Next Article in Journal
Molecular Diagnosis of Encephalitis/Meningoencephalitis Caused by Free-Living Amoebae from a Tertiary Center in India
Next Article in Special Issue
Serotypes, Antibiotic Susceptibility, Genotypic Virulence Profiles and SpaA Variants of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains Isolated from Pigs in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Cross-Over Pathogenic Bacteria Detected in Infected Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and Peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) in Bulgaria
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Communities and Antibiotic Resistance of Potential Pathogens Involved in Food Safety and Public Health in Fish and Water of Lake Karla, Thessaly, Greece
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/pathogens11121508
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cefiderocol against Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli: An In Vitro Study in Poland

by
Patrycja Zalas-Więcek
1,2,*,
Katarzyna Płachta
1 and
Eugenia Gospodarek-Komkowska
1,2
1
Department of Microbiology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University (NCU) in Toruń, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Clinical Microbiology Division, Dr Antoni Jurasz University Hospital No. 1 in Bydgoszcz, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(12), 1508; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121508
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 25 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Detection and Characterization of Drug-Resistant Organisms)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cefiderocol (CFDC) is a novel, broad-spectrum siderophore cephalosporin with potential activity against multi-drug (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Enterobacterales, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We assessed the in vitro susceptibility to CFDC of MDR, and XDR E. coli isolates derived from clinical samples of hospitalized patients. Disk diffusion (DD) and MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) test strip (MTS) methods were used. The results were interpreted based on EUCAST (version 12.0 2022) recommendations. Among all E. coli isolates, 98 (94.2%) and 99 (95.2%) were susceptible to CFDC when the DD and MTS methods were used, respectively (MIC range: <0.016–4 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.19 µg/mL, MIC90: 0.75 µg/mL). With the DD and MTS methods, all (MIC range: 0.016–2 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.19 µg/mL, MIC90: 0.75 µg/mL) but three (96.6%) ESBL-positive isolates were susceptible to CFDC. Out of all the metallo-beta-lactamase-positive E. coli isolates (MIC range: 0.016–4 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.5 µg/mL, MIC90: 1.5 µg/mL), 16.7% were resistant to CFDC with the DD method, while 11.1% were resistant to CFDC when the MTS method was used. CFDC is a novel therapeutic option against MDR and XDR E. coli isolates and is promising in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant E. coli strains, also for those carrying Verona integron-encoded metallo-beta-lactamases, when new beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitors cannot be used.

