Cefiderocol inhibited 97.5% of 478 Gram-negative isolates from cancer patients at ≤4 mg/liter. It had potent activity against extended-spectrum β-lactamase-positive Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Acinetobacter species isolates. Amikacin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and meropenem had appreciable activity against non-CRE Enterobacteriaceae.
KEYWORDS: Gram-negative isolates, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, cefiderocol
ABSTRACT
Cefiderocol inhibited 97.5% of 478 Gram-negative isolates from cancer patients at ≤4 mg/liter. It had potent activity against extended-spectrum β-lactamase-positive Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Acinetobacter species isolates. Amikacin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and meropenem had appreciable activity against non-CRE Enterobacteriaceae. No comparators were active against multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates. Only trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole had appreciable activity against S. maltophilia isolates. Overall, cefiderocol was associated with the lowest level of resistance.
TEXT
Gram-negative organisms (GNOs) are the predominant bacterial pathogens at many cancer centers, and many have developed resistance to commonly used antimicrobial agents (1–4). Cefiderocol (CFDC) is a new siderophore cephalosporin that has been reported to be more stable than other β-lactams against β-lactamases, including NDM-1 and KPC-3 carbapenemases (5–6). Its in vitro activity has been evaluated against GNOs from various sources, but data against organisms from cancer patients are rare (7). We evaluated its activity against GNOs isolated exclusively from cancer patients. All organisms tested were clinical isolates (2014 to 2017), with >90% from blood cultures. MICs were determined using a broth microdilution method (8). When available, CLSI or FDA breakpoints for susceptibility and resistance were used. Ten comparator agents were tested (Table 1). Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was tested instead of aztreonam against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia only. Whole-genome sequencing was done on the 12 isolates that were nonsusceptible to CFDC (1 each, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Citrobacter spp.; 2 Klebsiella pneumoniae; 3 Acinetobacter spp.; and 4 Enterobacter spp.) (9).
TABLE 1.
In vitro activity of cefiderocol and comparator agents against select clinical isolates
| Isolate, type | Antimicrobial agent | MIC (mg/liter) |
Susceptible (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC90 | Range | |||
| ESBL positive | ||||
| E. coli (n = 52) | Cefiderocol | 2 | <0.03 to 4 | 100 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 32 | 0.125 to >64 | 82 | |
| Meropenem | 0.06 | <0.03 to 0.25 | 100 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 1 to >64 | 15 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | <0.03 to 4 | 100 | |
| Colistin | 1 | 1 to 4 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | >32 | <0.5 to >32 | 10 | |
| Amikacin | 16 | <4 to 32 | 98 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 8 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | <0.5 to >16 | 10 | |
| Tigecycline | 0.5 | <0.25 to 2 | 100 | |
| K. pneumoniae (n = 37) | Cefiderocol | 2 | 0.125 to >64 | 97 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 32 | 0.25 to >64 | 62 | |
| Meropenem | 0.125 | <0.03 to 4 | 97 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 4 to >64 | 0 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 0.5 | <0.03 to >64 | 97 | |
| Colistin | >8 | 1 to >8 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | >32 | 8 to >32 | 0 | |
| Amikacin | 16 | <4 to >64 | 92 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 11 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | 1 to >16 | 11 | |
| Tigecycline | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 54 | |
| CRE (n = 40: 10 E. coli, 7 E. cloacae, and 23 K. pneumoniae) | Cefiderocol | 4 | 0.06 to >64 | 95 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | >64 | 0.5 to >64 | 18 | |
| Meropenem | >64 | <0.03 to >64 | 18 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 16 to >64 | 0 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | >64 | 0.06 to >64 | 78 | |
| Colistin | >8 | <0.5 to >8 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | >32 | 16 to >32 | 0 | |
