In Vitro Activity of Newer Antimicrobials and Relevant Comparators Vs. 349 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Clinical Isolates Obtained from Patients in Canadian Hospitals (CANWARD, 2011–2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a non-fermentative gram-negative bacillus that has emerged as an important opportunistic pathogen among hospitalized, debilitated patients. Treatment options for infections caused by this organism are limited because it is intrinsically resistant to antimicrobials from multiple different classes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro activity of several newer antimicrobial agents (ceftazidime-avibactam [CZA], ceftolozane-tazobactam [C/T], moxifloxacin [MXF], tigecycline [TGC]) and relevant comparators [e.g., trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [TMP-SMX]) against a large collection of S. maltophilia clinical isolates obtained as part of an ongoing national surveillance study (CANWARD, 2011–2016). Methods From January 2011 to December 2016, inclusive, 12 to 15 sentinel hospitals across Canada submitted clinical isolates from patients attending ERs, medical and surgical wards, hospital clinics, and ICUs (CANWARD). Each center was asked to annually submit clinical isolates (consecutive, one per patient/infection site) from blood (100), respiratory (100), urine (25), and wound (25) infections. Susceptibility testing was performed using broth microdilution as described by CLSI. MICs were interpreted using CLSI breakpoints, where available. Results 349 S. maltophilia clinical isolates were obtained as a part of CANWARD (86% from a respiratory source). The susceptibility profile of these isolates is presented below. Conclusion TMP-SMX continues to demonstrate excellent in-vitro activity against S. maltophilia clinical isolates. MXF and TGC may also prove useful in the treatment of infections caused by this pathogen. Disclosures G. Zhanel, Achaogen: Research relationship, Research support Astellas: Research relationship, Research support Merck Canada: Research relationship, Research support Merck USA: Research relationship, Research support Paratek Pharma: Research relationship, Research support Pharmascience: Research relationship, Research support Sunovion: Research relationship, Research support Tetraphase: Research relationship, Research support The Medicines Co.: Research relationship, Research support Zoetis: Research relationship, Research support
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".