Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Pharmacology

Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics of Enmetazobactam Combined with Cefepime in a Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model

Fabian Bernhard, Rajesh Odedra, Sylvie Sordello, Rossella Cardin, Samantha Franzoni, Cédric Charrier, Adam Belley, Peter Warn, Matthias Machacek, Philipp Knechtle
Fabian Bernhard
aLYO-X GmbH, Allschwil, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajesh Odedra
bEvotec (UK) Ltd., Cheshire, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sylvie Sordello
bEvotec (UK) Ltd., Cheshire, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rossella Cardin
cAptuit (Verona) Srl, Verona, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samantha Franzoni
cAptuit (Verona) Srl, Verona, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cédric Charrier
dIHMA Europe Sàrl, Monthey, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Belley
eAllecra Therapeutics SAS, Saint-Louis, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Warn
bEvotec (UK) Ltd., Cheshire, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Machacek
aLYO-X GmbH, Allschwil, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philipp Knechtle
eAllecra Therapeutics SAS, Saint-Louis, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philipp Knechtle
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00078-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Third-generation cephalosporin (3GC)-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are classified as critical priority pathogens, with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) as principal resistance determinants. Enmetazobactam (formerly AAI101) is a novel ESBL inhibitor developed in combination with cefepime for empirical treatment of serious Gram-negative infections in settings where ESBLs are prevalent. Cefepime-enmetazobactam has been investigated in a phase 3 trial in patients with complicated urinary tract infections or acute pyelonephritis. This study examined pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationships of enmetazobactam, in combination with cefepime, for ESBL-producing isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae in 26-h murine neutropenic thigh infection models. Enmetazobactam dose fractionation identified the time above a free threshold concentration (fT > CT) as the PK-PD index predictive of efficacy. Nine ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae, resistant to cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam, were included in enmetazobactam dose-ranging studies. The isolates encoded CTX-M-type, SHV-12, DHA-1, and OXA-48 β-lactamases and covered a cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC range from 0.06 to 2 μg/ml. Enmetazobactam restored the efficacy of cefepime against all isolates tested. Sigmoid curve fitting across the combined set of isolates identified enmetazobactam PK-PD targets for stasis and for a 1-log10 bioburden reduction of 8% and 44% fT > 2 μg/ml, respectively, with a concomitant cefepime PK-PD target of 40 to 60% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC. These findings support clinical dose selection and breakpoint setting for cefepime-enmetazobactam.

INTRODUCTION

Third-generation cephalosporin (3GC)-resistant Enterobacteriaceae have been classified as critical priority pathogens by the WHO, with an estimated 50 million serious infections occurring annually worldwide due to Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae (1, 2). Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) are the main determinants of 3GC resistance, and the occurrence of ESBLs in clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae increased from 10% to 24% between 1997 and 2017 (3, 4). The adoption of carbapenems as definitive therapy for infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (5) has been accompanied by an increase in infections with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) from 0.6 to 2.9% over the corresponding period, with an estimated 3 million cases reported annually worldwide (1).

Novel carbapenem-sparing therapies for empirical treatment of 3GC-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are needed urgently to limit the spread of carbapenem resistance (6–8). Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been proposed as a carbapenem-sparing option for infections by 3GC-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, this β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination continues to lose activity against contemporary ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (9), and its role in treating bloodstream infections by such pathogens is controversial and likely diminishing (7, 10, 11).

Enmetazobactam, formerly AAI101, is a novel extended-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor with a unique mechanism that overcomes tazobactam-resistant variants of class A β-lactamases (12, 13) (Fig. 1). The combination of enmetazobactam with the 4th-generation cephalosporin cefepime was as potent as meropenem and outperformed piperacillin-tazobactam when tested in vitro against a collection of recent clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae (9), and it also was more potent than cefepime-tazobactam against a subset of ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae (14). Cefepime-enmetazobactam is intended as an empirical carbapenem-sparing therapy for serious Gram-negative infections in settings where ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are expected. The intrinsic activity of cefepime against isolates expressing AmpC and OXA-48 β-lactamases also makes the combination suitable for the treatment of organisms that coproduce such β-lactamases.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Structures of enmetazobactam and tazobactam. The charged moieties of enmetazobactam are highlighted in red and blue.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) models of infection are routinely applied to investigate the efficacy of novel agents against pathogens and resistance mechanisms of interest, supporting clinical dose selection and breakpoint setting by Monte Carlo simulation (15–17). In this study, the PK-PD relationship of enmetazobactam combined with cefepime was investigated in neutropenic mouse thigh models infected with clinical isolates of ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae resistant to cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam.

(Parts of the data were presented at the 2019 ASM/ESCMID Conference on Drug Development in Boston, MA.)

