Antimicrobial activity of ceftobiprole and comparator agents when tested against gram-positive and -negative organisms collected across China (2016–2018)

Yin Dandan,Wu Shi,Yang Yang,Zheng Yonggui,Demei Zhu,Guo Yan,Fupin Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02699-4
IF: 4.465
2022-01-01
BMC Microbiology
Abstract:Background Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin which has been reported to have broad antibacterial spectrum when tested against bacteria collected from other countries except China. This study evaluated the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole in comparison with other comparators against clinically significant isolates collected across from China. Results Susceptibility testing of ceftobiprole and comparators against 1163 clinically isolated Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria was performed with broth micro dilution method following the CLSI guidelines. All 110 S. aureus were susceptible to ceftobiprole with MIC 50/90 of 1/2 mg/L for MRSA and 0.5/1 mg/L for MSSA. For Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS), MIC 50/90 of ceftobiprole for MRCNS and MSCNS was 1/2 mg/L and 0.25/0.5 mg/L. Ceftobiprole demonstrated good potency against E. faecalis (MIC 50/90 of 0.5/1 mg/L) but limited activity against E. faecium (MIC 50/90 of > 32/ > 32 mg/L). Ceftobiprole demonstrated potent activity against all 39 β-hemolytic Streptococcus spp. with MIC 50/90 ≤ 0.015/ ≤ 0.015–2 mg/L and 110 of PSSP with 98.2% susceptibility. Ceftobiprole inhibited all isolates of H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis at ≤ 1 mg/L. 91.8% and 98.2% of the ESBL-negative E. coli and K. pneumoniae were susceptible to ceftobiprole, but most of the ESBL-positive or carbapenem-resistant strains were also resistant to ceftobiprole. Ceftobiprole inhibited 84.2% of carbapenem-susceptible P. aeruginosa and 94.1% of carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii at ≤ 8 mg/L, but only 52.6% of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa and 5.3% of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii . Conclusion Ceftobiprole demonstrated good in vitro activity against a broad range of clinically relevant contemporary Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial isolates.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?