1. Introduction

Enterobacterales, including Escherichia coli, are important pathogens in hospital and community-acquired infections and can cause many serious infections, such as urinary tract infections, wound infections, intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia, bacteremia, sepsis and neonatal meningitis [1]. Due to the widespread use of antimicrobial agents in clinical treatment, the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of Gram-negative rods has dramatically increased over the past years and now is one of the biggest threats to public health today, both globally and in the WHO (World Health Organization) European Region [2,3]. In 2017 the WHO experts recognized carbapenem-resistant (CR) Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales as ‘priority 1: critical’ pathogens on a global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Similarly, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) raises the alarm on high percentages of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems in Enterobacterales and high percentages of CR P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species [2,3].
Within Enterobacterales rods, E. coli is the most frequently isolated pathogen from clinical specimens. Particularly disturbing are multi-drug (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing (ESBL) and/or CR E. coli strains due to significant limitations of antimicrobial therapeutic possibilities and thus morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of these kinds of strains has increased over the past years, and this is a serious public health concern worldwide [4]. Resistance of E. coli to beta-lactam antibiotics is attributed to the ability to produce ESBLs, mainly CTX (cefotaximase)-M (Munich)-type and carbapenemases: class A (serine carbapenemases, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, KPC), class B (metallo-beta-lactamases, MBL), such as VIM (Verona integron-encoded metallo-beta-lactamase), and NDM (New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamases), as well as class D (oxacillinases, OXA), such as OXA-48-type [4,5]. In Poland, a high prevalence of beta-lactamase-producing and carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria is observed. The predominant type of ESBL enzyme is CTX-M-1-group, which is present mainly in E. coli and K. pneumoniae, whereas the most common carbapenemases are VIM, NDM, and KPC [4,5,6]. In Poland, the phenomenon of resistance to colistin (current the last-line agent) in E. coli rods is also a concern, especially if it occurs in CR MDR or XDR E. coli isolates [7,8].
The consequences of AMR can be severe, leading to mounting healthcare costs, treatment failure, and death. It is considered that prompt treatment with effective antimicrobials is the most effective way of reducing the risk of poor outcomes from serious infections. Therefore, both the WHO and the ECDC have warned about the shortage of effective antibiotics and urged pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs [2,9]. Recently, several new antimicrobial agents have been approved for the treatment of Gram-negative rods infections, such as a novel beta-lactams (e.g., ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, imipenem-cilastatin/relebactam), and a new aminoglycoside (plazomicin) and tetracycline (eravacycline), but unique features of these agents are not able to overcome some resistant mechanisms of Gram-negative rods [9]. None of the novel beta-lactam antibiotics are stable against MBL-producing Gram-negative rods, including E. coli. In addition, ESBLs like GES 6 (Guiana-Extended-Spectrum) and PER 1 (Pseudomonas extended resistant) confer resistance to ceftolozane-tazobactam, and the KPC-49 variant can confer resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam in E. coli strains [10,11].
Cefiderocol (CFDC) (formerly S-649266) is a novel siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin antibiotic developed by Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan), with activity against MDR and XDR aerobic Gram-negative rods including Enterobacterales and non-glucose-fermenting rods. This antibiotic has no clinically relevant activity against Gram-positive or anaerobic bacteria due to intrinsic resistance [12].
CFDC (Fetroja®, Fetcroja®) is an intravenous antibiotic approved in the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) for the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections caused by Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14 November 2019—the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA), infections caused by aerobic Gram-negative rods with limited treatment options (23 April 2020—The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Committee for Medical Products for Human Use (CMPH)) and hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia caused by Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii complex. The safety and efficacy of CFDC in children below 18 years of age have not yet been established [13].
CFDC shares a chemical structure in the C-7 side chain with ceftazidime and in the C-3 side chain with cefepime, which enables CFDC to be active against Gram-negative rods and confers stability against beta-lactamases. On the C-3 side chain, CFDC has a catechol moiety that chelates ferric (Fe-III) iron-imitating natural siderophores (Supplementary Figure S1) [12,14]. Because of this molecule, CFDC binds to iron transport channels, and thereby enters the periplasmic space of Gram-negative bacteria, like a ‘Trojan horse’, reaching high concentrations and thus exceeding most bacterial mechanisms, such as efflux pumps, porins and beta-lactamases [15,16]. Once inside, CFDC subsequently binds to penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs): PBP-3 and PBP-2 of the cellular wall, inhibiting bacterial peptidoglycan cell wall synthesis, which leads to cell lysis and death.
The CFDC has potent activity against Enterobacterales producing all four Ambler classes of beta-lactamases, including ESBL, AmpC beta-lactamase and MBL, including VIM and NDM, KPC and OXA [16].
Currently, in Poland, there is no data on the susceptibility of MDR and XDR Gram-negative rods to CFDC. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro susceptibility to CFDC of MDR and XDR E. coli isolates derived from clinical specimens of hospitalized patients. CFDC is not available and used in Poland, so this study presents data on the susceptibility to CFDC in MDR and XDR E. coli isolates before the use of this antibiotic in our country.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Isolates and Identification

The study included 104 non-replicate E. coli isolates derived from the collection of the Department of Microbiology Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University (NCU) in Toruń, Poland. All of them were isolated from April 2016 to September 2022 from clinical specimens of patients hospitalized in different departments of two Polish teaching hospitals. The isolates were derived from different clinical specimens, including blood (14.4%), urine (58.6%), abdominal (5.8%), pleural (1.0%) fluids, stool (4.8%), wound (4.8%), rectal (9.6%) and stoma (1.0%) swabs (Supplementary Table S1). Only one isolate per patient was accepted. All isolates were identified to species by applying mass spectrometry in the MALDI Biotyper system (Bruker) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and selected based on the pulsed-field gel electrophoresis according to the protocol described previously [17].