RESULTS

In vitro activity of cefepime-enmetazobactam against ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae.Nine clinical isolates of K. pneumoniae, with cefepime MICs of >32 μg/ml and piperacillin-tazobactam MICs ranging from 16 to >128 μg/ml, were used in this study (Table 1). The isolates carried different β-lactamase genes, including CTX-M-2, CTX-M-14, CTX-M-15, CTX-M-28, and SHV-12, with or without the plasmid-encoded class C cephalosporinase DHA-1 or the class D carbapenemase OXA-48, and belonged to seven different sequence types (18). Mutations in the OmpK36 porin were detected in five isolates. Enmetazobactam, fixed at a concentration of 8 μg/ml, restored the activity of cefepime against each isolate, reducing their MICs to within the CLSI susceptible category, with values ranging from 0.06 to 2 μg/ml.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Cefepime-resistant, ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae used in this study

The PKs of enmetazobactam and cefepime are adequately described by linear, two-compartmental models.Four different cefepime-enmetazobactam dose combinations were administered intravenously (i.v.) to infected animals every 8 h (q8h). Enmetazobactam and cefepime concentration profiles showed a two-phase decline. Consecutive profiles from day 1 and day 2 were similar, indicating no time-dependent effects, and dose-normalized profiles collapsed, indicating no concentration-dependent effects (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Enmetazobactam and cefepime plasma concentrations were well described in a two-compartment model (Fig. S2), with linear clearance from the central compartment. The model estimated plasma clearances of 41 ml/h for both enmetazobactam and cefepime. PK parameters are summarized in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

Estimates of plasma enmetazobactam and cefepime PK model parameters from mice infected with CTX-M-15-producing K. pneumoniae isolate 1280740

The fraction of the dosing interval during which enmetazobactam is above a free threshold concentration best describes the exposure-response relationship of enmetazobactam.The PK-PD relationship of enmetazobactam, combined with cefepime, was investigated by dose fractionation in a 26-h neutropenic murine thigh infection model challenged with the cefepime-resistant, CTX-M-15-producing isolate K. pneumoniae 1077711 (Table 1). Test articles were administered by i.v. infusion 2 h postinfection in a matrix design with four animals per group. Total enmetazobactam dosages included 6, 20, 60, 200, and 600 mg/kg of body weight/day, each fractionated at q4h, q8h, q12h, and q24h. Cefepime was administered concomitantly at a fixed dose of 100 mg/kg q4h to achieve a PK-PD target of 44% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC (MIC of 1 μg/ml), an exposure that is readily achieved in patients dosed with 2 g cefepime q8h (see Discussion). The terminal bioburden was expressed as the log10(CFU/g) difference between the pretreatment group at 2 h postinfection and treatment groups at 26 h postinfection [Δlog10(CFU/g)].

A robust infection with K. pneumoniae 1077711 was established, exhibiting a bioburden increase of 2.3 Δlog10(CFU/g). Treatment with cefepime alone administered at 600 mg/kg/day was ineffective, with a bioburden increase of 1.9 Δlog10(CFU/g). Combining cefepime with increasing total daily doses of enmetazobactam was associated with greater reductions in bioburden for each of the different dosing frequencies, and increasing the enmetazobactam dosing frequency was associated with greater reductions in bioburden for each of the different total daily enmetazobactam doses (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 3

Terminal thigh bioburden obtained in enmetazobactam dose fractionation studies combined with a fixed dose of cefepime

For each treatment arm, changes in bioburden were plotted against the respective enmetazobactam exposure, expressed as (i) fraction of the dosing interval above a free threshold concentration (fT > CT, with CT = 2 μg/ml; see below), (ii) area under the free concentration-time profile (fAUC), and (iii) maximum free concentration (fCmax), and sigmoid curves were fitted by regression analysis. The PK-PD relationship of enmetazobactam was best described by fT > CT, followed by fAUC and fCmax (Fig. 2). Enmetazobactam exposures required for stasis and bioburden reductions of 1 and 2 Δlog10(CFU/g) were 12%, 27%, and 50% fT > 2 μg/ml, respectively.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Enmetazobactam exposure-response relationship resulting from a dose fractionation study of different total enmetazobactam doses, combined with a fixed dose of cefepime, in a 26-h murine thigh infection model. The cefepime-resistant, CTX-M-15-producing K. pneumoniae isolate 1077711, with a cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC of 1 μg/ml, was the infecting organism. y axes show the bioburden difference between pretreatment and treatment groups. x axes show enmetazobactam exposures as fT > 2 μg/ml (a), fAUC (b), and fCmax (c). Each dot corresponds to one dosage group. EMT, enmetazobactam; S, standard error of regression; R2, coefficient of determination.

An enmetazobactam PK-PD target of 44% fT > 2 μg/ml is sufficient for a 1-log10 reduction in thigh bioburden.Enmetazobactam dose-response studies combined with fixed doses of cefepime were conducted for additional clinical isolates of ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae to quantify PK-PD targets required to achieve stasis and reductions in bioburden relative to pretreatment. Nine clinical isolates of K. pneumoniae encoding different ESBLs, with or without an AmpC or OXA-48, were included in this study. All isolates were resistant to cefepime, with eight of them exhibiting resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam (Table 1). Enmetazobactam was administered to groups of five animals at doses of 1, 3.16, 10, 31.6, and 100 mg/kg on a q4h schedule. Cefepime was administered concomitantly at a fixed dose between 25 and 200 mg/kg q4h depending on the cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC of the respective isolates to achieve exposures of 43 to 53% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC (see Table 5). Exposures of 79% were obtained for each of isolates 1280740 and 1237221 due to the very low MIC (0.06 μg/ml) and, in the latter case, due to a correction of the modal MIC value postefficacy study.

