Activity of ampicillin-sulbactam, sulbactam-durlobactam, and comparators against <i>Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus</i> complex strains isolated from respiratory and bloodstream sources: results from ACNBio study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex (ABC) are associated with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. This study aims to evaluate the in vitro activity of clinically utilized antimicrobials against a contemporary collection of ABC isolates with a predominant carbapenem-resistant phenotype. Geographically dispersed US medical centers ( n = 22) provided non-duplicate respiratory and bloodstream ABC isolates for surveillance testing. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was conducted by broth microdilution and interpreted according to Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) breakpoints. ABC isolates ( n = 523) from respiratory tract (74.4%) and blood (25.6%) sources were recovered from patients (2023–2024). Forty percent were obtained from intensive care unit patients. Carbapenem non-susceptibility was observed in 76.9% of isolates and was more common among respiratory tract cultures. The addition of durlobactam to sulbactam decreased the MIC 90 by three-doubling dilutions from 32 to 4 µg/mL, increasing the susceptibility rate to 96.9% from 33.8%. Genome sequencing of sulbactam-durlobactam non-susceptible isolates (16/523; n = 3.1%) revealed MBL and non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms. Cefiderocol inhibited 93.5% and 76.1% of isolates at CLSI and FDA susceptible breakpoints, respectively. Minocycline susceptibility was <50%, while tigecycline and eravacycline MIC 50/90 were 1/2 and 0.5/1 µg/mL, respectively. Sulbactam-durlobactam displayed high activity against sulbactam (95.4%), carbapenem (96.3%), and cefiderocol (95.2%) non-susceptible isolates. Susceptibility rates of clinically utilized antimicrobials against a US collection of ABC isolates ranged from 23% to 97%, with meropenem displaying the lowest rate and sulbactam-durlobactam demonstrating the highest overall rate. Sulbactam-durlobactam activity was preserved against sulbactam, carbapenem, and cefiderocol non-susceptible isolates among respiratory tract and bloodstream isolates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".