| Title: |
National Cohort of Compassionate Use of Meropenem–Vaborbactam: No Benefit over Meropenem for Pseudomonas aeruginosa |
| Authors: |
Aurélien Dinh, Alexandre Bleibtreu, Clara Duran, Frédérique Bouchand, Alexie Bosch, Jullien Crozon-Clauzel, Mariam Roncato-Saberan, Morgan Matt, André Boibieux, Annlyse Fanton, Heidi Wille, Elise Fiaux, Benoît Pilmis, Marie Lacoste, Quentin Saint-Genis, Caroline Thumerelle, Patricia Pavese, Fanny Vuotto, Eric Senneville, Anaïs Potron, Stéphane Corvec, David Boutoille, Katy Jeannot, Laurent Dortet, on behalf of the Meropenem-Vaborbactam French Study Group |
| Source: |
Antibiotics, Vol 13, Iss 12, p 1152 (2024) |
| Publisher Information: |
MDPI AG, 2024. |
| Publication Year: |
2024 |
| Collection: |
LCC:Therapeutics. Pharmacology |
| Subject Terms: |
meropenem–vaborbactam, bacterial resistance, carbapenem, respiratory tract infection, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Therapeutics. Pharmacology, RM1-950 |
| More Details: |
Background: Meropenem–vaborbactam (MEM-VAB) is a novel carbapenem-beta-lactamase-inhibitor combination that demonstrates activity against carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria, and more specifically KPC-producers, since vaborbactam is an effective inhibitor of KPC enzymes in vitro. This study aimed to describe the initial uses and efficacy of MEM-VAB for compassionate treatment during the first 21 months following its early access in France. Method: A national multicenter retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who received at least one dose of MEM-VAB between 20 July 2020, and 5 April 2022. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were collected using a standardized questionnaire. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobials, and complete genome sequencing of bacteria were performed when bacterial isolates were available. Results: Ultimately, 21 patients from 15 French hospitals were included in the study. The main indication for MEM-VAB treatment was respiratory tract infections (n = 9). The targeted bacteria included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 12), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 3), Enterobacter spp (n = 3), Citrobacter freundii (n = 1), Escherichia coli (n = 1), and Burkholderia multivorans (n = 1). Overall, no significant advantage of vaborbactam over meropenem alone was observed across all strains of P. aeruginosa in terms of in vitro susceptibility. However, MEM-VAB demonstrated a notable impact, compared to carbapenem alone, on the MIC for the two KPC-3-producing K. pneumoniae and B. multivorans. Conclusions: MEM-VAB seems effective as a salvage treatment in compassionate use, but vaborbactam was shown to lack benefits compared to meropenem in treating P. aeruginosa-related infections. Therefore, it is crucial to compare meropenem to MEM-VAB MICs, particularly for P. aeruginosa, before prescribing MEM-VAB. |
| Document Type: |
article |
| File Description: |
electronic resource |
| Language: |
English |
| ISSN: |
2079-6382 |
| Relation: |
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/12/1152; https://doaj.org/toc/2079-6382 |
| DOI: |
10.3390/antibiotics13121152 |
| Access URL: |
https://doaj.org/article/009193a4c5b743eea0005bcfdc1e44ef |
| Accession Number: |
edsdoj.009193a4c5b743eea0005bcfdc1e44ef |
| Database: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
