In Vitro Evaluation of the activity of Ceftazidime-avibactam and Aztreonam-Avibactam against 76 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates from a teaching hospital in Chongqing

Abstract

Background: Treatment options for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia) infections were limited. We assessed the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) and aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) against a selection of 76 S. maltophilia out of the 1179 strains isolated from the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018. Methods: We investigated the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the 1179 S. maltophilia clinical isolates from the first affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University during 2011-2018, a collection of 76 isolates of which were available for further study of microbiological characterization. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ceftazidime (CAZ), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI), aztreonam (ATM) and aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) were determined via the broth microdilution method. We deemed that CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was more effective in vitro than CAZ or ATM alone when CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI led to a category change from “Resistant” with CAZ or ATM alone to “Susceptible” or “Intermediate” with CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI, or if the MIC of CAZ-AVI or ATM-AVI was at least 2-fold lower than the MIC of CAZ or ATM alone. Results: For the 76 clinical isolates included in the study, MICs of CAZ, ATM, CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI ranged from 0.03-64, 1-1024, 0.016-64, and 0.06-64 μg/mL, respectively. In combined therapy, AVI was effective at restoring the susceptibility of 48.48% (16/33) and 89.71% (61/68) of S. maltophilia to CAZ and ATM, respectively. Furthermore, CAZ-AVI showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (77.63% vs.56.58%, P<0.001), MIC50 (2μg/mL vs. 8μg/mL, P<0.05), and MIC distribution (P<0.001) when compared to CAZ. According to our definition, CAZ-AVI was more effective in vitro than CAZ alone for 84.21% of the isolates. Similarly, ATM-AVI also showed better results in terms of the proportion of susceptible isolates (90.79%vs. 10.53%, P<0.001), MIC50 (2μg/mL vs. 64μg/mL, P<0.001), and MIC distribution (P<0.001) when compared to ATM. According to our definition, ATM-AVI was also more effective in vitro than ATM alone for 97.37% of the isolates. Conclusions: AVI potentiated the activity of both CAZ and ATM against S. maltophilia clinical isolates in vitro. We demonstrated that CAZ-AVI and ATM-AVI are both useful therapeutic options to treat infections caused by S. maltophilia.