| Amikacin | 64 | <4 to >64 | 73 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 15 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | <0.5 to >16 | 68 | |
| Tigecycline | 4 | <0.25 to >4 | 65 | |
| Citrobacter spp. (n = 20) | Cefiderocol | 1 | <0.03 to 8 | 95 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 64 | 0.06 to >64 | 70 | |
| Meropenem | 0.25 | <0.03 to 8 | 95 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 0.25 to >64 | 60 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 0.06 to 8 | 100 | |
| Colistin | 2 | 1 to >8 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | >32 | <0.5 to >32 | 55 | |
| Amikacin | <4 | <4 | 100 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 70 | |
| Cefepime | 16 | <0.5 to >16 | 80 | |
| Tigecycline | 2 | <0.25 to 4 | 95 | |
| E. cloacae (n = 38) | Cefiderocol | 4 | <0.03 to > 64 | 90 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | >64 | 0.06 to >64 | 55 | |
| Meropenem | 1 | <0.03 to 64 | 90 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 0.125 to >64 | 95 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 4 | 0.125 to 16 | 95 | |
| Colistin | >8 | 1 to > 8 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | >32 | <0.5 to >32 | 45 | |
| Amikacin | 8 | <4 to 16 | 100 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 63 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | <0.5 to >16 | 66 | |
| Tigecycline | 2 | <0.25 to >4 | 90 | |
| Serratia spp. (n = 20) | Cefiderocol | 0.5 | <0.03 to 0.5 | 100 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 0.5 | 0.25 to 1 | 100 | |
| Meropenem | 0.125 | <0.03 to 0.125 | 100 | |
| Ceftazidime | 0.5 | 0.25 to 0.5 | 100 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 0.5 | 0.06 to 0.5 | 100 | |
| Colistin | >8 | >8 | NA | |
| Aztreonam | <0.5 | <0.5 | 100 | |
| Amikacin | 8 | <4 to 8 | 100 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | <0.25 | <0.25 to 0.5 | 95 | |
| Cefepime | <0.5 | <0.5 | 100 | |
| Tigecycline | 2 | 1 to 2 | 100 | |
| Acinetobacter spp. (n = 20) | Cefiderocol | 4 | <0.03 to >64 | 90 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | >64 | <0.03 to >64 | NA | |
| Meropenem | >64 | <0.03 to >64 | 75 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 2 to >64 | 45 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 32 | 0.06 to >64 | NA | |
| Colistin | 2 | 1 to 2 | 100 | |
| Aztreonam | 32 | 8 to 32 | NA | |
| Amikacin | 16 | <4 to >64 | 95 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 70 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | <0.5 to >16 | 70 | |
| Tigecycline | 2 | <0.25 to 4 | NA | |
| P. aeruginosa, MDR (n = 32) | Cefiderocol | 1 | <0.03 to > 64 | 97 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | >64 | 0.5 to >64 | 66 | |
| Meropenem | >64 | 0.5 to >64 | 16 | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 1 to >64 | 34 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | >64 | 1 to >64 | 66 | |
| Colistin | 8 | 1 to > 8 | 75 | |
| Aztreonam | 32 | 2 to >32 | 9 | |
| Amikacin | 64 | <4 to >64 | 69 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | 9 | |
| Cefepime | >16 | 2 to >16 | 16 | |
| Tigecycline | >4 | 1 to >4 | NA | |
| S. maltophilia (n = 50) | Cefiderocol | 0.25 | <0.03 to 4 | 100 |
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | >64 | 0.5 to >64 | NA | |
| Meropenem | >64 | 1 to >64 | NA | |
| Ceftazidime | >64 | 2 to >64 | 38 | |
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | >64 | 1 to >64 | NA | |
| Colistin | >8 | <0.5 to >8 | NA | |
| Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | 0.5/9.5 | <0.03/0.57 to 2/38 | 98 | |
| Amikacin | >64 | <4 to >64 | NA | |
| Ciprofloxacin | >4 | 0.5 to >4 | NA | |
| Cefepime | >16 | 8 to >16 | NA | |
| Tigecycline | >4 | <0.25 to >4 | NA | |
Overall, 466 (97.5%) of the 478 isolates were susceptible to CFDC. Selected susceptibility test results are shown in Table 1. Against 52 extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-positive E. coli isolates, CFDC had an MIC90 value of 2.0 mg/liter (range, <0.03 to 4.0 mg/liter). Comparator agents active against these isolates included amikacin, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem, and tigecycline. Against 37 ESBL-positive K. pneumoniae isolates, CFDC had an MIC90 value of 2.0 mg/liter. Overall, 36 (97%) of 37 isolates were susceptible to CFDC, with a lone isolate having an MIC of >64.0 mg/liter. Among comparator agents, amikacin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and meropenem had appreciable activity against these isolates.
Activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.
Forty carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (23 K. pneumoniae, 10 E. coli, and 7 Enterobacter cloacae) were tested. The MIC90 of CFDC against these isolates was 4.0 mg/liter, with 37 (92.5%) of the 40 isolates having CFDC MICs of ≤4.0 mg/liter. Three isolates (7.5%) had CFDC MICs of >4 mg/liter, including 2 Klebsiella and one Enterobacter species isolates. Among comparator agents, only tigecycline was active against these organisms, with an MIC90 of 4.0 mg/liter.
Activity against other Enterobacteriaceae.
Cefiderocol had good activity against ESBL-negative E. coli and Klebsiella spp. and against Citrobacter spp. and Serratia spp. (data not shown). Among comparator agents, amikacin, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem, and tigecycline were active against these isolates. Most agents were less active against E. cloacae than they were against Citrobacter spp. While CFDC inhibited 34 (89%) of 38 Enterobacter species isolates at ≤4.0 mg/liter, 2 isolates had MICs of 8.0 mg/liter and 2 had MICs of >64.0 mg/liter. All agents except colistin had good activity against Serratia spp.
Activity against nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli.
CFDC was the most active agent tested against S. maltophilia isolates, with an MIC90 of 0.25 mg/liter and a range of <0.03 to 4.0 mg/liter. Among comparators, only trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was active against S. maltophilia isolates, CFDC was active against Acinetobacter spp. isolates (MIC90, 4.0 mg/liter). Two of 20 isolates tested were resistant to CFDC, with MICs of 16.0 and >64.0 mg/liter, respectively. Among comparator agents, amikacin, colistin, and tigecycline inhibited ≥90% of isolates. The MIC90 of CFDC against 15 isolates of Achromobacter spp. was 0.125 mg/liter. Among comparator agents, imipenem had the best activity.
CFDC inhibited all 38 P. aeruginosa isolates that did not exhibit multidrug resistance (MDR) at ≤1.0 mg/liter. Comparator agents with activity against these isolates included ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, amikacin, colistin, and ceftazidime. Against 32 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates, CFDC was the most active agent tested, with an MIC90 of 1.0 mg/liter. Only 1 isolate was resistant to CFDC, with an MIC of >64.0 mg/liter. The activity of comparator agents against these isolates was uniformly poor.
Activity against uncommon organisms.
Cefiderocol inhibited all 7 Burkholderia cepacia isolates at ≤0.25 mg/liter, all 7 Pantoea spp. isolates at ≤1.0 mg/liter, all 7 Sphingomonas paucimobilis isolates at ≤0.5 mg/liter, and all 3 Elizabethkingia meningoseptica isolates at ≤4.0 mg/liter. One of 8 Rhizobium radiobacter isolates was nonsusceptible to CFDC (MIC, 8.0 mg/liter).
Nonsusceptible isolates.
CFDC was associated with the lowest level of nonsusceptibility (Table 1). The highest level of nonsusceptibility to CFDC was seen among non-CRE Enterobacter spp. isolates, with 2 (5.3%) of 38 isolates being nonsusceptible. Many comparators had nonsusceptibility percentages of <2%. Of note, MDR P. aeruginosa nonsusceptibility to CFDC was 3.1%, whereas the nonsusceptible range for comparator agents was 25% to 91%. The MIC distributions for individual organisms and antimicrobial agents are presented in Table 2. Distributions for CFDC showed lower MICs for nonsusceptible organisms, including CRE, MDR P. aeruginosa, and S. maltophilia, than those of all other agents tested.
