4.7 Article

Susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Recovered from Cystic Fibrosis Patients to Murepavadin and 13 Comparator Antibiotics

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01541-19

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; cystic fibrosis; murepavadin; sequence type; susceptibility testing

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) [115721]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective was to determine the in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates cultured from cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and explore associations between strain sequence type and susceptibility. Fourteen antibiotics and antibiotic combinations, including the novel antibacterial peptide murepavadin, were tested for activity against 414 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates cultured from respiratory samples of CF patients. The complete genomes of the isolates were sequenced, and minimum spanning trees were constructed based on the sequence types (STS). Percentages of resistance according to CLSI 2019 breakpoints were as follows: cefepime, 14%; ceftazidime, 11%; ceftazidime-avibactam, 7%; ceftolozanet-azobactam, 3%; piperacillin-tazobactam, 12%; meropenem, 18%; imipenem, 32%; aztreonam, 23%; ciprofloxacin, 30%; gentamicin, 30%; tobramycin, 12%; amikacin, 18%; and colistin, 4%. Murepavadin MIC50 and MIC90 were 0.12 mg/liter and 2 mg/liter, respectively. There were no apparent clonal clusters associated with resistance, but higher MICs did appear to occur more often in STs with multiple isolates than in single ST isolates. In general, the CF isolates showed a wide genetic distribution. P. aeruginosa CF isolates exhibited the lowest resistance rates against ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, and colistin. Murepavadin demonstrated the highest activity on a per-weight basis and may therefore become a valuable addition to the currently available antibiotics for treatment of respiratory infection in people with CF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据