Abstract

BackgroundEravacycline (ERV) is a recently-approved, fully synthetic fluorocycline agent that demonstrates broad in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant pathogens. We sought to compare the activity of ERV with minocycline (MIN) and tigecycline (TGC) against diverse CRE clinical isolates, and to evaluate the performance of commercially-available susceptibility testing methods.MethodsERV, MIN, and TGC minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined in triplicate by broth microdilution against previously characterized CRE isolates. ERV susceptibility was also measured by disk diffusion (20 µg disk; Mast Group) and MIC test strips (MTS; Liofilchem) according to manufacturer instructions.Results148 CRE were tested, including 92 K. pneumoniae, 32 Enterobacter spp, 11 E. coli, 5 C. freundii, 4 K. oxytoca, and 4 S. marcescens. 72% of isolates harbored blaKPC, which encoded KPC-2 (n = 33), KPC-3 (n = 48), and other KPC variants (n = 22). 77% and 19% of isolates were resistant to meropenem and ceftazidime–avibactam, respectively. By BMD, the ERV, MIN, and TGC MIC range, MIC50 and MIC90 for shown in the Table. ERV MICs were ≥2-fold lower than MIN and TGC against 99% and 43% of isolates, respectively. ERV MICs did not vary by species or KPC-subtype. ERV MICs determined by BMD and MTS were well-correlated showing 89% essential agreement (MIC within one 2-fold dilution; Figure). The rate of categorical agreement (CA) was 73%. By comparison, the CA rate between BMD and disk diffusion was 78%. By both MTS and disk diffusion methods, susceptibility results clustered on either side of the susceptibility breakpoint. 50% of disk diffusion zones clustered between 14 and 16 millimeters (mm), which is 1 mm on either side of the susceptibility breakpoint (≥15 mm).ConclusionThis study confirms the in vitro activity of ERV against CRE clinical isolates, which is comparable to TGC. ERV MTS demonstrated high rates of EA, but lower rates of CA. Clinicians should be aware of the nuances of ERV susceptibility testing and recognize that the modal distribution of ERV MICs against CRE lies on either side of the susceptibility breakpoint. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.