Activity of imipenem/relebactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Spain. SMART 2016-2020

Objectives. To determine susceptibility to the novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination imipenem/relebactam in clinical isolates recovered from intra-abdominal (IAI), urinary (UTI), respiratory (RTI) and bloodstream (BSI) infections in the SMART (Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends) study in SPAIN during 2016 – 2020. Methods. Broth microdilution MICs for imipenem/relebactam and comparators were determined by a central laboratory against isolates of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MICs were interpreted using EUCAST-2021 breakpoints. Results. In total, 5,210 Enterobacterales and 1,418 P. aeruginosa clinical isolates were analyzed. Imipenem/relebactam inhibited 98.8% of Enterobacterales. Distinguishing by source of infection susceptibility was 99.1% in BSI, 99.2% in IAI, 97.9% in RTI, and 99.2% in UTI. Of intensive care unit isolates (ICU) 97.4% were susceptible and of non-ICU isolates 99.2% were susceptible. In Enterobacterales, activity against Class A, Class B and Class D carbapenemases was 96.2%, 15.4% and 73.2%, respectively. In P. aeruginosa, imipenem/relebactam was active in 92.2% of isolates. By source of infection it was 94.8% in BSI, 92.9% in IAI, 91.7% in RTI, and 93.1% in UTI. An 88.7% of ICU isolates and 93.6% of non-ICU isolates were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam. Imipenem/relebactam remained active against P. aeruginosa ceftazidime-resistant (76.3%), cefepime-resistant (73.6%), imipenem-resistant (71.5%) and piperacillin-resistant (78.7%) isolates. Of all multidrug-resistant or difficult-to-treat resistance P. aeruginosa isolates, 75.1% and 46.2%, respectively, were susceptible to imipenem/relebactam. Conclusions. Imipenem/relebactam showed high rates of susceptibility in Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates from different sources of infection as well as depending on patients’ location (ICU or non-ICU scenarios)

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective