Abstract
Emerging resistance to colistin in clinical Acinetobacter baumannii isolates is of growing concern. Since current treatment options for these strains are extremely limited, we investigated the in vitro activities of various antimicrobial combinations against colistin-resistant A. baumannii. Nine clinical isolates (8 from bacteremia cases and 1 from a pneumonia case) of colistin-resistant A. baumannii were collected in Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea, between January 2010 and December 2012. To screen for potential synergistic effects, multiple combinations of two antimicrobials among 12 commercially available agents were tested using the multiple-combination bactericidal test (MCBT). Checkerboard tests were performed to validate these results. Among the 9 colistin-resistant strains, 6 were pandrug resistant and 3 were extensively drug resistant. With MCBT, the most effective combinations were colistin-rifampin and colistin-teicoplanin; both combinations showed synergistic effect against 8 of 9 strains. Colistin-aztreonam, colistin-meropenem, and colistin-vancomycin combinations showed synergy against seven strains. Colistin was the most common constituent of antimicrobial combinations that were active against colistin-resistant A. baumannii. Checkerboard tests were then conducted in colistin-based combinations. Notably, colistin-rifampin showed synergism against all nine strains (100%). Both colistin-vancomycin and colistin-teicoplanin showed either synergy or partial synergy. Colistin combined with another β-lactam agent (aztreonam, ceftazidime, or meropenem) showed a relatively moderate effect. Colistin combined with ampicillin-sulbactam, tigecycline, amikacin, azithromycin, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole demonstrated limited synergism. Using MCBT and checkerboard tests, we found that only colistin-based combinations, particularly those with rifampin, glycopeptides, or β-lactams, may confer therapeutic benefits against colistin-resistant A. baumannii.
INTRODUCTION
Acinetobacter baumannii is regarded as an important nosocomial pathogen causing various infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia, bloodstream infections, surgical site infections, and urinary tract infections (1). It has become more problematic by developing resistance to a wide range of antimicrobials, including carbapenems (2–5). Colistin, the most active agent against multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens in vitro, has been reintroduced for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (6). Unfortunately, colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains have been reported recently (7). As these strains are simultaneously resistant to most antimicrobial agents, treatment options for them are extremely limited (8). A few previous studies evaluated the in vitro synergism of antimicrobial combinations against colistin-resistant A. baumannii (9–11). In those studies, however, the number of antimicrobial agents tested did not exceed four, and only colistin-based combinations were tested. In real clinical practice, colistin-associated nephrotoxicity occurs in about 40% of treated patients, and colistin therapy is frequently stopped because of this (8, 12, 13). Therefore, the in vitro efficacy of non-colistin-based combinations against colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains should also be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the in vitro efficacy of antimicrobial combinations, among 12 commercially available antimicrobial agents, against clinical isolates of colistin-resistant A. baumannii using the multiple-combination bactericidal test (MCBT) and checkerboard method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients, bacterial isolates, and selection of antimicrobial agents.
Patients infected with colistin-resistant A. baumannii were identified at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea, between January 2010 and December 2012. Colistin susceptibility testing was performed on all blood and some sputum isolates at the request of the treating physician. A colistin MIC of >2 mg/liter indicated resistance (14). Nine representative colistin-resistant A. baumannii isolates from different patients were included in this study. The clinical data of these patients were collected from electronic medical records, and A. baumannii was identified using a MicroScan system (Dade Behring, Deerfield, IL, USA) and/or a Vitek 2 system (bioMérieux Inc., La Balme les Grottes, France). The following 12 antimicrobial agents were selected based on previous studies suggesting their antimicrobial efficacy against MDR A. baumannii: colistin, ampicillin-sulbactam, amikacin, azithromycin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, meropenem, rifampin, tigecycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, vancomycin, and teicoplanin (15–27).
Susceptibility testing and interpretation.
