MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398763703 · doi:10.1093/jacamr/dlae077

Activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam against Gram-negative clinical isolates collected in Mexico—SMART 2017–2021

2024· article· en· W4398763703 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Karlowsky, Sibylle Lob, Fakhar Siddiqui, Thales Polis, Jose L Vallejo, Katherine Young, Mary Motyl, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueJAC-Antimicrobial Resistance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImipenemGram-negative bacterial infectionsGramTazobactamMedicineBiologyMicrobiologyAntibioticsAntibiotic resistanceBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To investigate the activities of ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from hospitalized patients in Mexico in 2017–2021. Methods MICs were determined by CLSI broth microdilution and interpreted using CLSI M100 breakpoints. β-Lactamase genes were identified in ceftolozane/tazobactam-, imipenem/relebactam-, and/or imipenem-non-susceptible isolates. Results Ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam inhibited 89% and 99% of E. coli isolates (n = 2337), and 87% and 94% of K. pneumoniae isolates (n = 1127). Sixty-four percent of E. coli and 47% of K. pneumoniae had an ESBL non-carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (ESBL non-CRE) phenotype. Eighty-six percent and 91% of ESBL non-CRE E. coli and K. pneumoniae were ceftolozane/tazobactam susceptible, and 99.9% and 99.8% were imipenem/relebactam susceptible. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was the most active agent studied against P. aeruginosa (n = 1068; 83% susceptible), 9–28 percentage points higher than carbapenems and comparator β-lactams excluding imipenem/relebactam (78% susceptible). Ceftolozane/tazobactam remained active against 35%–58%, and imipenem/relebactam against 32%–42%, of P. aeruginosa in meropenem-, piperacillin/tazobactam-, and cefepime-non-susceptible subsets. The majority of isolates of ceftolozane/tazobactam-non-susceptible E. coli carried an ESBL, whereas among ceftolozane/tazobactam-non-susceptible K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa, the majority carried carbapenemases. The most prevalent carbapenemase observed among E. coli (estimated at 0.7% of all isolates), K. pneumoniae (4.8%) and P. aeruginosa (10.0%) was an MBL. Almost all imipenem/relebactam-non-susceptible E. coli and K. pneumoniae carried MBL or OXA-48-like carbapenemases, whereas among imipenem/relebactam-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa, 56% carried MBL or GES carbapenemases. Conclusions Ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam may provide treatment options for patients infected with β-lactam-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacilli, excluding isolates carrying an MBL- or OXA-48-like carbapenemase.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAC-Antimicrobial ResistanceSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207