MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944904574 · doi:10.1093/jac/dkz191

Activity of imipenem/relebactam against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Europe: SMART 2015–17

2019· article· en· W2944904574 on OpenAlexaff
Sibylle Lob, James A. Karlowsky, Katherine Young, Mary Motyl, Stephen Hawser, Nimmi Kothari, Melinda E Gueny, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMerck Sharp and Dohme
KeywordsImipenemMicrobiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaBroth microdilutionBiologyAntibacterial agentCilastatinMedicineMinimum inhibitory concentrationAntibioticsBacteriaAntibiotic resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Relebactam is a diazabicyclooctane non-β-lactam inhibitor of Ambler class A and C β-lactamases that is in clinical development in combination with imipenem/cilastatin. The current study evaluated the in vitro activity of imipenem/relebactam against 5447 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa submitted to the SMART global surveillance programme in 2015-17 by 67 clinical laboratories in 22 European countries. METHODS: MICs were determined using the CLSI broth microdilution reference method (Eleventh Edition: M07, 2018). Relebactam was tested at a fixed concentration of 4 mg/L in combination with doubling dilutions of imipenem. MICs were interpreted using EUCAST clinical breakpoints (version 8.1); imipenem breakpoints were applied to imipenem/relebactam. RESULTS: Rates of susceptibility to imipenem and imipenem/relebactam (MIC ≤4 mg/L) were 69.4% and 92.4%, respectively, for all isolates of P. aeruginosa. Over one-third of all isolates (34.9%, 1902/5447) were MDR; lower respiratory tract isolates (38.3%, 1327/3461) were more frequently MDR than were intraabdominal (28.5%, 355/1245) or urinary tract (29.7%, 212/714) isolates. Of all MDR isolates, 78.2% were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam, a rate that was 50-77 percentage points higher than the rate of susceptibility to imipenem or any other β-lactam tested; rates of susceptibility to imipenem/relebactam were similar for MDR isolates from lower respiratory tract (77.8% susceptible), intraabdominal (80.3%) and urinary tract (76.4%) infections. Overall, relebactam restored imipenem susceptibility to 75.2% (1254/1668) of imipenem-non-susceptible isolates of P. aeruginosa and to 69.6% (947/1361) of imipenem-non-susceptible isolates with an MDR phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Relebactam restored in vitro susceptibility to imipenem for most imipenem-non-susceptible and MDR clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa from European patients.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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