In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in triplicate using the broth microdilution method according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (14). Fresh Mueller-Hinton broth was used for all susceptibility testing. CLSI susceptibility criteria were used, except with azithromycin, aztreonam, vancomycin, teicoplanin, tigecycline, and rifampin. No susceptibility breakpoints for rifampin and tigecycline are given in the CLSI guidelines; therefore, CLSI criteria recommended for staphylococci were applied to rifampin (MIC ≥ 4 mg/liter as resistance), and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) criteria for Enterobacteriaceae were used for tigecycline (MIC > 2 mg/liter as resistance) (28). Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was used as a reference strain, and all results determined with this strain were within the CLSI quality control ranges. The category of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains was defined as nonsusceptibility to at least one agent in all but two or fewer antimicrobial categories, and pandrug-resistant (PDR) was defined as nonsusceptibility to all antimicrobial agents (29).
Detection of OXA genes and genes encoding metallo-β-lactamases.
The presence of a variety of carbapenemase genes (OXA-23, -48, -50, -51, -58, -60, -69, IMP-1, IMP-2, VIM-1, VIM-2, GIM-1, SPM-1, and SIM-1 genes) was evaluated by PCR with specific primers (30). PCR products were then sequenced and analyzed using the NCBI BLAST program.
Molecular typing by MLST.
Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was performed on seven housekeeping genes (gltA, gyrB, gdhB, recA, cpn60, gpi, and rpoD) as described previously (31). Isolates were assigned to sequence types (STs) using tools available on the A. baumannii MLST database (http://pubmlst.org/abaumannii/).
MCBT.
The multiple-combination bactericidal test (MCBT) was performed to test combinations of two antimicrobials as previously described (32–35). Combinations of two antimicrobials were placed in 96-well, round-bottomed microtiter plates (Nunc Inc., Roskilde, Denmark). The antimicrobial agents were prepared in Mueller-Hinton II cation-adjusted broth (MHB II; Becton, Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, MD) at 10 times the required concentrations. One or two antimicrobial agents were added, each in 10-μl volumes, to the wells. The necessary volume of MHB II was then added to the wells containing antimicrobial agents. The A. baumannii inocula consisted of 70 μl of a 100-fold dilution of a 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard prepared during the growth phase of culture in tryptone soya broth (Oxoid Laboratories, Basingstoke, United Kingdom). The final inoculum concentration was 5 × 105 CFU/ml in each well. Growth and sterility control wells (no antibiotic and no inoculum, respectively) were included in all plates. Plates were incubated at 35°C for 48 h. At 24 and 48 h, the wells were examined for turbidity. Each well with no visible growth at 48 h was subcultured to establish whether 99.9% killing was achieved. Reproducibility of the MCBT results was confirmed in triplicate. For the purposes of the MCBT analysis, combinations were considered synergistic if bactericidal activity (99.9% killing) was achieved when the two agents were tested in combination.
The final concentrations of antimicrobials selected for MCBT corresponded to the criteria for resistance (35). The antimicrobial agents were used in MCBT at the following fixed concentrations: colistin at 2 mg/liter, ampicillin-sulbactam at 16/8 mg/liter, amikacin at 16 mg/liter, azithromycin at 4 mg/liter, aztreonam at 16 mg/liter, ceftazidime at 16 mg/liter, meropenem at 8 mg/liter, rifampin at 2 mg/liter, tigecycline at 2 mg/liter, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole at 4/76 mg/liter, vancomycin at 4 mg/liter, and teicoplanin at 16 mg/liter.
Synergy testing of colistin combinations with the checkerboard method.
To identify synergistic effects, the checkerboard synergy test was performed in triplicate in 96-well microtiter plates containing colistin and 1 of 11 other antimicrobials. Each antimicrobial was diluted using an automated dilutor, with concentrations ranging from 0.031× MIC to 4× MIC. The initial inoculum was approximately 5 × 105 CFU/ml. Microtiter trays were incubated at 35°C for 48 h under aerobic conditions (36).
After incubation, any well showing turbidity was considered to exhibit microbiological growth. The fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) was calculated for each antibiotic in each combination. The mean FICI of all nonturbid wells, along the turbidity/nonturbidity interface, was then calculated (37). The FICI results for each combination against each test isolate were interpreted as follows: FICI of ≤0.5, synergism; FICI of between 0.5 and 1, partial synergism; FICI of ≥1 but <4, indifference; FICI of ≥4, antagonism (38, 39).