2.2. Phenotypic and Genetic Screening of ESBLs and Carbapenemases

E. coli isolates were classified as ESBL-producers based on their resistance to penicillins and extended-spectrum cephalosporins, positive Phoenix M50 ESBL testing (Becton-Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and DDST (double-disk synergy test) using the following disks: ceftazidime (30 μg), cefotaxime (30 μg), and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (20/10 μg) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK). To increase the sensitivity of the test, disks containing cefepime (30 μg) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) were added. In the absence of susceptibility of the strains to at least one of the carbapenems (i.e., imipenem, meropenem or ertapenem), Carba NP test (Bufor B-PER II—Thermo Scientific Waltham, MA, USA; Tienam (imipenem 500 mg + cilastatin 500 mg)—Merck Sharp & Dohme Rahway, NJ, USA; 0.5% Phenol-red solution—Sigma Aldrich St. Louis, MO, USA; ZnSO4∙7H2O—Merck Sharp & Dohme Rahway, NJ, USA) [18] was performed. To detect the type of carbapenemase, phenotypic tests; i.e., EDTA test for MBL (EDTA—Sigma-Aldrich St. Louis, MO, USA; ceftazidime (30 μg) and imipenem (10 μg)—Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) [19], the boronic acid test for KPC (boronic acid—Sigma-Aldrich St. Louis, MO, USA, meropenem (10 μg)—Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) [20] and 30 µg temocillin test for OXA-48 (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) [21,22] were applied. Simultaneously with phenotypic tests, ESBL (blaCTX-M-1group, blaCTX-M-9group) and carbapenemase (blaKPC, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaOXA-48, blaOXA-181) genes were detected using the eazyplex® SuperBug CRE tests (Amplex Biosystems GmbH, Giessen, Germany) based on the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and read out with the help of a Genie II device (Optigene, Horsham, UK), according to the manufacturer’s instruction.

2.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

E. coli isolates were tested for susceptibility to CFDC using disk diffusion (DD) method (30 µg) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) and MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) Test strips (MTSTM Cefiderocol 0.016–256 µg/mL) (Liofilchem, Waltham, MA, USA), using the same standardized inoculum.
Both methods were carried out on standard Mueller-Hinton agar (bio Mèrieux) incubated for 18 ± 2 h at 35 ± 1 °C following the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines (EUCAST) [23]. EUCAST (version 12.0 2022) breakpoints of ≥22 mm susceptible, <22 mm resistant and ≤2 µg/mL susceptible, >2 resistant for CFDC, respectively, were used.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of other drugs (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, gentamicin, amikacin, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tigecycline and colistin) was carried out using NMIC-402 panels that were read out with Phoenix M50 automated system (Becton-Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and interpreted according to EUCAST (version 12.0 2022) [23] clinical breakpoints. MDR bacteria were defined as isolates non-susceptible to one or more agents in three or more antimicrobial classes, XDR bacteria as isolates non-susceptible to one or more agents in all but two or fewer classes, and PDR (pan drug resistant) bacteria as non-susceptible to all antimicrobial classes tested [24]. In order to assess the effectiveness of CFDC against E. coli strains, on the basis of the MIC values of CFDC obtained for all E. coli isolates, the MIC50 (MIC required to inhibit the growth of 50% of bacteria) and MIC90 (MIC required to inhibit the growth of 90% of bacteria) were determined.
To control the quality of antibiotic susceptibility testing, the standard strains E. coli ATCC 25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were used according to EUCAST QC (version 12.0 2022) tables [25].
Currently, MTSTM Cefiderocol is validated only for P. aeruginosa strains, but due to obtaining the expected quality control results with the reference strains listed above, antimicrobial susceptibility tests for E. coli isolates were performed and interpreted (100% inhibition) following the manufacturer’s recommendations for P. aeruginosa strains. According to the manufacturer’s technical instructions, using EUCAST breakpoints, the percentage of categorical agreement established by comparison to the broth microdilution (BMD) reference method was stated at 99.3%.

