In vitro activity of imipenem-relebactam against resistant phenotypes of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from intraabdominal and urinary tract infection samples – SMART Surveillance Europe 2015–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Infections attributable to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli are increasing globally. New antimicrobial agents are urgently needed to treat patients with these infections. Aim. To describe susceptibility to the novel carbapenem-β-lactamase inhibitor combination imipenem-relebactam and comparators of clinical isolates of non-Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae (NPE) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from intraabdominal infections (IAIs) and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Methods. Broth microdilution MICs were determined for isolates collected in 22 European countries in 2015–2017 and interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints; imipenem-relebactam MICs were interpreted using imipenem breakpoints. Results. For NPE, 98.4 % of isolates from IAIs (n=10,465) and 98.5 % of UTI isolates (n=7,446) were susceptible to imipenem-relebactam, as were 42.4 % of imipenem-nonsusceptible (n=474), 98.6 % of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-positive (n=138), and 93.9 % of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates (n=4,424) from IAIs and UTIs combined. Molecular analysis demonstrated that two-thirds of imipenem-nonsusceptible isolates rendered susceptible by relebactam carried KPCs; 96 % (261/271) of imipenem-nonsusceptible isolates of NPE that remained nonsusceptible in the presence of relebactam carried metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-type and/or OXA-48-like carbapenemases. Among P. aeruginosa , 94.4 % of IAI (n=1,245) and 93.0 % of UTI isolates (n=714) were susceptible to imipenem-relebactam, as were 74.4 % of imipenem-nonsusceptible (n=469) and 79.8 % of MDR isolates (n=595) from IAIs and UTIs combined. Among the 120 isolates of P. aeruginosa that remained nonsusceptible to imipenem upon addition of relebactam, 72 % carried MBLs. The distribution of NPE and P. aeruginosa carrying carbapenemases varied substantially across Europe, as did resistance to imipenem and imipenem-relebactam. Conclusions. Continued surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and resistance mechanisms, including the study of imipenem-relebactam as it approaches regulatory approval, appears warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".