RESULTS
Microbiological and genotypic characteristics of colistin-resistant A. baumannii.
Of nine colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains, eight were blood isolates and one was a sputum isolate. All of the strains were also resistant to carbapenems. Results of MLST, carbapenemase types, and MICs of antimicrobials against each strain are summarized in Table 1 and in Table S1 in the supplemental material. All of the tested strains carried the OXA-51 gene, and OXA-23 was detected in seven strains (78%). Eight of nine strains had the IMP-1 gene encoding a metallo-β-lactamase. By MLST, 7 strains were found to belong to ST191, while the remaining two were ST357. Six of nine strains were resistant to all classes of antimicrobials (PDR), and the remaining three A. baumannii strains were XDR.
TABLE 1.
The MIC values of antimicrobial agents against colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii strainsa
| Strain | MIC (μg/ml)a |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CST | SAM | TGC | AMK | AZM | ATM | CAZ | MEM | RIF | SXT | VAN | TEC | |
| a | 256 | 64/32 | 8 | 1,024 | >128 | 64 | 128 | 64 | 4 | 64/1,216 | 256 | 512 |
| b | 256 | 64/32 | 4 | 1,024 | >128 | 128 | 128 | 64 | 8 | 32/608 | 512 | 256 |
| c | 16 | 64/32 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 128 | 64 | 64 | 8 | 32/608 | 256 | 256 |
| d | 1,024 | 32/16 | 4 | >4,096 | >128 | 64 | 128 | 64 | 4 | 32/608 | 512 | 256 |
| e | 8 | 32/16 | 32 | 8 | 32 | 64 | 512 | 64 | 8 | 2/38 | 512 | 512 |
| f | 64 | 1,024/512 | 16 | 1,024 | >128 | 1,024 | 64 | 256 | 16 | 32/608 | 512 | 256 |
| g | 16 | 32/16 | 32 | 1,024 | >128 | 64 | 64 | 64 | 8 | 128/2,432 | 512 | 128 |
| h | 8 | 16/8 | 4 | 4 | >128 | 64 | 128 | 32 | 8 | 2/38 | 256 | 128 |
| i | 1,024 | 128/64 | 4 | 512 | >128 | 128 | 128 | 64 | 256 | 32/608 | 256 | 128 |
Abbreviations: CST, colistin; SAM, ampicillin-sulbactam; TGC, tigecycline; AMK, amikacin; AZM, azithromycin; ATM, aztreonam; CAZ, ceftazidime; MEM, meropenem; RIF, rifampin; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; VAN, vancomycin; TEC, teicoplanin.
MCBT.
Using the MCBT method, each two-drug combination was tested (Table 2). The most effective combination regimens were colistin-rifampin and colistin-teicoplanin, both of which showed synergy against eight of nine strains. The colistin-aztreonam, colistin-meropenem, and colistin-vancomycin combinations were synergistic against seven strains. All of the regimens exhibiting synergistic effect against at least four strains included colistin. Other combinations were active against two or fewer strains. Among the colistin-based combinations, only colistin-tigecycline was not synergistic against any of the strains tested.
TABLE 2.
Combined effects of 12 antimicrobial drugs on nine colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains in the multiple-combination bactericidal test
| Agentsa | Strain(s) killedb |
|---|---|
| SAM + RIF | e |
| SAM + SXT | f |
| SAM + TEC | d |
| AMK + CAZ | f |
| AMK + SXT | f |
| AZM + CAZ | f |
| AZM + SXT | f |
| AZM + TEC | e |
| ATM + CAZ | g |
| ATM + SXT | f |
| ATM + TEC | e |
| CAZ + MEM | f |
| CAZ + RIF | f |
| CAZ + TGC | f |
| CAZ + SXT | f |
| CAZ + VAN | f |
| MEM + RIF | h |
| MEM + SXT | f |
| MEM + TEC | e |
| RIF + SXT | f |
| SXT + VAN | f |
| AMK + RIF | a,f |
| CAZ + TEC | e,f |
| CST + AZM | b, d, e, h |
| CST + AMK | b, d, f, g |
| CST + SXT | b, d, f, h |
| CST + SAM | b, c, d, e, g |
| CST + CAZ | b, c, e, f, g, h |
| CST + ATM | a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i |
| CST + MEM | a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i |
| CST + VAN | a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i |
| CST + TEC | a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i (all) |
| CST + RIF | a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i (all) |
Other antimicrobial combinations that are not shown (e.g., CST + TGC) were not synergistic against any of the strains tested.