A robust infection was achieved in the vehicle group with all isolates, resulting in bioburden increases ranging from 0.8 to 4.0 Δlog10(CFU/g) (Table 4). Enmetazobactam, in combination with fixed doses of cefepime, exerted a strong dose-response against all isolates examined, with bioburden reductions of ≥1 Δlog10(CFU/g) at a dose of 31.6 mg/kg q4h, with the exception of 900679, for which enmetazobactam at 100 mg/kg q4h was required (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 4

Terminal thigh bioburden obtained in enmetazobactam dose-response studies combined with a fixed dose of cefepime

Enmetazobactam exposure, expressed as fT > CT, was plotted against the corresponding bioburden, and sigmoid curves were fitted by regression analysis for each isolate. Isolate-specific targets for stasis and for a bioburden reduction of 1 Δlog10(CFU/g) are reported in Table 5. Exposure-response data for all isolates were pooled for combined regression analysis (Fig. 3). The global fit simulated across data points from all 9 isolates identified 2% and 16% fT > 2 μg/ml enmetazobactam required for stasis and a bioburden reduction of 1 Δlog10(CFU/g), respectively. For the 75th percentile of the global fit, 8% and 44% fT > 2 μg/ml enmetazobactam were identified for stasis and a bioburden reduction of 1 Δlog10(CFU/g), respectively (Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 5

Individual and combined enmetazobactam PK-PD targetsa

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Enmetazobactam exposure-response relationship in a 26-h murine thigh infection model comprising nine cefepime-resistant, ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae. The y axis shows the bioburden as log10(CFU/g) difference between pretreatment and treatment groups. The x axis shows the enmetazobactam exposure as fT > 2 μg/ml. The lines represent the global fit and the 75th and 90th percentiles.

Modeling the exposure-response relationship for the combined set of isolates was largely independent of the applied concentration used to express the fT exposure. Similar goodness-of-fit values were obtained with either constant CT values between 0.125 and 4 μg/ml or when isolate-specific cefepime-enmetazobactam MICs were used (Fig. S3). However, only CT values of 1 and 2 μg/ml prevented enmetazobactam data points from being shifted to the far left (0% fT > CT) or the far right (100% fT > CT) of the exposure-response plots. Magnitudes required for 1-log10 bioburden reduction resulting from simulations of the global fit using CTs of 0.5, 1, or 2 μg/ml were interchangeable, i.e., the corresponding exposures were achieved with the same dose of enmetazobactam.

DISCUSSION

Enmetazobactam is an extended-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor belonging to the penicillanic acid sulfone class. This study identified fT > CT as the PK-PD index best describing the exposure-response relationship of enmetazobactam against ESBL-producing isolates of K. pneumoniae. These findings are concordant with results from a hollow-fiber infection model that also identified fT > CT as the PK-PD index (19). A study assessing the PK-PD relationship of enmetazobactam in a mouse pneumonia model concluded that either fT > CT or fAUC could account for the experimental data (20). For the penicillanic acid sulfone tazobactam, fT > CT has consistently been identified as the PK-PD index (21), implying a class effect for penicillanic acid sulfones.

Isolates included in this study were resistant to cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam with no bias in the cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC, covering a range of 0.06 to 2 μg/ml. Increased cefepime-enmetazobactam MICs were observed for isolates expressing either multiple ESBLs, an ESBL in combination with the OXA-48 carbapenemase, isolates bearing a two-amino-acid insertion at position 134 of porin OmpK36, or an N-terminal truncation of OmpK36. The exposure-response modeling employed the more stringent 75th percentile compared to the global fit, with PK-PD targets estimated at the stricter endpoint of 1-log10 bioburden reduction rather than net stasis (22, 23). The molecular diversity and unbiased MIC range of the isolates included, together with the adaptive cefepime dosing and the conservative modeling approach, makes the suggested enmetazobactam preclinical target of 44% fT > 2 μg/ml a conservative estimate for use in clinical dose justification and breakpoint setting.

Cefepime doses employed in enmetazobactam dose-response studies were selected to achieve exposures ranging from 40% to 60% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MICs. In clinical settings, cefepime administered as 2 g q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion achieved 60% fT > MIC (MIC of 8 μg/ml) with a 98.5% probability of target attainment in complicated urinary tract infection patients (Allecra; references 24 and 25 and unpublished results). Therefore, the average cefepime exposure of 53% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC achieved in this study (Table 5) is conservative, and an artificially lower enmetazobactam PK-PD target due to cefepime overexposure for two isolates (1280740 and 1237221) is well compensated by an underexposure obtained for the other isolates. Cefepime-enmetazobactam MICs used for modeling and simulation were determined using enmetazobactam at a fixed concentration of 8 μg/ml, as approved in a CLSI M23 tier 2 study design.

