MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797777892 · doi:10.1093/jac/dky107

In vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens isolated in 17 European countries: 2015 SMART surveillance programme

2018· article· en· W2797777892 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Karlowsky, Sibylle Lob, Krystyna M. Kazmierczak, Stephen Hawser, Sophie Magnet, Katherine Young, Mary Motyl, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMerck
KeywordsImipenemAcinetobacter baumanniiMicrobiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaKlebsiella pneumoniaeBroth microdilutionAcinetobacterBiologyCarbapenemEnterobacterEnterobacteriaceaeAntimicrobialMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntibiotic resistanceBacteriaAntibioticsEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Relebactam is an inhibitor of class A β-lactamases, including KPC β-lactamases, and class C β-lactamases, and is currently under clinical development in combination with imipenem. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the in vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter spp.) submitted by clinical laboratories in 17 European countries to the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) global surveillance programme in 2015. Methods: MICs were determined using the CLSI standard broth microdilution method and interpreted using EUCAST clinical breakpoints. Relebactam was tested at a fixed concentration of 4 mg/L in combination with doubling dilutions of imipenem. Imipenem/relebactam MICs were interpreted using breakpoints for imipenem. Results: Rates of susceptibility to imipenem and imipenem/relebactam for isolates of P. aeruginosa (n = 1705), K. pneumoniae (n = 1591) and Enterobacter spp. (n = 772) were 72.0/94.7%, 88.7/94.8% and 95.6/96.8%, respectively. Relebactam restored imipenem susceptibility to 81.1%, 54.2% and 26.5% of imipenem-non-susceptible isolates of P. aeruginosa (n = 477), K. pneumoniae (n = 179) and Enterobacter spp. (n = 34). Most imipenem/relebactam-non-susceptible isolates carried MBLs, OXA-48 or GES carbapenemases. Relebactam did not increase the number of isolates of A. baumannii (n = 486) susceptible to imipenem. Conclusions: Relebactam restored susceptibility to imipenem for the majority of imipenem-non-susceptible isolates of P. aeruginosa and K. pneumoniae tested as well as some isolates of imipenem-non-susceptible Enterobacter spp. Based on our results, imipenem/relebactam appears to be a promising therapeutic option for treating patients with infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacilli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Antimicrobial ChemotherapySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207