If an XDR strain (c, e, or h) was killed because the drug MIC for the strain was equal to or lower than the tested concentration of an antimicrobial agent, in an antimicrobial combination that included this agent, the strain was not listed.
Checkerboard synergy test.
Since only colistin-based regimens were highly effective in the MCBT, checkerboard tests were performed to validate presence of synergism among these combination regimens. As shown in Table 3, results of the checkerboard synergy analysis of colistin-resistant A. baumannii were similar to those of MCBT. The colistin-rifampin combination was fully synergistic against nine of the A. baumannii strains tested. The combinations of colistin-vancomycin and colistin-teicoplanin showed either synergy or partial synergy against all strains. However, colistin-vancomycin (6/9, 67%) was more frequently synergistic than colistin-teicoplanin (4/9, 45%). With colistin-aztreonam and colistin-ceftazidime, and with colistin-meropenem, 7 (78%) strains exhibited synergy and partial synergy, respectively. Colistin combinations with ampicillin-sulbactam, tigecycline, azithromycin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were synergistic against only one strain. Colistin-tigecycline and colistin-azithromycin showed indifference against seven and eight strains, respectively. No antagonistic interactions were observed with any of the combinations evaluated.
TABLE 3.
Results of the checkerboard synergy test of nine strains of colistin-resistant A. baumanniia
| Agents | Strain(s) with the indicated test result |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Synergistic (FICI ≤ 0.5) | Partially synergistic (0.5 < FICI < 1) | Indifferent (1 ≤ FICI < 4) | |
| CST + TGC | h | f | a, b, c, d, e, g, i |
| CST + AZM | f | - | a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i |
| CST + AMK | f, g, h | - | a, b, c, d, e, i |
| CST + SXT | f | a, g, h | b, c, d, e, i |
| CST + SAM | h | b, d, f, g, i | a, c, e |
| CST + CAZ | a, f, g, h | b, c, d | e, i |
| CST + ATM | a, b, d, i | c, g, h | e, f |
| CST + MEM | e, g, h | a, b, d, f | c, i |
| CST + TEC | a, e, f, i | b, c, d, g, h | - |
| CST + VAN | a, b, d, e, f, g, h | c, i | - |
| CST + RIF | a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i | - | - |
Abbreviation: FICI, fractional inhibitory concentration index.
Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes.
The clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with colistin-resistant A. baumannii infections are summarized in Table 4. Most patients had severe underlying diseases, such as malignancy, hematologic disease, liver transplantation, and acute liver failure related to a hepatitis B virus (HBV) flare-up. All nine patients were nosocomially infected with A. baumannii, and 7 of 9 patients experienced an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Four of the nine patients had a history of prior colistin use, and all of the patients had previously used carbapenems. Antibiotic regimens and empirical treatment outcomes varied by patient. Three patients were treated with colistin-based combinations, and microbiological eradication was achieved in two patients. The mortality rate was high, and most patients (67%) died within 14 days.
TABLE 4.
Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with colistin-resistant A. baumannii infectiona
| Variable | Result(s) for patient: |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | |
| Age (yr)/gender | 61/M | 33/M | 66/M | 51/F | 82/M | 43/F | 51/M | 69/F | 67/F |
| Underlying disease | CBD cancer | LT | Hepatocellular carcinoma | Fulminant hepatitis due to HBV flare-up | Colon cancer, pelvic abscess | Myelodysplastic syndrome on BMT | LT | Metastatic CBD cancer | Supraglottic cancer |
| Acquisition | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset | Hospital onset |
| Ward | SICU | SICU | SICU | MICU | SICU | BMT unit | LT unit | General ward | MICU |
| Type of infection | VAP, bacteremia | cIAI, bacteremia | cIAI, bacteremia | HAP, bacteremia | HAP, bacteremia | primary bacteremia | primary bacteremia | HAP, bacteremia | VAP |
| Clinical status | |||||||||
| Previous use of colistin | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Previous use of carbapenem | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Recent operation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Antibiotic therapy | Colistin, vancomycin, amikacin | Colistin, meropenem, vancomycin | Colistin, vancomycin | Meropenem, vancomycin, levofloxacin | Meropenem, vancomycin, metronidazole | Imipenem, vancomycin, levofloxacin | Linezolid, levofloxacin | Tigecycline | Tigecycline, teicoplanin, rifampin, ampicillin-sulbactam |
| Microbiological eradication | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Mortality | |||||||||
| 14 day | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 28 day | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| In hospital | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Infection related | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; CBD, common bile duct; LT, liver transplantation; BMT, bone marrow transplantation; SICU, surgical intensive care unit; MICU, medical intensive care unit; VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia; cIAI, complicated intra-abdominal infection; HAP, hospital-acquired pneumonia.
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study was to assess the in vitro synergistic effects of antimicrobial combinations against colistin-resistant A. baumannii. Combinations of commonly used antimicrobial agents were tested by MCBT, and synergistic results were confirmed using the checkerboard method. By MCBT, colistin was determined to be the most common constituent of antimicrobial combinations that were active against colistin-resistant A. baumannii. Non-colistin-based combinations were not active against these strains. Colistin-rifampin or colistin-cell wall active agent combinations showed synergistic effects against most strains by the checkerboard test. The results of colistin-based combinations with meropenem, rifampin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, teicoplanin, and vancomycin in MCBT were generally concordant with those of the checkerboard test. Hence, in daily clinical practice, a stepwise approach using MCBT can be applied to choose the best antimicrobial combination for colistin-resistant A. baumannii if other reliable but labor-intensive synergy tests such as the checkerboard and time-kill methods are not available. We may choose a specific antimicrobial combination according to results of growth inhibition at 48 h on MCBT; we can then further confirm or modify the regimen by checking 99.9% killing.
Hypothetically, colistin-resistant A. baumannii may have a modified outer membrane, which can increase permeability with respect to cell wall-targeted antimicrobial agents. Two previous studies reported that colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains had higher susceptibility rates for the majority of antimicrobial agents than colistin-susceptible strains (40, 41). In contrast, antimicrobial agents showed high MICs against colistin-resistant strains in the current study and the recent study by Qureshi et al. (8). These differences were probably due to frequent simultaneous exposure to carbapenems, vancomycin, and colistin.
Colistin with rifampin has been the most frequently studied combination in vitro (7). Although a recent randomized clinical trial failed to show a difference in outcomes between colistin-rifampin and colistin monotherapies against XDR A. baumannii, the microbiological eradication rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (42). In the present study, a strong synergistic effect from colistin combined with rifampin was shown in both the MCBT and the checkerboard test. Notably, with the checkerboard test, colistin-rifampin was found to be fully synergistic (FICI ≤ 0.5) against all nine (100%) A. baumannii strains. Therefore, the clinical efficacy of colistin-rifampin should be further evaluated in colistin-resistant A. baumannii infections.
Glycopeptide MICs of tested strains were higher than those of two previous studies indicating relatively low MICs of glycopeptides against colistin-resistant A. baumannii (43, 44). Albeit with high MICs against our strains, vancomycin and teicoplanin consistently showed synergism in combination with colistin, in accordance with previous in vitro and in vivo studies (27, 43, 44). We conjectured that glycopeptides might be effective in combination with colistin, regardless of its MIC, because of an adjuvant permeabilizing effect of colistin on the A. baumannii outer membrane. In this regard, other cell wall-active agents such as ceftazidime, aztreonam, and meropenem also tended to show synergistic effects in our tests.