In the hollow-fiber model, an enmetazobactam PK-PD target of 31 to 46% fT > 2 μg/ml was required for stasis to a 1-log10 bioburden reduction when combined with cefepime (19). In the mouse pneumonia model, fT > CT was chosen as the enmetazobactam PK-PD index because it was potentially a more conservative measure than fAUC. Enmetazobactam plasma or epithelial lining fluid exposures of ≥20% fT > 2 μg/ml were required for a ≥2-log10 reduction in lung bioburden with a concomitant cefepime exposure of ≥20% fT > MIC (20). These findings, together with the presented data, support a clinical enmetazobactam PK-PD target of 45% fT > 2 μg/ml when administered in combination with high-dose cefepime.

When tazobactam was combined with cefepime or ceftolozane, mean magnitudes of 39.7% fT > 0.25 μg/ml and 44.0% fT > 0.5 μg/ml, respectively, were required for a 1-log10 bioburden reduction against ESBL-producing isolates of Enterobacteriaceae in murine thigh models (26, 27). In vitro PK-PD models identified magnitudes of 26.6 to 52.8% fT > threshold concentrations required for a 1-log10 reduction from baseline when combined with cefepime or ceftolozane (28–30).

A minimum cefepime exposure of 40% fT > cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC was necessary to achieve an enmetazobactam dose-response. Since the maximum tolerated dose of cefepime in mice was 200 mg/kg q8h, corresponding to a cefepime exposure of 43% fT > 2 μg/ml, the model was limited to isolates with a cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC of 2 μg/ml. Therefore, isolates with cefepime-enmetazobactam MICs of 4 and 8 μg/ml within the CLSI-susceptible dose-dependent interpretive category for cefepime need to be evaluated in hollow-fiber infection models simulating human exposures of enmetazobactam and cefepime.

K. pneumoniae is recognized as a heterogenous pathogen with a diverse armamentarium of virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance genes, causing a wide range of difficult-to-treat infections, including pneumonia, urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and liver abscesses (31–33). Given enmetazobactam also restores the activity of cefepime against ESBL-producing isolates of Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae (12, 34, 35) and that the MIC90 of cefepime-enmetazobactam against K. pneumoniae is at the higher end of the spectrum relative to other genera of Enterobacteriaceae, the proposed target may well be generalized to ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae other than K. pneumoniae.

The PK-PD relationship developed in this study supported a dosing regimen of 2 g cefepime combined with 0.5 g enmetazobactam for adults with complicated urinary tract infections or acute pyelonephritis in a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 study against 4 g piperacillin combined with 0.5 g tazobactam. The primary efficacy evaluation was performed in the microbiologically modified intent-to-treat population. Overall success, defined as clinical cure and microbiological eradication, was 79.1% for cefepime-enmetazobactam and 58.9% for piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 21.2% [95% confidence interval, 14.3% to 27.9%] by stratified Newcombe confidence intervals [36, 37]).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MIC testing and molecular analyses.Isolates were obtained from IHMA Europe Sàrl (Monthey, Switzerland). MICs were determined by broth microdilution by following CLSI guidelines (38, 39). Enmetazobactam was fixed at 8 μg/ml for cefepime-enmetazobactam MIC determination. Isolates were genotyped by multiplex PCR for β-lactamase genes encoding class A ESBLs (CTX-M, SHV, and TEM) and KPCs, MBLs (IMP, VIM, NDM, and SPM), AmpCs (ACC, CMY, DHA, FOX, and ACT), and class D ESBLs (OXA-48-like β-lactamases), followed by sequencing using methods described previously (40). OmpK36 porin protein sequences were extracted from whole-genome next-generation sequences and alignments made using Clustal Omega, with sequence variants reported against the K. pneumoniae isolate HS11286 as a reference sequence (41–44).

Preparation of pathogens and test articles.Bacterial isolates were grown in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth in a shaking incubator at 37°C. Overnight cultures were washed twice in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and adjusted to a concentration of ca. 1.2 × 109 CFU/ml by optical density measurement and then further diluted to the required inoculum. Inoculum concentrations were confirmed by plating a sample onto drug-free agar. Enmetazobactam (provided by Allecra Therapeutics SAS, Saint-Louis, France), cefepime hydrochloride monohydrate (no. J66237; Alfa Aesar), and meropenem (clinical grade; AstraZeneca, Ltd.) were reconstituted in saline for injection (SFI), 5% dimethyl sulfoxide–95% SFI, and water for injection, respectively, at twice the highest final concentration required for a 5-ml/kg dosing formulation.

Animals and housing.All studies were performed under UK Home Office Licenses with local ethical committee clearance. All animal experiments were performed by experienced technicians that had completed the UK Home Office Personal License course and held current personal licenses. Specific-pathogen-free male ICR mice (ca. 4 weeks old, 11 to 15 g; Charles River UK, Ltd., Margate, UK) were housed on sterile aspen chip bedding with free access to food and water in individual ventilated cages, exposed to a 12-h light/dark cycle, HEPA-filtered air at 22°C, and a relative humidity of 60%. Mice were acclimatized for at least 7 days prior to the start of studies. During infection, mice had additional access to wet food. For studies using mice with jugular vein cannula (JVC) implants, surgery was performed at Charles River, and mice were allowed 48 h to recover from surgery before transportation to the experimental site, where they were allowed another 48-h recovery time. Lines were flushed as required with heparin in 5% glucose. Access to the JVC was via pinports in the nape of the neck. JVC animals were single housed in metabolic cages attached to syringe pumps through a swivel and tether during the treatment phase of the models.