3. Results

Out of 104 E. coli isolates, 93 (89.4%) and 11 (10.6%) were defined as MDR and XDR, respectively. None of the isolates were PDR. Eighty-nine (85.6%) isolates were ESBL-positive by DDST, Phoenix M50 and eighty-eight (84.6%) by the LAMP method. The LAMP results indicated that 83 (79.8%) and 5 (4.8%) E. coli isolates were positive in terms of the blaCTX-M-1 group and blaCTX-M-9 group genes, respectively. Eighteen (17.3%) isolates produced carbapenemases. Sixteen were MBL-(VIM)-positive, one was MBL-(NDM)-positive, and another one was OXA-48-positive by EDTA test, boronic acid test, respectively, and the LAMP method. The blaVIM and blaNDM genes were detected in 16 (15.4%), and one of the E. coli isolates, respectively. The blaKPC and blaOXA-181 genes were not detected in any of the E. coli isolates. Two E. coli isolates were positive for both ESBL and carbapenemase genes. One of them was positive for the blaCTX-M-9 group, and blaOXA-48 genes, while the second one was positive for the blaCTX-M-1 group and blaVIM genes.
Among 104 E. coli isolates, 98 (94.2%) and 99 (95.2%) were susceptible to CFDC when the DD method and MTS were used, respectively. The diameter range, MIC range, MIC50 and MIC90 are presented in Table 1.
With the DD and MTS methods, all (MIC range: 0.016–2 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.19 µg/mL, MIC90: 0.75 µg/mL) but three (96.6%) ESBL-positive isolates were susceptible to CFDC. All ESBL-positive E. coli isolates resistant to CFDC were blaCTX-M-1 group-gene-positive.
Out of all 18 MBL-positive E. coli isolates (MIC range: 0.016-4 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.5 µg/mL, MIC90: 1.5 µg/mL), three (two VIM-positive and one NDM-positive) were resistant to CFDC with the DD method, while two (one VIM-positive and one NDM-positive) were resistant to CFDC when MTS was used.
Out of all tested E. coli isolates, six had zone diameter values within the area of technical uncertainty (ATU). The E. coli isolates whose susceptible test results were not consistent between the two methods were as follows: first one—was ESBL-positive (blaCTX-M-1 group-gene-positive) with zone diameter value of 19 mm and MIC value of 3 µg/mL, and the second one—MBL-positive (blaVIM-gene-positive) with a zone diameter value of 21 mm and a MIC value 0.75 µg/mL. In both cases, the zone diameter values were within ATU.
All six and five E. coli isolates resistant to CFDC were also resistant to quinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, respectively.
All (MIC range: 0.016–4 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.38 µg/mL, MIC90: 2 µg/mL) but three CR E. coli isolates were susceptible to CFDC with the MTS method.

4. Discussion

CFDC is a novel siderophore cephalosporin with a unique mechanism of bacterial entry. It uses the bacteria’s own system for importing iron to enter the bacterial cell, where it blocks the formation of the bacterial cell wall, killing the bacteria. For this reason, CFDC has broad-spectrum activity against aerobic Gram-negative rods, including MDR and XDR Enterobacterales. CFDC is stable against hydrolysis by beta-lactamases belonging to Ambler Classes A, B, C and D, which gives a potent to be active against carbapenemase-positive Gram-negative rods and is also active against isolates with porin channel mutations or efflux pump mechanism [15,16,26,27].
The main objective of this study was to assess the in vitro susceptibility to CFDC of MDR and XDR E. coli isolates, including ESBL-, VIM-, NDM- and OXA-48-positive isolates. All these isolates were derived from clinical samples of hospitalized patients. Out of 104 E. coli isolates, 99 (95.2%) were susceptible to CFD, when the MTS was used (MIC range: <0.016–4 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.19 µg/mL, MIC90: 0.75 µg/mL).
CFDC has been shown to be in vitro active against Gram-negative carbapenemase producers, including those that produce MBLs, such as IMP (imipenemase-producing-metallo-beta-lactamase), NDM, and VIM [16,26,27]. The multinational SIDERO (2014–2016) surveillance studies, in which the subject of research were Gram-negative rods collected in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe and North and South America, showed the broad spectrum of activity of CFDC, with the MIC range 0.004–4 µg/mL against more than 99.0% of all tested Gram-negative isolates [28,29], and more than 97.0% of isolates non-susceptible to carbapenems [30]. For E. coli, the MIC90 ranged from 0.5 to 1 μg/mL. In our study, CFDC was active in vitro against 90.0% of CR E. coli isolates with MIC method, including 15 out of 16 VIM-positive isolates. The NDM-positive E. coli isolate was resistant to CFDC. All E. coli isolates resistant to CFDC were also resistant to quinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. This may be related to the consumption of antibiotics. Each of the patients from whom the strains were isolated was treated with antibiotics. Three out of six E. coli isolates resistant to CFDC by any of the methods were isolated from urine. The patients with suspected urinary tract infections are often started on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ciprofloxacin. Wong et al. [31] observed high co-resistance rates for ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli with ciprofloxacin (73%) and ceftriaxone-resistant K. pneumoniae with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (83%), which correlated with consumption of antibiotics. There are currently no data on co-resistance CFDC with quinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in the available literature.
Mechanisms of bacterial resistance that may lead to resistance to CFDC include mutant or acquired PBPs, beta-lactamase enzymes with the ability to hydrolyze CFDC, mutations affecting the regulation of bacterial iron uptake, mutations in siderophore transport proteins and over-expression of native bacterial siderophores [13,32,33,34]. Wang et al. [32], in a multicenter study, assessed the susceptibility to CFDC of 181 CR E. coli isolates. Among them, 128 (70.7%) of the isolates harbored NDM, 9 (5.0%) harbored KPC and 6 (3.3%) were IMP-positive. CFDC was active against 85.1% of CR E. coli isolates (MIC50: 2 µg/mL, MIC90: 64 µg/mL). All 26 CFDC-resistant E. coli produced NDM-5, and one of them also produced KPC-2 carbapenemase. The authors showed that resistance to CFDC of E. coli NDM-5-producing is a combination of the premature stop codon of the cirA gene (gene for siderophore receptor), pbp3 gene mutation, and blaNDM-5 existence. In turn the other authors reported other possible CFDC resistance mechanisms. Kohira et al. [33] indicate an association between beta-lactamase PER (type of ESBL) production and resistance to CFDC, whereas Simner et al. [34] reported an increase in blaNDM gene copy number under antibiotic pressure, resulting in high expression of NDM, leading to CFDC resistance. Furthermore, Fröhlich et al. [35] noted that the expression of beta-lactamase genes from various Ambler classes can substantially contribute to CFDC resistance. In the in vitro study, the authors stated that the expression of blaKPC-2, blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M-15 and blaNDM-1 substantially reduced CFDC susceptibility. Additionally, directed evolution on these enzymes showed that, with the acquisition of only 1–2 non-synonymous mutations, all beta-lactamases were evolvable to further CFDC resistance. However, it is difficult to argue with these reports because, in our study, the mechanisms of CFDC resistance were not investigated.
Moriis et al. [36] assessed the susceptibility to CFDC of 15 CR E. coli isolates with the DD (two kinds of disks) and BMD methods. All E. coli isolates were susceptible to CFDC with the BMD method, while 80.0% (30 µg HardyDisks—FDA cleared) to 87.0% (30-µg MASTDISCS RUO) were susceptible to CFDC when the DD method was used.
The authors obtained the following MIC results with the BMD method: MIC range: 0.06–2 µg/mL, MIC50: 0.25 µg/mL and MIC90: 1 µg/mL. On this basis, the authors concluded, that the DD method offers a convenient alternative approach to BMD methods for CFDC antimicrobial susceptibility testing; however, the results of the CFDC susceptibility assessment depend on the type of disks used.
In our study, there were two E. coli isolates whose susceptible test results were not consistent between DD and MTS methods. In both cases, the zone diameter values were within ATU. According to the EUCAST [37], laboratories are recommended to start testing CFDC with the disk diffusion method. EUCAST accepted this method as predictive of susceptibility and resistance outside the ATU. At the same time, EUCAST recommends: “Inside the ATU, and as long as there is no alternative method to resolve interpretative uncertainties (e.g., MIC testing in the routine laboratory or assistance from a reference laboratory), ignore the ATU and interpret using the zone diameter breakpoints in the breakpoint table”. For this reason, both of the mentioned E. coli isolates were categorized as resistant to CFDC with the DD method. However, when the MTS method was used, 3 µg/mL and 0.75 µg/mL MIC values for first one and the second E. coli isolates, were obtained, respectively, which allowed for the categorization of E. coli isolates as susceptible to CFDC. This indicates that the use of the disk diffusion method in CFDC susceptibility testing may result in incorrect susceptibility categorization, especially when the diameter of inhibition is within the ATU.
In addition, Moriis et al. [36] observed an interesting phenomenon that the MIC90 was higher among non-carbapenemase-producing CR E. coli than the carbapenemase-positive isolates. These findings correlate with our results in the context of differences in the susceptibility of CR E. coli to CFDC, depending on whether the DD or MIC method is used. However, it is difficult to explain this phenomenon.
Due to the fact that novel beta-lactam antibiotics, such as ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam are not stable against VIM- and NDM-type carbapenemases, and that in Poland, VIM-type carbapenemase occurs most frequently in E. coli strains [4,16], CFDC may prove to be a particularly important antibiotic needed to treat infections caused by VIM-positive E. coli strains. At the same time, it should be noted that not all MDR carbapenem-susceptible E. coli strains are susceptible to CFDC. In our study, three ESBL-positive isolates susceptible to carbapenems were resistant to CFDC, and all of them were blaCTX-M-1 group-gene-positive.
The limitation of the study was an objectively small number of the tested MDR and XDR E. coli isolates derived from clinical samples of patients hospitalized only in two Polish teaching Hospitals. It is not sufficiently representative at the regional and hospital level. Follow-up studies with a larger and more diverse group of E. coli isolates are needed. In particular, studies should be carried out on E. coli strains producing NDM and KPC carbapenemases. In addition, the basis of resistance of E. coli isolates to CFDC has not been investigated, so these resistance mechanisms require follow-up research.