Tigecycline, regarded as an effective treatment option for MDR A. baumannii infections, showed low antimicrobial activity against colistin-resistant strains in the present study. Tigecycline-containing combinations did not show synergistic effect against any of the strains in MCBT, even in combination with colistin. Colistin-tigecycline showed only limited synergistic effects by the checkerboard test. Cheng et al. reported a higher adjusted 14-day mortality rate in the colistin-tigecycline combination treatment group than in the colistin-carbapenem treatment group in one prospective, observational study of XDR A. baumannii bacteremia (45). They deduced that tigecycline was less effective because this agent targets the 30S ribosomal subunit, not the cell wall.
Our study had several limitations. All tested strains were collected from a single tertiary center, and the mechanism of colistin resistance was not evaluated, which limits our ability to generalize from these results. However, results of the synergy tests performed on study strains were similar to those of previous colistin-based studies. In addition, FICIs from the checkerboard test can differ, depending on the various methods used for interpretation (46). Finally, this was an in vitro study that did not test clinical outcomes; clinical studies are needed to confirm our findings.
In conclusion, using MCBT and checkerboard testing, we found that only colistin-based combinations, particularly combinations with rifampin, glycopeptides, or β-lactams, should be expected to confer therapeutic benefits in colistin-resistant A. baumannii infections. The development of new antimicrobial agents is urgently needed to treat infections by this pathogen.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a grant from the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number HI15C2878).
We sincerely thank Eun Sil Kim, So Young Kim, and Mi Young Kim for supporting the data collection.
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Footnotes
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00839-16.
REFERENCES
- 1.Peleg AY, Seifert H, Paterson DL. 2008. Acinetobacter baumannii: emergence of a successful pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev 21:538–582. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00058-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vila J, Pachon J. 2012. Therapeutic options for Acinetobacter baumannii infections: an update. Expert Opin Pharmacother 13:2319–2336. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2012.729820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fishbain J, Peleg AY. 2010. Treatment of Acinetobacter infections. Clin Infect Dis 51:79–84. doi: 10.1086/653120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Munoz-Price LS, Weinstein RA. 2008. Acinetobacter infection. N Engl J Med 358:1271–1281. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra070741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fournier PE, Vallenet D, Barbe V, Audic S, Ogata H, Poirel L, Richet H, Robert C, Mangenot S, Abergel C, Nordmann P, Weissenbach J, Raoult D, Claverie JM. 2006. Comparative genomics of multidrug resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS Genet 2:e7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Li J, Nation RL, Turnidge JD, Milne RW, Coulthard K, Rayner CR, Paterson DL. 2006. Colistin: the re-emerging antibiotic for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Lancet Infect Dis 6:589–601. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70580-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cai Y, Chai D, Wang R, Liang B, Bai N. 2012. Colistin resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii: clinical reports, mechanisms and antimicrobial strategies. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:1607–1615. doi: 10.1093/jac/dks084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Qureshi ZA, Hittle LE, O'Hara JA, Rivera JI, Syed A, Shields RK, Pasculle AW, Ernst RK, Doi Y. 2015. Colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: beyond carbapenem resistance. Clin Infect Dis 60:1295–1303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Nastro M, Rodriguez CH, Monge R, Zintgraff J, Neira L, Rebollo M, Vay C, Famiglietti A. 2014. Activity of the colistin-rifampicin combination against colistin-resistant, carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. J Chemother 26:211–216. doi: 10.1179/1973947813Y.0000000136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Percin D, Akyol S, Kalin G. 2014. In vitro synergism of combinations of colistin with selected antibiotics against colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. GMS Hyg Infect Control 9:Doc14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Vidaillac C, Benichou L, Duval RE. 2012. In vitro synergy of colistin combinations against colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:4856–4861. doi: 10.1128/AAC.05996-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pogue JM, Lee J, Marchaim D, Yee V, Zhao JJ, Chopra T, Lephart P, Kaye KS. 2011. Incidence of and risk factors for colistin-associated nephrotoxicity in a large academic health system. Clin Infect Dis 53:879–884. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hartzell JD, Neff R, Ake J, Howard R, Olson S, Paolino K, Vishnepolsky M, Weintrob A, Wortmann G. 2009. Nephrotoxicity associated with intravenous colistin (colistimethate sodium) treatment at a tertiary care medical center. Clin Infect Dis 48:1724–1728. doi: 10.1086/599225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2014. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: 24th informational supplement M100-S24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sopirala MM, Mangino JE, Gebreyes WA, Biller B, Bannerman T, Balada-Llasat JM, Pancholi P. 2010. Synergy testing by Etest, microdilution checkerboard, and time-kill methods for pan-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:4678–4683. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00497-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kiffer CR, Sampaio JL, Sinto S, Oplustil CP, Koga PC, Arruda AC, Turner PJ, Mendes C. 2005. In vitro synergy test of meropenem and sulbactam against clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 52:317–322. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2005.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Moland ES, Craft DW, Hong SG, Kim SY, Hachmeister L, Sayed SD, Thomson KS. 2008. In vitro activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and selection of tigecycline-amikacin synergy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:2940–2942. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01581-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Timurkaynak F, Can F, Azap OK, Demirbilek M, Arslan H, Karaman SO. 2006. In vitro activities of non-traditional antimicrobials alone or in combination against multidrug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from intensive care units. Int J Antimicrob Agents 27:224–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Fernández Cuenca F, Pascual A, Martínez Martínez L, Perea EJ. 2003. In vitro activity of azithromycin against clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Rev Esp Quimioter 16:204–208. (In Spanish.) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Malone L, Kwon DH. 2013. Carbapenem-associated multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii are sensitised by aztreonam in combination with polyamines. Int J Antimicrob Agents 41:70–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Drago L, De Vecchi E, Nicola L, Colombo A, Guerra A, Gismondo MR. 2004. Activity of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in combination with cefepime, ceftazidime, imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and amikacin against different Pseudomonas aeruginosa phenotypes and Acinetobacter spp. Chemotherapy 50:202–210. doi: 10.1159/000081033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pankey GA, Ashcraft DS. 2009. The detection of synergy between meropenem and polymyxin B against meropenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii using Etest and time-kill assay. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 63:228–232. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2008.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tripodi MF, Durante-Mangoni E, Fortunato R, Utili R, Zarrilli R. 2007. Comparative activities of colistin, rifampicin, imipenem and sulbactam/ampicillin alone or in combination against epidemic multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates producing OXA-58 carbapenemases. Int J Antimicrob Agents 30:537–540. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sheng WH, Wang JT, Li SY, Lin YC, Cheng A, Chen YC, Chang SC. 2011. Comparative in vitro antimicrobial susceptibilities and synergistic activities of antimicrobial combinations against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter species: Acinetobacter baumannii versus Acinetobacter genospecies 3 and 13TU. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 70:380–386. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Chuang YC, Cheng CY, Sheng WH, Sun HY, Wang JT, Chen YC, Chang SC. 2014. Effectiveness of tigecycline-based versus colistin-based therapy for treatment of pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a critical setting: a matched cohort analysis. BMC Infect Dis 14:102. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Falagas ME, Vardakas KZ, Roussos NS. 2015. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for Acinetobacter spp.: a review of current microbiological and clinical evidence. Int J Antimicrob Agents 46:231–241. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gordon NC, Png K, Wareham DW. 2010. Potent synergy and sustained bactericidal activity of a vancomycin-colistin combination versus multidrug-resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:5316–5322. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00922-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Steering Committee. 2006. EUCAST technical note on tigecycline. Clin Microbiol Infect 12:1147–1149. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01578.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF, Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B, Paterson DL, Rice LB, Stelling J, Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A, Weber JT, Monnet DL. 2012. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 18:268–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Queenan AM, Bush K. 2007. Carbapenemases: the versatile beta-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev 20:440–458, table of contents. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00001-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bartual SG, Seifert H, Hippler C, Luzon MA, Wisplinghoff H, Rodriguez-Valera F. 2005. Development of a multilocus sequence typing scheme for characterization of clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Clin Microbiol 43:4382–4390. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.9.4382-4390.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Aaron SD, Ferris W, Henry DA, Speert DP, Macdonald NE. 2000. Multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing for patients with cystic fibrosis infected with Burkholderia cepacia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:1206–1212. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.161.4.9907147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Aaron SD, Ferris W, Ramotar K, Vandemheen K, Chan F, Saginur R. 2002. Single and combination antibiotic susceptibilities of planktonic, adherent, and biofilm-grown Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates cultured from sputa of adults with cystic fibrosis. J Clin Microbiol 40:4172–4179. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.11.4172-4179.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Slinger R, Chan F, Ferris W, Yeung SW, St Denis M, Gaboury I, Aaron SD. 2006. Multiple combination antibiotic susceptibility testing of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae biofilms. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 56:247–253. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Saginur R, Stdenis M, Ferris W, Aaron SD, Chan F, Lee C, Ramotar K. 2006. Multiple combination bactericidal testing of staphylococcal biofilms from implant-associated infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:55–61. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.1.55-61.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Berenbaum MC. 1978. A method for testing for synergy with any number of agents. J Infect Dis 137:122–130. doi: 10.1093/infdis/137.2.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.den Hollander JG, Mouton JW, Verbrugh HA. 1998. Use of pharmacodynamic parameters to predict efficacy of combination therapy by using fractional inhibitory concentration kinetics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42:744–748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Bai Y, Liu B, Wang T, Cai Y, Liang B, Wang R, Liu Y, Wang J. 2015. In vitro activities of combinations of rifampin with other antimicrobials against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:1466–1471. doi: 10.1128/AAC.04089-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sader HS, Huynh HK, Jones RN. 2003. Contemporary in vitro synergy rates for aztreonam combined with newer fluoroquinolones and beta-lactams tested against gram-negative bacilli. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 47:547–550. doi: 10.1016/S0732-8893(03)00158-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Li J, Nation RL, Owen RJ, Wong S, Spelman D, Franklin C. 2007. Antibiograms of multidrug-resistant clinical Acinetobacter baumannii: promising therapeutic options for treatment of infection with colistin-resistant strains. Clin Infect Dis 45:594–598. doi: 10.1086/520658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Mendes RE, Fritsche TR, Sader HS, Jones RN. 2008. Increased antimicrobial susceptibility profiles among polymyxin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Clin Infect Dis 46:1324–1326. doi: 10.1086/533476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Durante-Mangoni E, Signoriello G, Andini R, Mattei A, De Cristoforo M, Murino P, Bassetti M, Malacarne P, Petrosillo N, Galdieri N, Mocavero P, Corcione A, Viscoli C, Zarrilli R, Gallo C, Utili R. 2013. Colistin and rifampicin compared with colistin alone for the treatment of serious infections due to extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 57:349–358. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.O'Hara JA, Ambe LA, Casella LG, Townsend BM, Pelletier MR, Ernst RK, Shanks RM, Doi Y. 2013. Activities of vancomycin-containing regimens against colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2103–2108. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02501-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Hornsey M, Wareham DW. 2011. In vivo efficacy of glycopeptide-colistin combination therapies in a Galleria mellonella model of Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:3534–3537. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00230-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Cheng A, Chuang YC, Sun HY, Sheng WH, Yang CJ, Liao CH, Hsueh PR, Yang JL, Shen NJ, Wang JT, Hung CC, Chen YC, Chang SC. 2015. Excess mortality associated with colistin-tigecycline compared with colistin-carbapenem combination therapy for extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia: a multicenter prospective observational study. Crit Care Med 43:1194–1204. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Bonapace CR, Bosso JA, Friedrich LV, White RL. 2002. Comparison of methods of interpretation of checkerboard synergy testing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 44:363–366. doi: 10.1016/S0732-8893(02)00473-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.