Neutropenic murine thigh infection model.Mice were immunosuppressed using cyclophosphamide at 150 mg/kg on day −4 and at 100 mg/kg on day −1. Prior to infection on day 1, mice were anaesthetized with 2.5% isofluorane–97.5% oxygen. Once anesthesia was confirmed by the absence of pedal reflex, both thighs were infected by intramuscular injection with 50 μl of bacterial suspension containing ∼5 × 105 CFU. While still under anesthesia, mice were administered 0.03 mg/kg buprenorphine for pain relief (this was readministered after 8 and 16 h postinfection). Mice were returned to cages in a warming cabinet with frequent observations until full recovery from anesthesia. Treatment was initiated 2 h postinfection by i.v. injection of a 5-ml/kg test article via the lateral caudal vein for doses of 150 to 600 cefepime mg/kg/day combined with 6 to 600 enmetazobactam mg/kg/day and via an indwelling JVC using programmed syringe pumps for doses of 1,200 mg/kg/day cefepime combined with 6 to 600 mg/kg/day enmetazobactam. Animals in pretreatment groups were euthanized 2 h postinfection, and animals of treatment groups were euthanized 26 h postinfection, both by a pentobarbitone overdose followed by cervical dislocation. Immediately following confirmation of death, thighs were removed and weighed. Thighs were placed individually in bead-beating tubes containing 2 ml of PBS plus 10% glycerol and subjected to mechanical disruption. Organ homogenates were diluted in PBS and cultured quantitatively on drug-free agar, resulting in two data points per animal (right and left thighs). Numbers of CFU per gram of tissue from each treatment group were converted to the log10 of the group geometric mean [log10(CFU/g)]. The terminal bioburden resulting from a specific treatment regimen was expressed as the log10(CFU/g) difference between pretreatment and treatment groups [Δlog10(CFU/g)]. Results from the dose fractionation (q4/q4 fractionation) and dose-response study employing isolate 1077711 confirmed the reproducibility of the in vivo data.

PK sampling and mathematical PK modeling.Animals were infected with K. pneumoniae isolate 1280740. Cefepime/enmetazobactam was administered q8h at doses of 25/6.25, 50/25, 100/75 and 200/100 mg/kg by i.v. bolus injection into the lateral caudal vein. Blood samples were collected in triplicate into heparinized vials at 0.083, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 24.083, 24.25, 24.5, 25, 26, 28, and 32 h by cardiac puncture and placed immediately on ice pending centrifugation. Plasma samples were stored at –80°C prior to analysis by a qualified liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Individual cefepime and enmetazobactam observations were pooled and fitted to a linear, two-compartment model using least squares, minimizing the difference between the log-transformed predicted and observed values. For the least-squares fitting, the method L-BFGS-B, implemented in the R function optim(), was used (45). Free drug concentrations were calculated based on reported mouse protein binding of 0% for cefepime and 0% for enmetazobactam (34, 46).

Exposure-response modeling.The terminal bioburden as Δlog10(CFU/g) was modeled from the enmetazobactam exposure (fEx), expressed as fT > CT, fAUC, or Cmax, by fitting a sigmoid curve defined by the baseline effect, Emin, the maximal effect, Emax, the potency, EC50, and the steepness of the sigmoid curve γ using Equation 1.Δlog10(CFU/g)=−Emin+(Emax−Emin)fExγfExγ+EC50γ(1)

The sigmoid curve was fit to the data using least squares, minimizing the difference between the log-transformed predicted and observed values. For the least-squares fitting, the method L-BFGS-B, implemented in the R function optim(), was used (45). Percentiles in the global fit simulations were calculated by vertically shifting the exposure-response curve to capture the required number of data points.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Stuart Shapiro for critically reviewing the manuscript.

M.M., P.W., and P.K. designed the study. R.O., S.S., and C.C. supervised the work. F.B., M.M., P.W., A.B., and P.K. analyzed the data. A.B. and P.K. wrote the manuscript.

F.B. and M.M. are full-time employees of LYO-X GmbH, Switzerland. P.W., R.O., and S.S. are full-time employees of Evotec, UK. C.C. is a full-time employee of IHMA Europe Sàrl, Switzerland. A.B. and P.K. are full-time employees of Allecra Therapeutics SAS, France. R.C. and S.F. are full-time employees of Aptuit (Verona) Srl, Verona, Italy. Aptuit (Verona) Srl is an Evotec Company.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 January 2020.
    • Returned for modification 25 February 2020.
    • Accepted 29 March 2020.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 6 April 2020.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • For a companion article on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00180-20.

  • Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Temkin E,
    2. Fallach N,
    3. Almagor J,
    4. Gladstone BP,
    5. Tacconelli E,
    6. Carmeli Y,
    7. Consortium D-A
    . 2018. Estimating the number of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in 2014: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 6:e969–e979. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30278-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Tacconelli E,
    2. Carrara E,
    3. Savoldi A,
    4. Harbarth S,
    5. Mendelson M,
    6. Monnet DL,
    7. Pulcini C,
    8. Kahlmeter G,
    9. Kluytmans J,
    10. Carmeli Y,
    11. Ouellette M,
    12. Outterson K,
    13. Patel J,
    14. Cavaleri M,
    15. Cox EM,
    16. Houchens CR,
    17. Grayson ML,
    18. Hansen P,
    19. Singh N,
    20. Theuretzbacher U,
    21. Magrini N,
    22. Aboderin AO,
    23. Al-Abri SS,
    24. Awang Jalil N,
    25. Benzonana N,
    26. Bhattacharya S,
    27. Brink AJ,
    28. Burkert FR,
    29. Cars O,
    30. Cornaglia G,
    31. Dyar OJ,
    32. Friedrich AW,
    33. Gales AC,
    34. Gandra S,
    35. Giske CG,
    36. Goff DA,
    37. Goossens H,
    38. Gottlieb T,
    39. Guzman Blanco M,
    40. Hryniewicz W,
    41. Kattula D,
    42. Jinks T,
    43. Kanj SS,
    44. Kerr L,
    45. Kieny M-P,
    46. Kim YS,
    47. Kozlov RS,
    48. Labarca J,
    49. Laxminarayan R,
    50. Leder K,
    51. Leibovici L,
    52. Levy-Hara G,
    53. Littman J,
    54. Malhotra-Kumar S,
    55. Manchanda V,
    56. Moja L,
    57. Ndoye B,
    58. Pan A,
    59. Paterson DL,
    60. Paul M,
    61. Qiu H,
    62. Ramon-Pardo P,
    63. Rodríguez-Baño J,
    64. Sanguinetti M,
    65. Sengupta S,
    66. Sharland M,
    67. Si-Mehand M,
    68. Silver LL,
    69. Song W,
    70. Steinbakk M,
    71. Thomsen J,
    72. Thwaites GE,
    73. van der Meer JW,
    74. Van Kinh N,
    75. Vega S,
    76. Villegas MV,
    77. Wechsler-Fördös A,
    78. Wertheim HFL,
    79. Wesangula E,
    80. Woodford N,
    81. Yilmaz FO,
    82. Zorzet A, WHO Pathogens Priority List Group
    . 2018. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 18:318–327. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bush K
    . 2018. Past and present perspectives on beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e01076-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.01076-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Castanheira M,
    2. Deshpande LM,
    3. Mendes RE,
    4. Canton R,
    5. Sader HS,
    6. Jones RN
    . 2019. Variations in the occurrence of resistance phenotypes and carbapenemase genes among Enterobacteriaceae isolates in 20 years of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Open Forum Infect Dis 6:S23–S33. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy347.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gutierrez-Gutierrez B,
    2. Rodriguez-Bano J
    . 2019. Current options for the treatment of infections due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in different groups of patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 25:932–942. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.030.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wilson A
    . 2017. Sparing carbapenem usage. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:2410–2417. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx181.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hayden MK,
    2. Won SY
    . 2018. Carbapenem-sparing therapy for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection: the search continues. JAMA 320:979–981. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.12565.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Tamma PD,
    2. Rodriguez-Baňo J
    . 2017. The use of noncarbapenem beta-lactams for the treatment of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase infections. Clin Infect Dis 64:972–980. doi:10.1093/cid/cix034.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Morrissey I,
    2. Magnet S,
    3. Hawser S,
    4. Shapiro S,
    5. Knechtle P
    . 2019. In vitro activity of cefepime-enmetazobactam against Gram-negative isolates collected from United States and European hospitals during 2014–2015. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e00514-19. doi:10.1128/AAC.00514-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Nasir N,
    2. Ahmed S,
    3. Razi S,
    4. Awan S,
    5. Mahmood SF
    . 2019. Risk factors for mortality of patients with ceftriaxone resistant E. coli bacteremia receiving carbapenem versus beta lactam/beta lactamase inhibitor therapy. BMC Res Notes 12:611. doi:10.1186/s13104-019-4648-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Sfeir MM
    . 2019. Post-MERINO trial: any role for piperacillin-tazobactam in treating bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae? Int J Antimicrob Agents 53:557–558. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.03.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Papp-Wallace KM,
    2. Bethel CR,
    3. Caillon J,
    4. Barnes MD,
    5. Potel G,
    6. Bajaksouzian S,
    7. Rutter JD,
    8. Reghal A,
    9. Shapiro S,
    10. Taracila MA,
    11. Jacobs MR,
    12. Bonomo RA,
    13. Jacqueline C
    . 2019. Beyond piperacillin-tazobactam: cefepime and AAI101 as a potent β-lactam−β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e00105-19. doi:10.1128/AAC.00105-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tselepis L,
    2. Langley GW,
    3. Aboklaish AF,
    4. Widlake E,
    5. Jackson DE,
    6. Schofield T,
    7. Brem J,
    8. Tyrrell JM
    . 2020. In vitro efficacy of imipenem-relebactam and cefepime-AAI101 against a global collection of ESBL-positive and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 18:105925. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105925.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Sader HS,
    2. Castanheira M,
    3. Mendes RE,
    4. Flamm RK,
    5. Jones RN
    . 2017. Antimicrobial activity of high-proportion cefepime-tazobactam (WCK 4282) against a large number of Gram-negative isolates collected worldwide in 2014. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02409-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02409-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bhavnani SM,
    2. Rex JH
    . 2017. Editorial overview: use of PK-PD for antibacterial drug development: decreasing risk and paths forward for resistant pathogens. Curr Opin Pharmacol 36:viii–vxii. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2017.11.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Bulitta JB,
    2. Hope WW,
    3. Eakin AE,
    4. Guina T,
    5. Tam VH,
    6. Louie A,
    7. Drusano GL,
    8. Hoover JL
    . 2019. Generating robust and informative nonclinical in vitro and in vivo bacterial infection model efficacy data to support translation to humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e02307-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.02307-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Rizk ML,
    2. Bhavnani SM,
    3. Drusano G,
    4. Dane A,
    5. Eakin AE,
    6. Guina T,
    7. Jang SH,
    8. Tomayko JF,
    9. Wang J,
    10. Zhuang L,
    11. Lodise TP
    . 2019. Considerations for dose selection and clinical pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics for the development of antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e02309-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.02309-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Diancourt L,
    2. Passet V,
    3. Verhoef J,
    4. Grimont PAD,
    5. Brisse S
    . 2005. Multilocus sequence typing of Klebsiella pneumoniae nosocomial isolates. J Clin Microbiol 43:4178–4182. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.8.4178-4182.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Louie A,
    2. Robbins N,
    3. Kurhanewicz S,
    4. Fikes S,
    5. Liu W,
    6. Baluya D,
    7. Brown D,
    8. Shapiro S,
    9. Pypstra R,
    10. Drusano G
    . 2015. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of AAI101, a novel extended-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLI), in combination with cefepime in hollow fiber models of ESBL enterobacterial infection. Abstr 55th Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother, San Diego, CA, 17–21 September 2015.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Johnson A,
    2. McEntee L,
    3. Farrington N,
    4. Kolamunage-Dona R,
    5. Franzoni S,
    6. Vezzelli A,
    7. Mameli M,
    8. Knechtle P,
    9. Belley A,
    10. Dane A,
    11. Drusano G,
    12. Das S,
    13. Hope WW
    . 2020. Pharmacodynamics of cefepime combined with the novel extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL) inhibitor enmetazobactam for murine pneumonia caused by ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 64:e00180-20. doi:10.1128/AAC.00180-20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Crass RL,
    2. Pai MP
    . 2019. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of beta-lactamase inhibitors. Pharmacotherapy 39:182–195. doi:10.1002/phar.2210.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Andes DR,
    2. Lepak AJ
    . 2017. In vivo infection models in the pre-clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of antimicrobial agents. Curr Opin Pharmacol 36:94–99. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2017.09.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Trang M,
    2. Dudley MN,
    3. Bhavnani SM
    . 2017. Use of Monte Carlo simulation and considerations for PK-PD targets to support antibacterial dose selection. Curr Opin Pharmacol 36:107–113. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2017.09.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ambrose PG,
    2. Bhavnani SM,
    3. Jones RN
    . 2003. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae strains producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: report from the ARREST program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:1643–1646. doi:10.1128/AAC.47.5.1643-1646.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lee SY,
    2. Kuti JL,
    3. Nicolau DP
    . 2007. Cefepime pharmacodynamics in patients with extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and non-ESBL infections. J Infect 54:463–468. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2006.09.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Melchers MJ,
    2. Mavridou E,
    3. van Mil AC,
    4. Lagarde C,
    5. Mouton JW
    . 2016. Pharmacodynamics of ceftolozane combined with tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae in a neutropenic mouse thigh model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:7272–7279. doi:10.1128/AAC.01580-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Melchers MJ,
    2. van Mil AC,
    3. Lagarde C,
    4. den Hartigh J,
    5. Mouton JW
    . 2017. Pharmacodynamics of cefepime combined with tazobactam against clinically relevant Enterobacteriaceae in a neutropenic mouse thigh model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e00267-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.00267-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. MacGowan AP,
    2. Noel AR,
    3. Tomaselli SG,
    4. Nicholls D,
    5. Bowker KE
    . 2016. Pharmacodynamics of ceftolozane plus tazobactam studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:515–521. doi:10.1128/AAC.00727-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. VanScoy B,
    2. Mendes RE,
    3. Nicasio AM,
    4. Castanheira M,
    5. Bulik CC,
    6. Okusanya OO,
    7. Bhavnani SM,
    8. Forrest A,
    9. Jones RN,
    10. Friedrich LV,
    11. Steenbergen JN,
    12. Ambrose PG
    . 2013. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with ceftolozane in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2809–2814. doi:10.1128/AAC.02513-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. VanScoy BD,
    2. Tenero D,
    3. Turner S,
    4. Livermore DM,
    5. McCauley J,
    6. Conde H,
    7. Bhavnani SM,
    8. Rubino CM,
    9. Ambrose PG
    . 2017. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with cefepime in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e01052-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.01052-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Paczosa MK,
    2. Mecsas J