TABLE 2.
In vitro activity of cefiderocol and comparator agents against commonly resistant bacterial isolates from cancer patients using MIC distribution data
| Isolate, type | Antimicrobial agent | Distribution (n) at MIC (mg/liter) of: |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.03 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | >64 | Other | ||
| ESBL positive | ||||||||||||||||
| E. coli (n = 52) | Cefiderocol | 2 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 14 | 13 | 8 | 3 | |||||||
| Meropenem | 32 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 6 | 15 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |||||
| Ceftazidime | 3 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 10 | ||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 3 | 5 | 18 | 15 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| Cefepime | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 11 | |||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 1 | 3 | 11 | 10 | 19 | |||||||||||
| Amikacin | 14 | 7 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Colistin | 48 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 2 | 1 | 2 (<0.25); 47 (>4) | |||||||||||||
| K. pneumoniae (n = 37) | Cefiderocol | 8 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Meropenem | 5 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 2 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 16 | ||||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 13 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
| Cefepime | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 24 (>16) | |||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 1 | 6 | 22 | 8 (>32) | ||||||||||||
| Amikacin | 6 | 4 | 2 | 25 (<4) | ||||||||||||
| Colistin | 23 | 8 | 1 | 5 (>8) | ||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 (<0.25); 25 (>4) | ||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 10 (<0.25); 7 (>4) | |||||||||||
| E. cloacae (n = 38) | Cefiderocol | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Meropenem | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 1 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Ceftazidime | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 19 | |||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 4 | 12 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 16 | |||||||||
| Cefepime | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 22 (<0.5); 8 (>!6) | ||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 (<0.5); 10 (>32) | ||||||||||
| Amikacin | 3 | 3 | 32 (<4) | |||||||||||||
| Colistin | 18 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 (>8) | |||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 2 | 4 | 24 (<0.5); 8 (>4) | |||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 21 (<0.5); 2 (>4) | |||||||||||
| CRE | ||||||||||||||||
| E. coli (n = 10) | Cefiderocol | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Meropenem | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 2 | 2 | 6 | |||||||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| Cefepime | 1 | 9 (>16) | ||||||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 2 | 8 | ||||||||||||||
| Amikacin | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 (<4) | |||||||||||
| Colistin | 7 | 1 | 2 (<0.5) | |||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 10 (>4) | |||||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 (<0.25) | |||||||||||
| K. pneumoniae (n = 23) | Cefiderocol | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
| Meropenem | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | |||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | ||||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 1 | 2 | 19 | |||||||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
| Cefepime | 23 (>16) | |||||||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 1 | 8 | 13 (>32) | |||||||||||||
| Amikacin | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 (<4) | ||||||||||
| Colistin | 16 | 1 | 2 | 4 (>8) | ||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 1 | 22 (>4) | ||||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 1 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 3 (<0.25); 1 (>4) | |||||||||||
| E. cloacae (n = 7) | Cefiderocol | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||
| Meropenem | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Cefepime | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 (<0.5) | |||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 2 | 2 | 3 (>32) | |||||||||||||
| Amikacin | 6 (<4) | |||||||||||||||
| Colistin | 3 | 1 | 3 (>8) | |||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 6 (<0.25); 1 (>4) | |||||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 (<0.25) | ||||||||||||
| P. aeruginosa, MDR (n = 32) | Cefiderocol | 6 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||
| Meropenem | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 5 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | |||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 5 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||
| Cefepime | 2 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 12 (>16) | |||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 1 | 2 | 14 | 13 | 2 (>32) | |||||||||||
| Amikacin | 7 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 12 (<4) | ||||||||||
| Colistin | 3 | 21 | 4 | 2 | 2 (>8) | |||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 (<0.25); 17 (>4) | |||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 1 | 1 | 30 (>4) | |||||||||||||
