78.1%)
Meropenem-vaborbactam
(16, 21.9%)
P-value Ceftazidime-avibactam (%) Meropenem-vaborbactam (%) Standardized mean difference
Age ≥ 65 years 34 (46.6%) 28 (49.1%) 6 (37.5%) 0.57 46.78 47.29 −0.0080617
 Median age [IQR] 64 [56–72] 64 [57–72] 56 [35–69] 0.13
Female sex 30 (41.1%) 21 (36.8%) 9 (56.3%) 0.25
Severity of illness
    Intensive care unit admission 51 (69.9%) 38 (66.7%) 13 (81.3%) 0.36 69.39 71.62 −0.0522873
    Vasopressors 43 (58.9%) 35 (61.4%) 8 (50.0%) 0.57
    Mechanical ventilation 38 (52.1%) 27 (47.4%) 11 (68.8%) 0.16
Severe immunocompromiseb 11 (15.1%) 9 (15.8%) 2 (12.5%) 1.0 15.52 18.30 −0.0747875
Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 47 (64.4%) 38 (66.7%) 9 (56.3%) 0.56 64.98 71.75 −0.1318941
Renal replacement therapy 26 (35.6%) 21 (36.8%) 5 (31.3%) 0.77 35.82 40.13 −0.0860912
Site of Infection
 Intra-abdominal 5 (6.9%) 4 (7.0%) 1 (6.3%) 1.0
 Bacteremia 22 (30.1%) 17 (29.8%) 5 (31.3%) 1.0
 Pneumonia 21 (28.8%) 18 (31.6%) 3 (18.8%) 0.37
 Skin or soft tissue 15 (20.6%) 9 (15.8%) 6 (37.5%) 0.08
 Urine 9 (12.3%) 9 (15.8%) 0 (0%) 0.19
Uncontrolled source of infection by day 14c 16 (21.9%) 11 (19.3%) 5 (31.3%) 0.32 20.03 15.42 0.01972139
Escherichia coli 4 (5.5%) 3 (5.3%) 1 (6.3%) 1.0 5.45 3.70 0.0708201
Klebsiella pneumoniae 43 (58.9%) 35 (61.4%) 8 (50.0%) 0.57 59.82 62.70 −0.0528657
Enterobacter cloacae complex 10 (13.7%) 8 (14.0%) 2 (12.5%) 1.0 14.03 16.79 −0.077343
a

Variables listed in the columns below were incorporated in the generation of propensity scores.

b

The following categories comprised severe immunocompromise: bone marrow transplant in the last 12 months (0, 0%), active graft versus host disease on immunosuppressive therapy (1, 1.4%), chemotherapy in the last 6 months (3, 4%), solid organ transplant (6, 8%), AIDS (0, 0%), autoimmune condition requiring corticosteroids or biologics (1, 1.4%), or an absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/microliter between days 1 to 7 (2, 3%); categories are not mutually exclusive.

c

Persistent sources of infection included undrained abscesses or indwelling catheters not removed while receiving therapy with either ceftazidime-avibactam or meropenem-vaborbactam.

Among 73 eligible patients, 57 (78%) received CZA (2.5 g every 8 h), and 16 (22%) received MVB (4 g every 8 h), both infused over 3 h, with renal dose adjustments as appropriate. The median duration of therapy was 15 days in both groups [CZA IQR 8–20 vs MVB IQR 9–21]. Baseline characteristics for the overall cohort and the CZA and MVB subgroups are summarized in Table 1. Seventy percent of patients were in the ICU at the time of culture collection. Common bacterial species were K. pneumoniae (59%), Enterobacter cloacae complex (14%), and Escherichia coli (6%). Of the 73 isolates, 35% and 65% contained blaKPC-2 and blaKPC-3 genes, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. After IPW, balance was achieved across all variables, with all SMDs between −0.20 and 0.20.