    . 2016. Klebsiella pneumoniae: going on the offense with a strong defense. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 80:629–661. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00078-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Russo TA,
    2. Marr CM
    . 2019. Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae. Clin Microbiol Rev 32:e00001-19. doi:10.1128/CMR.00001-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wyres KL,
    2. Holt KE
    . 2018. Klebsiella pneumoniae as a key trafficker of drug resistance genes from environmental to clinically important bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 45:131–139. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2018.04.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Crandon JL,
    2. Nicolau DP
    . 2015. In vivo activities of simulated human doses of cefepime and cefepime-AAI101 against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:2688–2694. doi:10.1128/AAC.00033-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Warn P,
    2. Odedra R,
    3. Gould J,
    4. Knechtle P,
    5. Shapiro S
    . 2018. Activity of a novel extended-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor, AAI101, combined with cefepime against β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a neutropenic murine pneumonia model. Abstr 28th ECCMID, Madrid, Spain, 21–24 April 2018.
  36. 36.↵
    ClinicalTrials.gov. 2018. Identifier NCT03687255: safety and efficacy study of cefepime-AAI101 in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kaye KS,
    2. Belley A,
    3. Lahlou O,
    4. Barth P,
    5. Motta P,
    6. Kashyap S,
    7. Knechtle P,
    8. Velicitat P
    . 2020. Outcomes of the novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination of cefepime-enmetazobactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam in adult patients with complicated urinary tract infections–the ALLIUM Phase 3 Trial. Abstr 30th Eur Cong Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, Paris, France.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Belley A,
    2. Huband MD,
    3. Fedler KA,
    4. Watters AA,
    5. Flamm RK,
    6. Shapiro S,
    7. Knechtle P
    . 2019. Development of broth microdilution MIC and disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility test quality control ranges for the combination of cefepime and the novel beta-lactamase inhibitor enmetazobactam. J Clin Microbiol 57:e00607-19. doi:10.1128/JCM.00607-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). 2015. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard, 10th ed. M07-A10. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Lob SH,
    2. Kazmierczak KM,
    3. Badal RE,
    4. Hackel MA,
    5. Bouchillon SK,
    6. Biedenbach DJ,
    7. Sahm DF
    . 2015. Trends in susceptibility of Escherichia coli from intra-abdominal infections to ertapenem and comparators in the United States according to data from the SMART program, 2009 to 2013. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:3606–3610. doi:10.1128/AAC.05186-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. den Dunnen JT, on behalf of the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS), the Human Variome Project (HVP), and the Human Genome Organisation (HUGO),
    2. Dalgleish R,
    3. Maglott DR,
    4. Hart RK,
    5. Greenblatt MS,
    6. McGowan-Jordan J,
    7. Roux AF,
    8. Smith T,
    9. Antonarakis SE,
    10. Taschner PE
    . 2016. HGVS recommendations for the description of sequence variants: 2016. Update Hum Mutat 37:564–569. doi:10.1002/humu.22981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Galata V,
    2. Backes C,
    3. Laczny CC,
    4. Hemmrich-Stanisak G,
    5. Li H,
    6. Smoot L,
    7. Posch AE,
    8. Schmolke S,
    9. Bischoff M,
    10. von Müller L,
    11. Plum A,
    12. Franke A,
    13. Keller A
    . 2016. Comparing genome versus proteome-based identification of clinical bacterial isolates. Brief Bioinform 19:495–505. doi:10.1093/bib/bbw122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Liu P,
    2. Li P,
    3. Jiang X,
    4. Bi D,
    5. Xie Y,
    6. Tai C,
    7. Deng Z,
    8. Rajakumar K,
    9. Ou H-Y
    . 2012. Complete genome sequence of Klebsiella pneumoniae HS11286, a multidrug-resistant strain isolated from human sputum. J Bacteriology 194:1841–1842. doi:10.1128/JB.00043-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Madeira F,
    2. Park YM,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Buso N,
    5. Gur T,
    6. Madhusoodanan N,
    7. Basutkar P,
    8. Tivey ARN,
    9. Potter SC,
    10. Finn RD,
    11. Lopez R
    . 2019. The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res 47:W636–W641. doi:10.1093/nar/gkz268.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Mattie H,
    2. Sekh BA,
    3. van Ogtrop ML,
    4. van Strijen E
    . 1992. Comparison of the antibacterial effects of cefepime and ceftazidime against Escherichia coli in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 36:2439–2443. doi:10.1128/AAC.36.11.2439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics of Enmetazobactam Combined with Cefepime in a Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model
Fabian Bernhard, Rajesh Odedra, Sylvie Sordello, Rossella Cardin, Samantha Franzoni, Cédric Charrier, Adam Belley, Peter Warn, Matthias Machacek, Philipp Knechtle
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2020, 64 (6) e00078-20; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00078-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics of Enmetazobactam Combined with Cefepime in a Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics of Enmetazobactam Combined with Cefepime in a Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model
Fabian Bernhard, Rajesh Odedra, Sylvie Sordello, Rossella Cardin, Samantha Franzoni, Cédric Charrier, Adam Belley, Peter Warn, Matthias Machacek, Philipp Knechtle
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2020, 64 (6) e00078-20; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00078-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

pharmacokinetics
pharmacodynamics
enmetazobactam
AAI101
cefepime
ESBL

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596