In Vitro Activity of Imipenem/Relebactam Against Gram-Negative Bacilli from Pediatric Patients—Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) global surveillance program 2015–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies describing the activity of imipenem/relebactam against gram-negative bacilli (GNB) isolated from pediatric patients are lacking in the peer-reviewed literature. We address this deficiency by reporting on GNB tested against imipenem/relebactam as part of the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends global surveillance program. METHODS: In 2015-2017, 221 laboratories in 59 countries collected 9149 consecutive, aerobic or facultative GNB from pediatric patients (age <18 years) and 100 785 from adult patients with intraabdominal, respiratory, and urinary tract infections. Susceptibility was determined using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution methodology and CLSI breakpoints (and US Food and Drug Administration breakpoints for imipenem/relebactam). RESULTS: The 4 most common species of GNB isolated from pediatric patients were Escherichia coli (40.4%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.1%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.9%), and Enterobacter cloacae (4.7%); non-Morganellaceae Enterobacterales (NME) accounted for 70.1% of isolates. Imipenem/relebactam inhibited 97.8% of NME from pediatric patients; susceptibility to imipenem was 1.9% lower, and susceptibility to β-lactam comparators (cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam) was 9.2-25.2% lower. Imipenem/relebactam inhibited 94.2% of P. aeruginosa from pediatric patients; susceptibility to imipenem was 16.2% lower, and susceptibility to β-lactam comparators was 10.2-15.6% lower. Susceptibility was generally slightly higher for isolates from pediatric than adult patients. All K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-positive isolates, 93.3% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) NME isolates, and 70.5% of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates from pediatric patients were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam provides a new treatment option for infections caused by resistant gram-negative bacilli, including KPC-positive NME, MDR NME, and MDR P. aeruginosa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".