Thirty-day mortality was 14% (8/57) and 19% (3/16) in the CZA and MVB groups, respectively (P = 0.70). In the IPW cohort, there was no difference in the odds of death by day 30 between the two treatment groups (aOR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.87–1.25, P = 0.66). Twenty-four patients (33%) experienced a recurrent infection from any site with a KPC-producing isolate of the same species within 90 days of the initial positive culture (Table S1). Of these, 17/57 (30%) and 7/16 (44%) were in the CZA and MVB groups, respectively (P = 0.37). Emergence of resistance occurred in 12% (2/17) and 0% (0/7) for patients receiving CZA or MVB for the index infection, respectively.

Regarding the two isolates for which CZA resistance emerged, one was a ST258 K. pneumoniae and the second was a ST171 E. cloacae complex. Both isolates contained blaKPC-3 genes, which were harbored on a ΔTn1331-Tn4401d nested transposon element. Neither isolate harbored additional acquired β-lactamase genes or mutations in the blaKPC gene. In the K. pneumoniae strain, the increase in CZA MIC from 0.5 to 32 µg/mL was potentially due to the combination of porin deletions in OmpK36 (ΔM1-A22) and OmpK37 (ΔF384). In the E. cloacae strain, the increased CZA MIC from 8 to 64 µg/mL was potentially associated with a deletion of Ala294–Pro295 in AmpC.

In a cohort of 73 patients with invasive KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections, approximately 15% died within 30 days, a proportion consistent with previously published reports (15–19). Within the IPW cohort, 30-day mortality was similar between patients receiving CZA or MVB. To date, no clinical trials have directly compared CZA and MVB for KPC-producing infections. Although limited by the small sample size, our analysis identified a potential difference in the emergence of resistance: resistance developed in 12% of patients treated with CZA, whereas no resistance was observed among patients receiving MVB. Notably, resistance estimates were derived only from patients with recurrent infections and may, therefore, underestimate the true incidence that might have been detected through systematic post-treatment surveillance cultures. Nonetheless, these findings are broadly consistent with prior studies reporting emergence of resistance ranging from 3% to 32% for CZA and from 0% to 17% for MVB (15–19).

Previous studies suggest that dose reductions of newer β-lactams in patients receiving renal replacement therapy can lead to failure in achieving pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets, ultimately leading to poor patient outcomes including subsequent resistance (15, 24). One of two patients in our study whose isolates developed CZA resistance required continuous renal replacement therapy and underwent CZA dosage reductions. The possibility of suboptimal outcomes with CZA dosage reductions in patients requiring renal replacement needs to be investigated further.

Key mechanisms of Enterobacterales resistance to CZA include (i) acquisition or upregulation of β-lactamases not inhibited by avibactam (e.g., metallo-β-lactamases); (ii) structural alterations in serine β-lactamases (e.g., KPC, OXA-48, AmpC) reducing avibactam binding or enhancing ceftazidime hydrolysis; (iii) increased expression or copy number of β-lactamase genes; (iv) decreased outer membrane permeability due to porin loss or modification; and (v) upregulation of efflux pumps (25). While our findings remain putative and lack experimental validation, resistance in the K. pneumoniae isolate may be attributable to deletions in outer membrane proteins OmpK36 and OmpK37, which can diminish β-lactam permeability (26, 27). In contrast, resistance in the E. cloacae isolate appears to involve structural modifications in the AmpC R2 loop, a mechanism previously linked to enhanced ceftazidime hydrolysis and reduced avibactam inhibition (28, 29).

This study is observational, retrospective, limited in size and geography, and subject to residual confounding despite inclusion of propensity score weighting. However, our findings underscore an important consideration: while survival for KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections appears comparable between CZA and MVB, CZA may be more prone to the emergence of resistance. Larger studies with geographically diverse isolates are needed to validate our findings as these data are important for guiding antibiotic selection and hospital formulary decisions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by National Institute of Health R21-AI173475 and K24-AI185302 (P.D.T.). S.E.C. and P.D.T. were funded by the Prevention Epicenters Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant nos. 6 U54CK000617-01-02 and 5 U54CK000617-02-00).

