Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam and ceftazidime/avibactam against clinical Gram-negative isolates—SMART United States 2019–21
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Ongoing national and international surveillance efforts are critical components of antimicrobial stewardship, resistance monitoring, and drug development programs. In this report, we summarize the results of ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam, ceftazidime/avibactam and comparator agent testing against 10 509 Enterobacterales and 2524 Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected by USA clinical laboratories in 2019–21 as part of the SMART global surveillance programme. Methods MICs were determined by CLSI broth microdilution and interpreted using 2023 CLSI M100 breakpoints. Results Most Enterobacterales were ceftazidime/avibactam susceptible (>99%), meropenem susceptible (99%) and ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptible (94%). Non-Morganellaceae Enterobacterales were also highly susceptible to imipenem/relebactam (99%). Ceftolozane/tazobactam inhibited 94% of Escherichia coli and 89% of Klebsiella pneumoniae with ceftriaxone non-susceptible/non-carbapenem-resistant phenotypes. Against P. aeruginosa, ceftolozane/tazobactam (97% susceptible) was more active than ceftazidime/avibactam (95%) and imipenem/relebactam (91%). MDR and difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) phenotypes were identified in 13% and 7% of P. aeruginosa isolates, respectively. Ceftolozane/tazobactam remained active against 78% of MDR P. aeruginosa (13% and 23% higher than ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam, respectively) and against 74% of DTR P. aeruginosa (24% and 37% higher than ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam, respectively). Length of hospital stay at the time of specimen collection, ward type and infection type resulted in percent susceptible value differences of >5% across isolate demographic strata for some antimicrobial agent/pathogen combinations. Conclusions We conclude that in the USA, in 2019–21, carbapenem (meropenem) resistance remained uncommon in Enterobacterales and ceftolozane/tazobactam was more active than both ceftazidime/avibactam and imipenem/relebactam against 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".