- Email: [email protected]
Orthodox and unorthodox clavulanate combinations against extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers
REVIEW Orthodox and unorthodox clavulanate combinations against extended-spectrum b-lactamase producers D. M. Livermore, R. Hope, S. Mushtaq and M. Warner Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring and Reference Laboratory, Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections, London, UK
ABSTRACT Clavulanate is a highly effective inhibitor of extended-spectrum b-lactamases (ESBLs) in detection tests, but the commercial amoxycillin–clavulanate and ticarcillin–clavulanate combinations have borderline activity, at best, against most ESBL producers. Oxyimino-cephalosporin–clavulanate combinations are active in vitro against most ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates at £1–2 mg ⁄ L but are compromised against Enterobacter spp., whether ESBL-producing or not, where clavulanate-induced AmpC enzymes attack the cephalosporin. These problems can be overcome by combining clavulanate with cefepime or cefpirome, which are more stable to AmpC. The resulting combinations are active in vitro at £1 mg ⁄ L against virtually all ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, including Enterobacter spp. AmpC-inducible organisms, such as Enterobacter, are less of a concern in the community, where ESBLproducing E. coli strains present growing problems, and where new oral treatments would be useful. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate is not ideal, in terms of pharmacological matching, but might be fit for purpose, certainly in comparison with fosfomycin and nitrofurantoin, which are used at present but which are suitable only for lower urinary tract infections. Clinical development of clavulanate with cefepime, cefpirome or cefpodoxime does not seem likely in the West, considering ownership and patent issues. Cefpisome-tazobactum is, however, being launched in India, where the licensing regime is more liberal. Combinations of clavulanate with modern anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cephalosporins also deserve investigation, as these compounds remain labile to ESBLs. Keywords
Cephalosporin–clavulanate, b-lactamase inhibitor, CTX-M b-lactamase, review
Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14 (Suppl. 1): 189–193
Clavulanate is widely used in synergy tests for the laboratory detection of extended-spectrum b-lactamases (ESBLs), but clavulanate combinations are viewed with scepticism as treatments for infections due to ESBL producers. The root of this paradox is that, while clavulanate is an excellent inhibitor of the predominant CTX-M, TEM, SHV and VEB (not OXA and AmpC) ESBLs, it is combined, commercially, with amoxycillin and ticarcillin. Both of these penicillins are very efficiently hydrolysed by ESBLs (and by many other b-lactamases) and so are difficult to protect [1]. Resistance arises: (i) if an ESBL—or a classic penicillinase—is produced copiously; (ii) if multi-
Corresponding author and reprint requests: D. M. Livermore, Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring and Reference Laboratory, Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK E-mail: [email protected]
ple b-lactamases are produced; or (iii) if the isolate also has reduced permeability or upregulated efflux [1]. A further complexity arises from the fact that laboratory testing of b-lactamase inhibitor combinations is remarkably unstandardised. There are arguments for testing with a fixed penicillin ⁄ inhibitor concentration ratio, or with a fixed inhibitor concentration, but there is no logic in preferring, as both the CLSI and British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) do, a fixed ratio for some combinations (e.g., amoxycillin–clavulanate) and a fixed concentration for others (e.g., ticarcillin–clavulanate)[2,3]. In practice, many ESBL studies from the 1990s onwards have found 50% or more of ESBL producers to be resistant to amoxycillin–clavulanate and ticarcillin–clavulanate [4]. This proportion is increasing as CTX-M-15 becomes the dominant ESBL in much of Europe and Asia, since it is often encoded by plasmids that also
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
190 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 1, January 2008
300 BSAC, CLSI susceptible breakpoints for systemic infections
250
BSAC susceptible breakpoint for urinary tract infections
200 150 100 50 0 2
4
8
16
32
>=64
MIC (mg/L)
Fig. 1. Activity of amoxycillin–clavulanate 2:1 fixed ratio vs. extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli (black) and Klebsiella spp. (grey) collected in a survey in south-east England in 2004 [8]. Fuller details of the survey methods are given in the footnote to Table 1.
determine OXA-1, a clavulanate-resistant penicillinase [5–7]. The consequences are illustrated in Fig. 1, showing the MIC distribution of amoxycillin–clavulanate against 606 ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates collected in a 16-hospital survey in London and south-east England in 2004, 78% of them with group 1 CTXM enzymes, principally CTX-M-15, often accompanied by OXA-1 [8]. The modal MIC for a 2:1 amoxycillin–clavulanate combination was 16 + 8 mg ⁄ L, corresponding to ‘intermediate’ under BSAC, CLSI and (provisional) EUCAST recommendations. The BSAC does have a higher susceptible breakpoint (S £32 + 16 mg ⁄ L) for urinary tract infections, [2], but ‘susceptibility’ here often reflects the antibiotic activity of clavulanate alone, which has MICs of 8–16 mg ⁄ L for most E. coli isolates [1]. Despite these caveats, a minority of ESBL producers appear to be susceptible to commercial clavulanate combinations at or below the systemic breakpoint, and clinical use here remains an issue for debate. Some workers believe that the magnitude of inoculum effects militates against use; others, ourselves included, contend that it is contradictory to accept the activity of clavulanate combinations against strains with classic penicillinases but to dismiss them for use against strains with ESBLs, which are at least as susceptible to the inhibitory activity of clavulanate [9]. Clinical experience would resolve this debate, but there are only a few case reports on the use of conventional clavulanate combinations in infections due to ESBL producers [10,11], along with one more
substantial recent analysis of outcomes where these combinations were used as empirical therapy in bacteraemias that transpired to be due to E. coli with ESBLs [12]. This latter study, from Seville, reported success with intravenous amoxycillin–clavulanate in 10 ⁄ 11 cases, but it should be noted that most of the isolates had group 9 CTX-M enzymes and only required amoxycillin–clavulanate MICs of 4–8 mg ⁄ L. These data are positive,but we would advocate great caution, particularly in life-threatening infections, as many producers – particularly those with the commoner CTX-M-15 ⁄ OXA-1 combination – are less susceptible. In principle, it should be possible to design more effective combinations by using clavulanate to protect an oxyimino-cephalosporin. These compounds are weaker substrates than amoxycillin and ticarcillin for ESBLs, and so are easier to protect; moreover, they have higher affinity for the penicillin-binding proteins [13], meaning that only a low periplasmic drug concentration is needed to achieve antibacterial activity [7]. They are stable to inhibitor-resistant penicillinases, including OXA-1, meaning that strains co-producing this enzyme should remain susceptible. In practice, combinations of cefotaxime or ceftazidime with clavulanate, 4 mg ⁄ L, were active against over 95% of ESBL-producing E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates, based on the EUCAST ⁄ BSAC oxyimino-cephalosporin breakpoints of 1 mg ⁄ L (Table 1). Exceptions were the minority of Klebsiella spp. isolates that also have permeability ⁄ efflux lesions; these are typically also resistant to ertapenem and, less so, to other carbapenems [14]. The pharmacokinetics of clavulanate are compatible, prima facie, with those of cefotaxime or ceftazidime, with serum half-lives of c. 75–90 min and the potential for three-timesdaily administration. Problems do, however, arise with Enterobacter spp. and other genera with AmpC b-lactamases. Specifically, inhibition of ESBLs fails to confer susceptibility in those strains that are also derepressed for AmpC, as these latter enzymes continue to protect against the oxyimino-cephalosporins. Moreover, clavulanate can promote the synthesis of inducible AmpC enzymes, compromising any gain achieved by inhibition of an ESBL. The net result is that cefotaxime–clavulanate and ceftazidime–clavulanate were active, at 1–2 mg ⁄ L, against only half of the ESBL-producing Enterobacter spp. isolates and
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
Livermore et al.
Clavulanate combinations against ESBL producers 191
Table 1. Activity of clavulanate–cephalosporin combinations vs. extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, collected in the UK in 2004 No. of isolates with indicated MIC (mg ⁄ L) £0.06 Escherichia coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp.
Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate
150
79 9
3 308 8 151 259 4 101
3
0.12
0.25
0.5
1
2 52
1 12
4
4 3 42 9 176 6
3 1 18 8 82 2 5
7 3a 59
37 8 10
108 27 2
12
8 1 14 2 28
6
162 2 1a 80 100
55 1a 88 11
3
74
38
2
19
18
65
4 18 4 13 1 9
5 1 1 30 13 1 6 1 62 68 1 6 2 9 30
3 3
214 105 3 1 84
2 2 35
2
4
8
16
32
64
10
17
30
33
48
22
26
49
142
5 6 9
5
1
8
24
80
91
1 14
42
13 7b 2 3b 99
5
3
2 2 5 1 32
5
4 1 1 50
70
17
3
6
12
6
7
2 2 1 19
75
43
38
16
33
1 13 2 44
2 2b 31 3b 43
6
5 1 3 41 10
4
10
3
3
11
6 1 38
15 1 33
34
81
69b
10
16
191b
6
7
4
5b
9 1 2 29
9 2 8 1 5 10
2 1 7 1
8
13 1 38
186b
3 1 13
4 1 3
4 2
41 1 5
9 6
16
1
128 256 >256
94b
312b
33b 3 19b 5 214b 5b
a
Number of isolates with MIC at or below the stated drug concentration. Number of isolates with MIC at or above the stated drug concentration. Isolates were from the study described by Potz et al. [8]. This collected consecutive oxyimino-cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from 16 hospital laboratories in London and south-east England from August to October 2004. Only isolates confirmed as having ESBLs are included in the table. MICs were determined by the BSAC agar dilution method, with clavulanate at 4 mg ⁄ L. Among the 380 E. coli isolates, the proportion with group 1 CTX-M enzymes was 74%, that with group 9 CTX-M ESBLs was 3%, and that with SHV, TEM or other types was 15%; the corresponding proportions for the Enterobacter isolates (n = 36) were 22%, 0%, and 78%; those for Klebsiella spp. isolates (n = 226) were 87%, 1% and 12%. Figures in bold font are mode MICs. Figures underlined are MIC90 values. If the mode and MIC90 coincide the number appears as both bold and underlined. b
that concentrations exceeding 8 mg ⁄ L were required to inhibit even 75% (Table 1). Worse, third-generation cephalosporin–clavulanate combinations were antagonistic against some ESBLnegative Enterobacter and Citrobacter freundii isolates (Table 2), with the clavulanate-induced AmpC attacking the partner cephalosporin. While this antagonism (which occurs to an extent between ticarcillin and clavulanate against AmpC-inducible species) [15] has never been proven to be clinically significant, it would be a
concern in empirical usage, and might militate against licensing. The obvious way to circumvent these problems is to combine clavulanate with a cephalosporin that is relatively more stable to AmpC, for example cefepime or cefpirome [16]. We found cefepime– clavulanate (Table 1) to be active at 1 mg ⁄ L against all of 380 ESBL-producing E. coli isolates tested, all of 36 ESBL-producing Enterobacter spp. isolates and 224 ⁄ 226 ESBL-producing Klebsiella spp isolates. Cefpirome–clavulanate was active at 1 mg ⁄ L
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
192 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 1, January 2008
Table 2. Interactions of clavulanate with cefotaxime and cefepime vs. 62 cefotaxime-susceptible AmpC-inducible Enterobacter spp. and C. freundii Maximum interaction
Cefotaxime
Cefepime
Eight-fold synergy Four-fold synergy Two-fold synergy None Two-fold antagonism Four-fold antagonism Eight-fold antagonism 16-fold antagonism 32-fold antagonism
1 3 13 20 14 2 7 1 1
– 2 2 58 – – – – –
Isolates were randomly selected recent isolates without extended-spectrum b-lactamases and were susceptible to cefotaxime and cefepime at <1 mg ⁄ L in the absence of clavulanate.
against all the E. coli and Enterobacter spp. isolates, with 4 ⁄ 226 ESBL-producing Klebsiella spp. isolates being resistant. No significant (>1 dilution) antagonism was seen with cefepime–clavulanate when tested against ESBL-negative AmpC (Table 2). Cefpirome and cefepime both have pharmacokinetics that should be compatible with clavulanate, with a facility for three-times-daily administration and with no obvious side-effect risk. The resulting combinations have the potential to be attractive alternatives to carbapenems for severe infections due to ESBL producers. There remains the issue of community infections—mostly of the urinary tract—due to ESBL producers, where an oral antibiotic would be preferred. Many ESBL producers from community patients are resistant, not only to the cephalosporins and penicillins, but also to fluoroquinolones and to trimethoprim, underscoring this need for new oral therapies [5,8,17]. Nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin are used therapeutically but are suitable only for lower urinary tract infections. Moreover, nitrofurantoin has a poor side-effect profile, particularly in the elderly. No oral partner cephalosporin looks as good as cefepime or cefpirome for combination with clavulanate; however, AmpCinducible organisms such Enterobacter spp. are less of a concern in the community than in the hospital, so it might be acceptable to use an AmpC-labile partner agent, such as cefpodoxime or cefixime. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate was active, at 1 mg ⁄ L, against 340 ⁄ 380 ESBL-producing E. coli isolates and 205 ⁄ 226 Klebsiella spp. isolates (Table 1). These rates are at least as good as those for nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin[8]. Moreover: (i) a 1 mg ⁄ L break-
point may be too conservative for urinary tract infections; and (ii) unlike nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin, cefpodoxime–clavulanate would potentially be useful in ascending urinary infections. As an antibiotic that is ordinarily given twicedaily rather than three-times-daily, cefpodoxime (or cefixime) is imperfectly matched to clavulanate, although this mismatch might be overcome with slow-release formulations or by dividing the dosage. An alternative would be to combine clavulanate with mecillinam (amdinocillin), a compound with moderate stability to both ESBLs and AmpC enzymes, but for which the MICs for ESBL producers rise markedly at high inoculum [18]. Addition of clavulanate prevented this rise, with mecillinam MICs for 28 ⁄ 29 ESBL-positive E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates remaining £4 mg ⁄ L in high-inoculum tests in the presence of 4 mg ⁄ L clavulanate, and £0.06 mg ⁄ L in 21 ⁄ 29 cases. In the absence of clavulanate, 23 ⁄ 29 highinoculum mecillinam MICs exceeded 4 mg ⁄ L for ESBL producers [18]. Anecdotally, we are aware of two sites in the UK where amoxycillin–clavulanate plus either cefpodoxime or cefixime has been widely and successfully used in urinary tract infections due to ESBL-producing E. coli, but neither has yet published their experience, and anyone following their example would be advised to do so with caution and, perhaps, also to consult with their Ethics Committee. In summary, the commercialised clavulanate combinations have inconsistent activity, at best, against ESBL producers, and should be used with great caution. Despite the successes reported by Rodriguez-Ban˜o et al. [12], we would consider that they are better avoided in life-threatening infections. Combinations of clavulanate with cefepime and cefpirome deserve evaluation as alternatives to carbapenems in severe infections due to ESBL producers. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate (or cefixime–clavulanate), while imperfectly matched, might well be better than the oral agents presently used against urinary tract infections due to ESBL producers in the community. The problem lies in having these combinations evaluated clinically. Cefepime, cefpirome, clavulanate and cefpodoxime were developed and marketed by different companies (Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo SmithKline and Aventis, or their predecessors), and are now either out of patent, or at the very end of their patent life. Who will
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
Livermore et al.
finance the requisite phase III trials for combinations of these agents, costing several hundred million dollars? We see two rays of hope. First, new cephalosporins are being developed for their anti-methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus activity, notably ceftobiprole and ceftaroline. These are vulnerable to ESBLs [19,20], and manufacturers may seek to formulate them with clavulanate or other b-lactamase inhibitors so as to widen their spectra. Such combinations would enjoy patent protection for as long as the cephalosporins themselves. Second, it is possible to launch a drug combination in India—a fast-developing country with one-sixth of the world’s population—on the basis of what, in the West, would count as phase II data. Ceftriaxone– sulbactam is marketed on this basis by at least one local company (Ceftrimax, VHB Group, Mumbai, http://www.vhbgroup.com). Whilst, in the period between the Venice meeting and publication of this supplement, Ranbaxy (http://www.ranbaxy.com) have launched a cefepime-tazobactum combination. It will be intriguing to see the clinical results against ESBL producers and, if these are positive, the reactions of both western microbiologists and companies! REFERENCES 1. Livermore DM. Determinants of the activity of b-lactamase inhibitor combinations. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 (suppl A): 9–21. 2. Andrews JM. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing method (version 4). J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56: 60–76. 3. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard M02-A8, 8th edn. Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 2003. 4. Jacoby GA, Carreras I. Activities of b-lactam antibiotics against Escherichia coli strains producing extended-spectrum b-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 858–862. 5. Woodford N, Ward ME, Kaufmann ME et al. Community and hospital spread of Escherichia coli producing CTX-M extended-spectrum b-lactamases in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 735–743. 6. Pai H, Kim MR, Seo MR, Choi TY, Oh SH. A nosocomial outbreak of Escherichia coli producing CTX-M-15 and OXA30 b-lactamase. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27: 312– 314.
Clavulanate combinations against ESBL producers 193
7. Livermore DM, Woodford N. The beta-lactamase threat in Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter. Trends Microbiol 2006; 14: 413–420. 8. Potz NA, Hope R, Warner M, Johnson AP, Livermore DM. Prevalence and mechanisms of cephalosporin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae in London and South-East England. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 320–326. 9. Du Bois SK, Marriott MS, Amyes SG. TEM- and SHV-derived extended-spectrum b-lactamases: relationship between selection, structure and function. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 7–22. 10. Lagace-Wiens PR, Nichol KA, Nicolle LE et al. Treatment of lower urinary tract infection caused by multidrugresistant extended-spectrum-b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli with amoxicillin ⁄ clavulanate: case report and characterization of the isolate. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 1262–1263. 11. Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum b-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18: 657–686. 12. Rodriguez-Ban˜o J, Navarro MD, Romero L et al. Bacteremia due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in the CTX-M era: a new clinical challenge. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 1407–1414. 13. Curtis NA, Orr D, Ross GW, Boulton MG. Competition of b-lactam antibiotics for the penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella aerogenes, Proteus rettgeri, and Escherichia coli: comparison with antibacterial activity and effects upon bacterial morphology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 16: 325–328. 14. Woodford N, Dallow JW, Hill RL et al. Ertapenem resistance among Klebsiella and Enterobacter submitted in the UK to a reference laboratory. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007; 29: 456–459. 15. Livermore DM, Akova M, Wu PJ, Yang YJ. Clavulanate and b-lactamase induction. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 (suppl B): 23–33. 16. Nikaido H, Liu W, Rosenberg EY. Outer membrane permeability and b-lactamase stability of dipolar ionic cephalosporins containing methoxyimino substituents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 337–342. 17. Valverde A, Coque TM, Sanchez-Moreno MP, Rollan A, Baquero F, Canton R. Dramatic increase in prevalence of fecal carriage of extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae during nonoutbreak situations in Spain. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 4769–4775. 18. Thomas K, Weinbren MJ, Warner M, Woodford N, Livermore D. Activity of mecillinam against ESBL producers in vitro. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 367–368. 19. Jones RN, Deshpande LM, Mutnick AH, Biedenbach DJ. In vitro evaluation of BAL9141, a novel parenteral cephalosporin active against oxacillin-resistant staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 915–932. 20. Mushtaq S, Warner M, Ge Y, Kaniga K, Livermore DM. In vitro activity of ceftaroline (PPI-0903M, T-91825) against bacteria with defined resistance mechanisms and phenotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60: 300–311.
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
ABSTRACT Clavulanate is a highly effective inhibitor of extended-spectrum b-lactamases (ESBLs) in detection tests, but the commercial amoxycillin–clavulanate and ticarcillin–clavulanate combinations have borderline activity, at best, against most ESBL producers. Oxyimino-cephalosporin–clavulanate combinations are active in vitro against most ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates at £1–2 mg ⁄ L but are compromised against Enterobacter spp., whether ESBL-producing or not, where clavulanate-induced AmpC enzymes attack the cephalosporin. These problems can be overcome by combining clavulanate with cefepime or cefpirome, which are more stable to AmpC. The resulting combinations are active in vitro at £1 mg ⁄ L against virtually all ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, including Enterobacter spp. AmpC-inducible organisms, such as Enterobacter, are less of a concern in the community, where ESBLproducing E. coli strains present growing problems, and where new oral treatments would be useful. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate is not ideal, in terms of pharmacological matching, but might be fit for purpose, certainly in comparison with fosfomycin and nitrofurantoin, which are used at present but which are suitable only for lower urinary tract infections. Clinical development of clavulanate with cefepime, cefpirome or cefpodoxime does not seem likely in the West, considering ownership and patent issues. Cefpisome-tazobactum is, however, being launched in India, where the licensing regime is more liberal. Combinations of clavulanate with modern anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cephalosporins also deserve investigation, as these compounds remain labile to ESBLs. Keywords
Cephalosporin–clavulanate, b-lactamase inhibitor, CTX-M b-lactamase, review
Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14 (Suppl. 1): 189–193
Clavulanate is widely used in synergy tests for the laboratory detection of extended-spectrum b-lactamases (ESBLs), but clavulanate combinations are viewed with scepticism as treatments for infections due to ESBL producers. The root of this paradox is that, while clavulanate is an excellent inhibitor of the predominant CTX-M, TEM, SHV and VEB (not OXA and AmpC) ESBLs, it is combined, commercially, with amoxycillin and ticarcillin. Both of these penicillins are very efficiently hydrolysed by ESBLs (and by many other b-lactamases) and so are difficult to protect [1]. Resistance arises: (i) if an ESBL—or a classic penicillinase—is produced copiously; (ii) if multi-
Corresponding author and reprint requests: D. M. Livermore, Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring and Reference Laboratory, Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK E-mail: [email protected]
ple b-lactamases are produced; or (iii) if the isolate also has reduced permeability or upregulated efflux [1]. A further complexity arises from the fact that laboratory testing of b-lactamase inhibitor combinations is remarkably unstandardised. There are arguments for testing with a fixed penicillin ⁄ inhibitor concentration ratio, or with a fixed inhibitor concentration, but there is no logic in preferring, as both the CLSI and British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) do, a fixed ratio for some combinations (e.g., amoxycillin–clavulanate) and a fixed concentration for others (e.g., ticarcillin–clavulanate)[2,3]. In practice, many ESBL studies from the 1990s onwards have found 50% or more of ESBL producers to be resistant to amoxycillin–clavulanate and ticarcillin–clavulanate [4]. This proportion is increasing as CTX-M-15 becomes the dominant ESBL in much of Europe and Asia, since it is often encoded by plasmids that also
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
190 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 1, January 2008
300 BSAC, CLSI susceptible breakpoints for systemic infections
250
BSAC susceptible breakpoint for urinary tract infections
200 150 100 50 0 2
4
8
16
32
>=64
MIC (mg/L)
Fig. 1. Activity of amoxycillin–clavulanate 2:1 fixed ratio vs. extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli (black) and Klebsiella spp. (grey) collected in a survey in south-east England in 2004 [8]. Fuller details of the survey methods are given in the footnote to Table 1.
