Next Article in Journal
Nanofiltration as an Efficient Tertiary Wastewater Treatment: Elimination of Total Bacteria and Antibiotic Resistance Genes from the Discharged Effluent of a Full-Scale Wastewater Treatment Plant
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Verapamil and Two Bisbenzylisoquinolines, Curine and Guattegaumerine Extracted from Isolona hexaloba, on the Inhibition of ABC Transporters from Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Previous Article in Journal
The Appropriateness of Empiric Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital in Joran: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Spread of NDM-1 and NDM-7-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Is Driven by Multiclonal Expansion of High-Risk Clones in Healthcare Institutions in the State of Pará, Brazilian Amazon Region
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Resistance to Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Meropenem/Vaborbactam and Imipenem/Relebactam in Gram-Negative MDR Bacilli: Molecular Mechanisms and Susceptibility Testing

Antibiotics 2022, 11(5), 628; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11050628
by Paolo Gaibani 1,*, Tommaso Giani 2,3, Federica Bovo 1, Donatella Lombardo 1, Stefano Amadesi 1, Tiziana Lazzarotto 1,4, Marco Coppi 2,3, Gian Maria Rossolini 2,3 and Simone Ambretti 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Antibiotics 2022, 11(5), 628; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11050628
Submission received: 4 April 2022 / Revised: 1 May 2022 / Accepted: 3 May 2022 / Published: 6 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission.

After careful reading, the overall review focuses on MDR-pathogenic bacilli using molecular and susceptibility tests. However, there are some comments all are in yellow highlighted colors) that can further improve the current form of this review esp. provide infographics under each subheading to increase the visibility and scientific values. Also, authors can provide summarized paragraphs of the benefits in each section which give better understanding of the contents.  

Sincerely,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thanks the reviewer for his comments. We modified the manuscript accordingly to the Reviewer’ suggestions. Also, although reviewer suggested to add infographics under each subheading and a summarize of each paragraphs we choice to maintain the manuscript in the current classical form.

Reviewer 2 Report

This review deals with novel combinations of β-lactams/β-lactamase inhibitors from a mechanistic (mechanism of action and resistance) and clinical (efficacy, susceptibility testing) point of view. The text is well structured and the content is highly relevant for the journal and the special issue on Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Infections. I have a few minor comments:

The text contains some grammatical and stylistic mistake and should be thoroughly proofread. In particular, the authors should avoid repetition in sentences or paragraphs (for instance, “particular” lines 22-23; “grouped/group” lines 45, “at the same time” lines 46&52, etc). 

The introduction should include a sentence reminding the mechanism of action of β-lactam.

Line 49, “CPE” should be introduced

Line 66, The expression “non-beta-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor” should be more explicit at first occurrence. For instance “β-lactamase inhibitor without beta-lactam motif”

Line 69, “and” is missing.

Line 70, “multi-resistant” should be deleted.

Line 95 “ESβLs” was already introduced before.

Line 116, “MIC” needs to be introduced.

Line 159, “8 patients”. The authors should add the percentage, or the total number of patients included in the study.

Line 215, “to be associated” should be deleted

Part 3 contains a lot of numerical information that could be restricted to Table 2 for clarity.

Line 490, a reference is missing to know who the “authors” (line 489) are.

Units (in particular liters) should be written homogeneously throughout the text.

Adding a graphical figure summarizing important take-home messages would increase the visibility of the review.

Author Response

The text contains some grammatical and stylistic mistake and should be thoroughly proofread. In particular, the authors should avoid repetition in sentences or paragraphs (for instance, “particular” lines 22-23; “grouped/group” lines 45, “at the same time” lines 46&52, etc).

Authors’ reply and amendments: We thanks reviewer for his comment. We modified the manuscript accordingly to the Reviewer comments

 

The introduction should include a sentence reminding the mechanism of action of β-lactam.

Authors’ reply and amendments: A sentence regarding the mechanism of action of β-lactam was added in the introduction section, as requested.

 

Line 49, “CPE” should be introduced

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was modified, as requested

 

Line 66, The expression “non-beta-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor” should be more explicit at first occurrence. For instance “β-lactamase inhibitor without beta-lactam motif”

Authors’ reply and amendments: The sentence was modified, as requested

 

Line 69, “and” is missing.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was added, as requested

 

Line 70, “multi-resistant” should be deleted.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was removed, as requested

 

Line 95 “ESβLs” was already introduced before.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was removed, as requested

 

Line 116, “MIC” needs to be introduced.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was extended, as requested

 

Line 159, “8 patients”. The authors should add the percentage, or the total number of patients included in the study.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The number of patients was added, as requested

 

Line 215, “to be associated” should be deleted

Authors’ reply and amendments: The term was removed, as requested

 

Part 3 contains a lot of numerical information that could be restricted to Table 2 for clarity.

Authors’ reply and amendments: We thanks reviewer for his comment. However we opted to maintain numerical information in the text for clarity

 

Line 490, a reference is missing to know who the “authors” (line 489) are.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The reference was added, as requested

 

Units (in particular liters) should be written homogeneously throughout the text.

Authors’ reply and amendments: The Units were modified as requested

 

Adding a graphical figure summarizing important take-home messages would increase the visibility of the review.

Authors’ reply and amendments: We thanks reviewer for his comment. However we opted to not to add graphical abstract

Back to TopTop