5. Conclusions

CFDC is a novel therapeutic option against MDR and XDR E. coli isolates and is promising in the treatment of CR E. coli strains and those carrying VIM-type carbapenemases when beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitors cannot be used. Currently, there is no other beta-lactam with activity against these carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales. Regardless of in vitro susceptibility, CFDC therapy should used with caution, and the decision to use this antibiotic should be made after consultation by a clinical microbiologist with appropriate experience in the management of infectious diseases.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens11121508/s1, Figure S1. Chemical structure and important functional groups of cefiderocol (C30H34ClN7O10S2) [10,12]; Table S1. Characteristics of E. coli isolates (n = 104).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.Z.-W.; methodology, P.Z.-W.; validation, P.Z.-W.; formal analysis, P.Z.-W.; investigation, P.Z.-W. and K.P.; resources, P.Z.-W.; data curation, P.Z.-W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Z-W.; writing—review and editing, P.Z.-W., K.P. and E.G.-K.; supervision, P.Z.-W.; project administration, P.Z.-W.; funding acquisition, P.Z.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Collegium Medicum Nicolaus Copernicus University in Bydgoszcz, with funds from the maintenance of the research potential of the Department of Microbiology (WF536).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Oliveira, D.; Forde, B.; Kidd, T.; Harris, P.; Schembri, M.; Beatson, S.; Peterson, D.; Walker, M. Antimicrobial resistance in ESKAPE pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 33, e00181-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shrivastava, S.R.; Shrivastava, P.S.; Ramasamy, J. World Health Organization releases global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. J. Med. Soc. 2018, 32, 76–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Europe, 2022–2020 Data (europa.eu). Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Joint-WHO-ECDC-AMR-report2022.pdf. (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  4. Grundmann, H.; Glasner, C.; Albiger, B.; Aanensen, D.M.; Tomlinson, C.T.; Andrasević, A.T.; Cantón, R.; Carmeli, Y.; Friedrich, A.W.; Giske, C.G.; et al. Occurrence of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli in the European survey of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (EuSCAPE): A prospective, multinational study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Pitout, J.D.; Laupland, K.B. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: An emerging public-health concern. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2008, 8, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mokracka, J.; Oszyńska, A.; Kaznowski, A. Increased frequency of integrons and β-lactamase-coding genes among extraintestinal Escherichia coli isolated with a 7-year interval. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2013, 103, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Majewski, P.; Gutowska, A.; Smith, D.G.E.; Hauschild, T.; Majewska, P.; Hryszko, T.; Gizycka, D.; Kedra, B.; Kochanowicz, J.; Glowiński, J. Plasmid mediated mcr-1.1 colistin-resistance in clinical extraintestinal Escherichia coli strains isolated in Poland. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 547020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stefaniuk, E.M.; Kozińska, A.; Waśko, I.; Baraniak, A.; Tyski, S. Occurrence of beta-lactamases in colistin-resistant Enterobacterales strains in Poland—A pilot study. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2021, 70, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Doi, Y. Treatment options for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 69, S565–S575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ortiz de la Rosa, J.M.; Nordmann, P.; Poirel, L. ESBLs and resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam combinations in Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1934–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hernández-García, M.; Sánchez-López, J.; Martínez-García, L.; Becerra-Aparicio, F.; Morosini, M.I.; Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Cantón, R. Emergence of the new KPC-49 variant conferring an ESBL phenotype with resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam in the ST131-H30R1 Escherichia coli high-risk clone. Pathogens 2021, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sato, T.; Yamawaki, K. Cefiderocol: Discovery, chemistry, and in vivo profiles of a novel siderophore cephalosporin. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 69, S538–S543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. European Medicine Company. 2020 Fetcroja. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/fetcroja#overview-section. (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  14. Compound Summary: Cefiderocol. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Cefiderocol (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  15. Soriano, M.C.; Montufar, J.; Blandino-Ortiz, A. Cefiderocol. Rev. Esp. Quimioter. 2022, 35, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Syed, Y.Y. Cefiderocol: A review in serious Gram-negative bacterial infections. Drugs 2021, 81, 1559–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zalas-Więcek, P.; Bogiel, T.; Wiśniewski, K.; Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. Diversity of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli rods. Post. Hig. Med. Dośw. 2017, 71, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nordmann, P.; Poirel, L.; Dortet, L. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2012, 18, 1503–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Lee, K.; Lim, Y.S.; Yong, D. Evaluation of the Hodge test and the imipenem-EDTA double-disk synergy test for differentiating metallo-beta-lactamase producing isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 4623–4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Doi, Y.; Potoski, B.A.; Adams-Haduch, J.M.; Sidjabat, H.E.; Pasculle, A.W.; Paterson, D.L. Simple disk-based method for detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-type beta-lactamase by use of a boronic acid compound. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 4083–4086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Glupczynski, Y.; Huang, T.D.; Bouchahrouf, W.; Rezende de Castro, R.; Bauraing, C.; Gérard, M.; Verbruggen, A.M.; Deplano, A.; Denis, O.; Bogaerts, P. Rapid emergence and spread of OXA-48-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates in Belgian hospitals. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2012, 39, 168–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. van Dijk, K.; Voets, G.; Scharringa, J.; Voskuil, S.; Fluit, A.C.; Rottier, W.C.; Leverstein-Van Hall, M.A.; Cohen Stuart, J.W.T. A disc diffusion assay for detection of class A, B and OXA48 carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae using phenyl boronic acid, dipicolinic acid, and temocillin. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters Version 12.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.eucast.org (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  24. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Routine and extended internal quality control for MIC determination and disk diffusion as recommended by EUCAST. Version 12.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.eucast.org (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  26. Ito, A.; Sato, T.; Ota, M.; Takemura, M.; Nishikawa, T.; Toba, S.; Kohira, N.; Miyagawa, S.; Ishibashi, N.; Matsumoto, S.; et al. In vitro antibacterial properties of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e01454-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Ito-Horiyama, T.; Ishii, Y.; Ito, A.; Sato, T.; Nakamura, R.; Fukuhara, N.; Tsuji, M.; Yamano, Y.; Yamaguchi, K.; Tateda, K. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin s-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4384–4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Hackel, M.A.; Tsuji, M.; Yamano, Y.; Echols, R.; Karlowsky, J.A.; Sahm, D.F. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against a recent collection of clinically relevant Gram-negative bacilli from North America and Europe, including carbapenem-nonsusceptible isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 Study). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e00093-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Karlowsky, J.A.; Hackel, M.A.; Tsuji, M.; Yamano, Y.; Echols, R.; Sahm, D.F. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacilli isolated by clinical laboratories in North America and Europe in 2015–2016: SIDERO-WT-2015. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2019, 53, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kazmierczak, K.M.; Tsuji, M.; Wise, M.G.; Hackel, M.; Yamano, Y.; Echols, R.; Sahm, D.F. In vitro activity of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, against a recent collection of clinically relevant carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacilli, including serine carbapenemase- and metallo-β-lactamase-producing isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 Study). Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2019, 53, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wong, P.H.P.; von Krosigk, M.; Roscoe, D.L.; Lau, T.T.Y.; Yousefi, M.; Bowie, W.R. Antimicrobial co-resistance patterns of gram-negative bacilli isolated from bloodstream infections: A longitudinal epidemiological study from 2002–2011. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, Q.; Jin, L.; Sun, S.; Yin, Y.; Wang, R.; Chen, F.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Hou, J.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Occurrence of high levels of cefiderocol resistance in carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli before its approval in China: A report from China CRE-Network. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0267021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kohira, N.; Hackel, M.A.; Ishioka, Y.; Kuroiwa, M.; Sahm, D.; Sato, T.; Maki, H.; Yamano, Y. Reduced susceptibility mechanism to cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, among clinical isolates from a global surveillance programme (SIDERO-WT-2014). J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 22, 738–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Simner, P.J.; Mostafa, H.H.; Bergman, Y.; Ante, M.; Tekle, T.; Adebayo, A.; Beisken, S.; Dzintars, K.; Tamma, P.D. Progressive development of cefiderocol resistance in Escherichia coli during therapy is associated with an increase in blaNDM-5 copy number and gene expression. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 75, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fröhlich, C.; Sørum, V.; Tokuriki, N.; Johnsen, P.J.; Samuelsen, Ø. Evolution of β-lactamase-mediated cefiderocol resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2022, 77, 2429–2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Morris, C.P.; Bergman, Y.; Tekle, T.; Fissel, J.A.; Tamma, P.D.; Simner, P.J. Cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli: A comparison of disk diffusion to broth microdilution. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 59, e01649-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. EUCAST Warnings Concerning Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Products or Procedures. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/ast-of-bacteria/warnings (accessed on 25 November 2022).
Table
Table 1. Antibacterial activity of CFDC against ESBL-positive and CR E. coli isolates (n = 104).
Table 1. Antibacterial activity of CFDC against ESBL-positive and CR E. coli isolates (n = 104).
Resistance Profile (n)CFDC
DD Method—Diameter Range (mm)SMIC50
(µg/mL)		MIC90
(µg/mL)		MIC Range
(µg/mL)		S
n (%)n (%)
All13–3598 (94.2%)0.190.75<0.016–499 (95.2%)
ESBL-positive (89)16–3586 (96.6%)0.190.50.016–486 (96.6%)
CR (20)13–3517 (85.0%)0.3820.016–418 (90.0%)
VIM-positive (16)13–3314 (87.5%)0.51.50.016–415 (93.7%)
DD method—Zone Diameter (mm)SMIC ValueS
nn
NDM-positive (1)14040
CTX-M-1 and VIM-positive (1)2410.51
CTX-M-9 and OXA-48-positive (1)351<0.0161
CFDC—cefiderocol; CTX-M—cefotaximase-Munich; CR—carbapenem-resistant; DD—disk diffusion; ESBL—extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; MIC—minimum inhibitory concentration; MIC50—MIC required to inhibit the growth of 50% of bacteria; MIC90—MIC required to inhibit the growth of 90% of bacteria; n—number of isolates; NDM—New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase; S—susceptible; VIM—Verona integron-encoded metallo-beta-lactamase.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zalas-Więcek, P.; Płachta, K.; Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. Cefiderocol against Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli: An In Vitro Study in Poland. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121508

AMA Style

Zalas-Więcek P, Płachta K, Gospodarek-Komkowska E. Cefiderocol against Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli: An In Vitro Study in Poland. Pathogens. 2022; 11(12):1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zalas-Więcek, Patrycja, Katarzyna Płachta, and Eugenia Gospodarek-Komkowska. 2022. "Cefiderocol against Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli: An In Vitro Study in Poland" Pathogens 11, no. 12: 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121508

APA Style

Zalas-Więcek, P., Płachta, K., & Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. (2022). Cefiderocol against Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli: An In Vitro Study in Poland. Pathogens, 11(12), 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121508

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop