TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative in vitro activity of sulbactam with avibactam or durlobactam against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
AU - Dorazio, Ava J.
AU - Kline, Ellen G.
AU - Squires, Kevin M.
AU - Griffith, Marissa P.
AU - Doi, Yohei
AU - Shields, Ryan K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s).
PY - 2025/6/1
Y1 - 2025/6/1
N2 - Objective To determine the in vitro activity of sulbactam in combination with avibactam or durlobactam with and without meropenem or imipenem against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Methods Standardized susceptibility testing by broth microdilution was performed to determine MICs for imipenem, meropenem and sulbactam alone, and for combinations including sulbactam/avibactam, sulbactam/durlobactam, sulbactam/avibactam/meropenem, sulbactam/avibactam/imipenem, sulbactam/durlobactacm/meropenem and sulbactam/durlobactam/imipenem. Whole-genome sequencing was also performed to compare MICs to key resistance determinants, including mutations in penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Results Median sulbactam/durlobactam and sulbactam/avibactam MICs were 2 and 16 mg/L, respectively. Imipenem potentiated the in vitro activity of both combinations to a greater extent than meropenem corresponding to median sulbactam/durlobactam/imipenem and sulbactam/avibactam/imipenem MICs of 1 and 8 mg/L, respectively. Carbapenem combinations were more active than combinations without a carbapenem against isolates with PBP3 mutations. Conclusions These data show that imipenem potentiates sulbactam-based combinations to a greater extent than meropenem; however, future studies are needed to define how these data should be applied in clinical practice.
AB - Objective To determine the in vitro activity of sulbactam in combination with avibactam or durlobactam with and without meropenem or imipenem against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Methods Standardized susceptibility testing by broth microdilution was performed to determine MICs for imipenem, meropenem and sulbactam alone, and for combinations including sulbactam/avibactam, sulbactam/durlobactam, sulbactam/avibactam/meropenem, sulbactam/avibactam/imipenem, sulbactam/durlobactacm/meropenem and sulbactam/durlobactam/imipenem. Whole-genome sequencing was also performed to compare MICs to key resistance determinants, including mutations in penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). Results Median sulbactam/durlobactam and sulbactam/avibactam MICs were 2 and 16 mg/L, respectively. Imipenem potentiated the in vitro activity of both combinations to a greater extent than meropenem corresponding to median sulbactam/durlobactam/imipenem and sulbactam/avibactam/imipenem MICs of 1 and 8 mg/L, respectively. Carbapenem combinations were more active than combinations without a carbapenem against isolates with PBP3 mutations. Conclusions These data show that imipenem potentiates sulbactam-based combinations to a greater extent than meropenem; however, future studies are needed to define how these data should be applied in clinical practice.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105009703902
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105009703902#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1093/jacamr/dlaf098
DO - 10.1093/jacamr/dlaf098
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105009703902
SN - 2632-1823
VL - 7
JO - JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
JF - JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
IS - 3
M1 - dlaf098
ER -