Contributor Information

Sara M. Karaba, Email: sara.karaba@jhmi.edu.

Sarah Doernberg, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01602-25.

Supplemental material. aac.01602-25-s0001.docx.

Supplemental methods.

aac.01602-25-s0001.docx (54.3KB, docx)
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01602-25.SuF1
Table S1. aac.01602-25-s0002.docx.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing results from broth microdilution for patients with recurrent KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections initially treated with CZA or MVB with subsequent recurrent infections with the same bacterial species within 90 days.

aac.01602-25-s0002.docx (23.5KB, docx)
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01602-25.SuF2

ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.

REFERENCES

  • 1. WHO . 2021. Antimicrobial resistance. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance
  • 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). 2019. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/82532 [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Murray CJL, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, Swetschinski L, Robles Aguilar G, Gray A, Han C, Bisignano C, Rao P, Wool E, et al. 2022. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. The Lancet 399:629–655. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Munoz-Price LS, Poirel L, Bonomo RA, Schwaber MJ, Daikos GL, Cormican M, Cornaglia G, Garau J, Gniadkowski M, Hayden MK, Kumarasamy K, Livermore DM, Maya JJ, Nordmann P, Patel JB, Paterson DL, Pitout J, Villegas MV, Wang H, Woodford N, Quinn JP. 2013. Clinical epidemiology of the global expansion of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases. Lancet Infect Dis 13:785–796. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70190-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Nordmann P, Cuzon G, Naas T. 2009. The real threat of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing bacteria. Lancet Infect Dis 9:228–236. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70054-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Sader HS, Mendes RE, Carvalhaes CG, Kimbrough JH, Castanheira M. 2023. Changing epidemiology of carbapenemases among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales From United States hospitals and the activity of aztreonam-avibactam against contemporary Enterobacterales (2019-2021). Open Forum Infect Dis 10:ofad046. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Won SY, Munoz-Price LS, Lolans K, Hota B, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. 2011. Emergence and rapid regional spread of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 53:532–540. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. van Duin D, Doi Y. 2017. The global epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Virulence 8:460–469. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2016.1222343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Bush K, Bradford PA. 2020. Epidemiology of β-lactamase-producing pathogens. Clin Microbiol Rev 33:e00047-19. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00047-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Epidemiological alert: emergence and increase of new combinations of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales in Latin America and the Caribbean - 22 October 2021. 2021. PAHO/WHO | Pan American Health Organization. 2021. Available from: https://www.paho.org/en/documents/epidemiological-alert-emergence-and-increase-new-combinations-carbapenemases [Google Scholar]
  • 11. García-Betancur JC, Appel TM, Esparza G, Gales AC, Levy-Hara G, Cornistein W, Vega S, Nuñez D, Cuellar L, Bavestrello L, Castañeda-Méndez PF, Villalobos-Vindas JM, Villegas MV. 2021. Update on the epidemiology of carbapenemases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 19:197–213. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1813023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Escandón-Vargas K, Reyes S, Gutiérrez S, Villegas MV. 2017. The epidemiology of carbapenemases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 15:277–297. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2017.1268918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Thomas GR, Corso A, Pasterán F, Shal J, Sosa A, Pillonetto M, de Souza Peral RT, Hormazábal JC, Araya P, Saavedra SY, et al. 2022. Increased detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bacteria in Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis 28:1–8. doi: 10.3201/eid2811.220415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Tamma PD, Heil EL, Justo JA, Mathers AJ, Satlin MJ, Bonomo RA. 2024. Infectious diseases Society of America 2024 guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant gram-negative infections. Clin Infect Dis ciae403:ciae403. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Chen L, Press EG, Kreiswirth BN, Clancy CJ. 2018. Pneumonia and renal replacement therapy are risk factors for ceftazidime-avibactam treatment failures and resistance among patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e02497–17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02497-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Shields RK, McCreary EK, Marini RV, Kline EG, Jones CE, Hao B, Chen L, Kreiswirth BN, Doi Y, Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. 2020. Early experience with meropenem-vaborbactam for treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Clin Infect Dis 71:667–671. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Tumbarello M, Raffaelli F, Giannella M, Mantengoli E, Mularoni A, Venditti M, De Rosa FG, Sarmati L, Bassetti M, Brindicci G, et al. 2021. Ceftazidime-avibactam use for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae infections: a retrospective observational multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 73:1664–1676. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Tumbarello M, Raffaelli F, Cascio A, Falcone M, Signorini L, Mussini C, De Rosa FG, Losito AR, De Pascale G, Pascale R, Giacobbe DR, Oliva A, Farese A, Morelli P, Tiseo G, Meschiari M, Del Giacomo P, Montagnani F, Fabbiani M, Vargas J, Spanu T, Bassetti M, Venditti M, Viale P. 2022. Compassionate use of meropenem/vaborbactam for infections caused by KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: a multicentre study. JAC Antimicrob Resist 4:dlac022. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlac022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Ackley R, Roshdy D, Meredith J, Minor S, Anderson WE, Capraro GA, Polk C. 2020. Meropenem-vaborbactam versus ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64:e02313-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02313-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Marino A, Maraolo AE, Mazzitelli M, Oliva A, Geremia N, De Vito A, Gullotta C, Scaglione V, Vania E, Lo Menzo S, Navalesi P, Volpicelli L, Fiori A, Prestifilippo P, Cattelan A, Mastroianni CM, Madeddu G, Cacopardo B, Nunnari G. 2025. Head-to-head: meropenem/vaborbactam versus ceftazidime/avibactam in ICUs patients with KPC-producing K. pneumoniae infections- results from a retrospective multicentre study. Infection 53:2645–2658. doi: 10.1007/s15010-025-02608-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute . 2024. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In CLSI M100, 34th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. CLSI . 2024. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. In CLSI standard M07, 12th Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Stuart EA, Lee BK, Leacy FP. 2013. Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol 66:S84–S90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Hareza DA, Cosgrove SE, Bonomo RA, Dzintars K, Karaba SM, Hawes AM, Tekle T, Simner PJ, Tamma PD. 2024. Clinical outcomes and emergence of resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections treated with ceftolozane-tazobactam versus ceftazidime-avibactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e0090724. doi: 10.1128/aac.00907-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Papp-Wallace KM, Mack AR, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. 2020. Resistance to novel β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations: the “price of progress”. Infect Dis Clin North Am 34:773–819. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2020.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Gaibani P, Re MC, Campoli C, Viale PL, Ambretti S. 2020. Bloodstream infection caused by KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam: epidemiology and genomic characterization. Clin Microbiol Infect 26:516. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Li S, Feng X, Li M, Shen Z. 2023. In vivo adaptive antimicrobial resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae during antibiotic therapy. Front Microbiol 14:1159912. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1159912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Kawai A, McElheny CL, Iovleva A, Kline EG, Sluis-Cremer N, Shields RK, Doi Y. 2020. Structural basis of reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam and cefiderocol in Enterobacter cloacae due to AmpC R2 loop deletion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64:e00198-20. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00198-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Shields RK, Iovleva A, Kline EG, Kawai A, McElheny CL, Doi Y. 2020. Clinical evolution of AmpC-mediated ceftazidime-avibactam and cefiderocol resistance in Enterobacter cloacae complex following exposure to cefepime. Clin Infect Dis 71:2713–2716. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental material. aac.01602-25-s0001.docx.

Supplemental methods.

aac.01602-25-s0001.docx (54.3KB, docx)
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01602-25.SuF1
Table S1. aac.01602-25-s0002.docx.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing results from broth microdilution for patients with recurrent KPC-producing Enterobacterales infections initially treated with CZA or MVB with subsequent recurrent infections with the same bacterial species within 90 days.

aac.01602-25-s0002.docx (23.5KB, docx)
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01602-25.SuF2

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES