In vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against Gram‐negative isolates collected from ICU patients with lower respiratory tract infections in seven Asian countries—SMART 2017–2019

In Vitro Activity of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam and Other Antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection-Isolates from an Academic Medical Center in Thailand

“…PA is one of the most common pathogens causing hospital-associated infections [ 1 ]. Current data from the global Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) surveillance program from 2017–2019 ranked PA third among Gram-negative isolates from intensive care patients with lower respiratory tract infections in Thailand [ 20 ].…”

“…Lob S.H. et al, from the SMART study, recently reported the overall susceptibility of 761 PA isolates to ceftolozane-tazobactam from ‘seven Asian countries to be 85.9%, while the overall susceptibility of 126 PA isolates from Thailand to ceftolozane-tazobactam was 74.6% [ 20 ]. The susceptibility of 186 resistant PA (resistant to meropenem and piperacillin-tazobactam) isolates from 7 Asian countries to ceftolozane-tazobactam was 51.1%, while the susceptibility of 37 resistant PA isolates from Thailand to ceftolozane-tazobactam was only 18.9% [ 20 ].…”

Ceftolozane/tazobactam: Literature review of its activity on Taiwanese isolates before its launch in Taiwan (2012–2021)

“…The susceptibility rate to TOL/TAZ was found to be 81.3–86.6 % for Taiwanese P. aeruginosa isolates that were not sensitive to imipenem/meropenem between 2017 and 2020 [ 13 , 14 ]. Additionally, 91.8 % of 73 imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates examined in a different investigation in 2021 were sensitive to TOL/TAZ [ 15 ].…”

“…The studies focusing on clinical outcomes of the patients treated with TOL/TAZ that lacked comprehensive susceptibility information were excluded. Overall, we included 7 studies that were accessible to evaluate the TOL/TAZ susceptibility over time from 2012 to 2021 [ 8 , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] ]. These studies showed how resistance mechanisms evolved and were impacted by the different proportions of ESBL, AmpC, or carbapenemase in the cohort isolates.…”

“… Organism % Susceptibility (no. of isolates tested) Antibiotic 2012–2013 a 2014–2015 a 2016 b 2015–2016 c 2017 d 2017–2019 e 2017–2020 f 2018–2020 g 2021 h References Su et al [ 16 ] Su et al [ 16 ] Liao et al [ 10 ] Kuo et al [ 8 ] Jean et al [ 11 ] Lob et al [ 13 ] Lee et al [ 12 ] Liu et al [ 14 ] Karlowsky et al [ 15 ] Inclusion criteria - a - a ICU, GNB LRTI BSI ICU, LRTI CnSE CnSPA CRPA Escherichia coli C/T – 93.6 (125) 88 (100) 91.9 (247) 94.3 (686) – 7.7 (26) – – IPM – 100 (125) …”