| Acinetobacter spp. (n = 20) | Cefiderocol | 8 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Meropenem | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| Ceftolozane-tazobactam | 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| Ceftazidime | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
| Ceftazidime-avibactam | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| Cefepime | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 (<0.5); 4 (>16) | ||||||||||
| Aztreonam | 1 | 10 | 9 | |||||||||||||
| Amikacin | 1 | 2 | 1 | 16 (<4) | ||||||||||||
| Colistin | 9 | 11 | ||||||||||||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 1 | 13 (<0.5); 6 (>4) | ||||||||||||||
| Tigecycline | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 9 (<0.25) | |||||||||||
Illumina MiSeq short-read whole-genome sequencing was performed for the CFDC-resistant isolates, followed by an analysis focused on the presence of β-lactamase-encoding genes and the composition of major porins known to contribute to β-lactam resistance. (9) Klebsiella spp. isolates demonstrated outer membrane porin OmpK36, OmpK37, and OmpK35 disruption and the presence of various β-lactamases. The Enterobacter spp. isolates had alterations in OmpC and OmpF and the presence of AmpC and ESBLs. Finally, Acinetobacter spp. isolates had carbapenemases and various β-lactamases. No clear mechanisms for CFDC resistance were found.
The standard of care for the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients is prompt administration of empirical antibiotic therapy (10). GNOs are now the predominant bacterial pathogens in this setting, and resistance among many GNOs is increasing. CFDC has potent in vitro activity against various GNOs isolated from patients with cancer, including carbapenem-resistant organisms and MDR nonlactose fermenting organisms, including S. maltophilia. Based on these in vitro findings and the general exclusion of patients with cancer from registration studies, we believe future study of the clinical utility of CFDC in patients with cancer is warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The study was supported in part by Shionogi & Co., Ltd.
REFERENCES
- 1.Montassier E, Batard E, Gastinne T, Potel G, de la Cochetière MF. 2013. Recent changes in bacteremia in patients with cancer: a systematic review of epidemiology and antibiotic resistance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 32:841–850. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1819-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kenneth VI, Rolston A, Freifeld A, Zimmer J, Baddley ZE, Boghdadly E, Maziarz J, Montoya S, Shoham L, Strasfeld J, Young Y, Zhang JM. 2018. Bloodstream infection survey in high-risk oncology patients (BISHOP) with fever and neutropenia (FN): microbiology data, abstr P0673. ECCMID 2018, Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rapoport B, Klastersky J, Raftopoulos H, Freifeld A, Aoun M, Zinner SH, Rolston KVI. 2016. The emerging problem of bacterial resistance in cancer patients; proceedings of a workshop held by MASCC “Neutropenia, Infection and Myelosuppression” Study Group during the MASCC annual meeting held in Berlin on 27–29 June 2013. Support Care Cancer 24:2819–2826. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3183-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Patel G, Bonomo RA. 2013. Stormy waters ahead: global emergence of carbapenemases. Front Microbiol 4:48. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kohira N, West J, Ito A, Ito-Horiyama T, Nakamura R, Sato T, Rittenhouse S, Tsuji M, Yamano Y. 2016. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a siderophore cephalosporin, S-649266, against Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:729–734. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01695-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ito-Horiyama T, Ishii Y, Ito A, Sato T, Nakamura R, Fukuhara N, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Yamaguchi K, Tateda K. 2016. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin S-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:4384–4386. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03098-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ito A, Kohira N, Bouchillon SK, West J, Rittenhouse S, Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Jones RN, Yoshizawa H, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Yamano Y. 2016. In vitro antimicrobial activity of S-649266, a catechol-substituted siderophore cephalosporin, when tested against non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 71:670–677. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2019. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; informational supplement—29th ed CLSI document 100 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Castanheira M, Doyle TB, Mendes RE, Sader HS. 2019. Comparative activities of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae isolates producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases from U.S. hospitals. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e00160-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00160-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, Rolston KV, Young JA, Wingard JR, Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2011. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 52:e56–e93. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]