determine OXA-1, a clavulanate-resistant penicillinase [5–7]. The consequences are illustrated in Fig. 1, showing the MIC distribution of amoxycillin–clavulanate against 606 ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates collected in a 16-hospital survey in London and south-east England in 2004, 78% of them with group 1 CTXM enzymes, principally CTX-M-15, often accompanied by OXA-1 [8]. The modal MIC for a 2:1 amoxycillin–clavulanate combination was 16 + 8 mg ⁄ L, corresponding to ‘intermediate’ under BSAC, CLSI and (provisional) EUCAST recommendations. The BSAC does have a higher susceptible breakpoint (S £32 + 16 mg ⁄ L) for urinary tract infections, [2], but ‘susceptibility’ here often reflects the antibiotic activity of clavulanate alone, which has MICs of 8–16 mg ⁄ L for most E. coli isolates [1]. Despite these caveats, a minority of ESBL producers appear to be susceptible to commercial clavulanate combinations at or below the systemic breakpoint, and clinical use here remains an issue for debate. Some workers believe that the magnitude of inoculum effects militates against use; others, ourselves included, contend that it is contradictory to accept the activity of clavulanate combinations against strains with classic penicillinases but to dismiss them for use against strains with ESBLs, which are at least as susceptible to the inhibitory activity of clavulanate [9]. Clinical experience would resolve this debate, but there are only a few case reports on the use of conventional clavulanate combinations in infections due to ESBL producers [10,11], along with one more
substantial recent analysis of outcomes where these combinations were used as empirical therapy in bacteraemias that transpired to be due to E. coli with ESBLs [12]. This latter study, from Seville, reported success with intravenous amoxycillin–clavulanate in 10 ⁄ 11 cases, but it should be noted that most of the isolates had group 9 CTX-M enzymes and only required amoxycillin–clavulanate MICs of 4–8 mg ⁄ L. These data are positive,but we would advocate great caution, particularly in life-threatening infections, as many producers – particularly those with the commoner CTX-M-15 ⁄ OXA-1 combination – are less susceptible. In principle, it should be possible to design more effective combinations by using clavulanate to protect an oxyimino-cephalosporin. These compounds are weaker substrates than amoxycillin and ticarcillin for ESBLs, and so are easier to protect; moreover, they have higher affinity for the penicillin-binding proteins [13], meaning that only a low periplasmic drug concentration is needed to achieve antibacterial activity [7]. They are stable to inhibitor-resistant penicillinases, including OXA-1, meaning that strains co-producing this enzyme should remain susceptible. In practice, combinations of cefotaxime or ceftazidime with clavulanate, 4 mg ⁄ L, were active against over 95% of ESBL-producing E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates, based on the EUCAST ⁄ BSAC oxyimino-cephalosporin breakpoints of 1 mg ⁄ L (Table 1). Exceptions were the minority of Klebsiella spp. isolates that also have permeability ⁄ efflux lesions; these are typically also resistant to ertapenem and, less so, to other carbapenems [14]. The pharmacokinetics of clavulanate are compatible, prima facie, with those of cefotaxime or ceftazidime, with serum half-lives of c. 75–90 min and the potential for three-timesdaily administration. Problems do, however, arise with Enterobacter spp. and other genera with AmpC b-lactamases. Specifically, inhibition of ESBLs fails to confer susceptibility in those strains that are also derepressed for AmpC, as these latter enzymes continue to protect against the oxyimino-cephalosporins. Moreover, clavulanate can promote the synthesis of inducible AmpC enzymes, compromising any gain achieved by inhibition of an ESBL. The net result is that cefotaxime–clavulanate and ceftazidime–clavulanate were active, at 1–2 mg ⁄ L, against only half of the ESBL-producing Enterobacter spp. isolates and
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
Livermore et al.
Clavulanate combinations against ESBL producers 191
Table 1. Activity of clavulanate–cephalosporin combinations vs. extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, collected in the UK in 2004 No. of isolates with indicated MIC (mg ⁄ L) £0.06 Escherichia coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp. E. coli Enterobacter spp. Klebsiella spp.
Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Cefotaxime Cefotaxime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Ceftazidime Ceftazidime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefepime Cefepime + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpirome Cefpirome + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate Cefpodoxime Cefpodoxime + clavulanate
150
79 9
3 308 8 151 259 4 101
3
0.12
0.25
0.5
1
2 52
1 12
4
4 3 42 9 176 6
3 1 18 8 82 2 5
7 3a 59
37 8 10
108 27 2
12
8 1 14 2 28
6
162 2 1a 80 100
55 1a 88 11
3
74
38
2
19
18
65
4 18 4 13 1 9
5 1 1 30 13 1 6 1 62 68 1 6 2 9 30
3 3
214 105 3 1 84
2 2 35
2
4
8
16
32
64
10
17
30
33
48
22
26
49
142
5 6 9
5
1
8
24
80
91
1 14
42
13 7b 2 3b 99
5
3
2 2 5 1 32
5
4 1 1 50
70
17
3
6
12
6
7
2 2 1 19
75
43
38
16
33
1 13 2 44
2 2b 31 3b 43
6
5 1 3 41 10
4
10
3
3
11
6 1 38
15 1 33
34
81
69b
10
16
191b
6
7
4
5b
9 1 2 29
9 2 8 1 5 10
2 1 7 1
8
13 1 38
186b
3 1 13
4 1 3
4 2
41 1 5
9 6
16
1
128 256 >256
94b
312b
33b 3 19b 5 214b 5b
a
Number of isolates with MIC at or below the stated drug concentration. Number of isolates with MIC at or above the stated drug concentration. Isolates were from the study described by Potz et al. [8]. This collected consecutive oxyimino-cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from 16 hospital laboratories in London and south-east England from August to October 2004. Only isolates confirmed as having ESBLs are included in the table. MICs were determined by the BSAC agar dilution method, with clavulanate at 4 mg ⁄ L. Among the 380 E. coli isolates, the proportion with group 1 CTX-M enzymes was 74%, that with group 9 CTX-M ESBLs was 3%, and that with SHV, TEM or other types was 15%; the corresponding proportions for the Enterobacter isolates (n = 36) were 22%, 0%, and 78%; those for Klebsiella spp. isolates (n = 226) were 87%, 1% and 12%. Figures in bold font are mode MICs. Figures underlined are MIC90 values. If the mode and MIC90 coincide the number appears as both bold and underlined. b
that concentrations exceeding 8 mg ⁄ L were required to inhibit even 75% (Table 1). Worse, third-generation cephalosporin–clavulanate combinations were antagonistic against some ESBLnegative Enterobacter and Citrobacter freundii isolates (Table 2), with the clavulanate-induced AmpC attacking the partner cephalosporin. While this antagonism (which occurs to an extent between ticarcillin and clavulanate against AmpC-inducible species) [15] has never been proven to be clinically significant, it would be a
concern in empirical usage, and might militate against licensing. The obvious way to circumvent these problems is to combine clavulanate with a cephalosporin that is relatively more stable to AmpC, for example cefepime or cefpirome [16]. We found cefepime– clavulanate (Table 1) to be active at 1 mg ⁄ L against all of 380 ESBL-producing E. coli isolates tested, all of 36 ESBL-producing Enterobacter spp. isolates and 224 ⁄ 226 ESBL-producing Klebsiella spp isolates. Cefpirome–clavulanate was active at 1 mg ⁄ L
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
192 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 1, January 2008
Table 2. Interactions of clavulanate with cefotaxime and cefepime vs. 62 cefotaxime-susceptible AmpC-inducible Enterobacter spp. and C. freundii Maximum interaction
Cefotaxime
Cefepime
Eight-fold synergy Four-fold synergy Two-fold synergy None Two-fold antagonism Four-fold antagonism Eight-fold antagonism 16-fold antagonism 32-fold antagonism
1 3 13 20 14 2 7 1 1
– 2 2 58 – – – – –
Isolates were randomly selected recent isolates without extended-spectrum b-lactamases and were susceptible to cefotaxime and cefepime at <1 mg ⁄ L in the absence of clavulanate.
against all the E. coli and Enterobacter spp. isolates, with 4 ⁄ 226 ESBL-producing Klebsiella spp. isolates being resistant. No significant (>1 dilution) antagonism was seen with cefepime–clavulanate when tested against ESBL-negative AmpC (Table 2). Cefpirome and cefepime both have pharmacokinetics that should be compatible with clavulanate, with a facility for three-times-daily administration and with no obvious side-effect risk. The resulting combinations have the potential to be attractive alternatives to carbapenems for severe infections due to ESBL producers. There remains the issue of community infections—mostly of the urinary tract—due to ESBL producers, where an oral antibiotic would be preferred. Many ESBL producers from community patients are resistant, not only to the cephalosporins and penicillins, but also to fluoroquinolones and to trimethoprim, underscoring this need for new oral therapies [5,8,17]. Nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin are used therapeutically but are suitable only for lower urinary tract infections. Moreover, nitrofurantoin has a poor side-effect profile, particularly in the elderly. No oral partner cephalosporin looks as good as cefepime or cefpirome for combination with clavulanate; however, AmpCinducible organisms such Enterobacter spp. are less of a concern in the community than in the hospital, so it might be acceptable to use an AmpC-labile partner agent, such as cefpodoxime or cefixime. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate was active, at 1 mg ⁄ L, against 340 ⁄ 380 ESBL-producing E. coli isolates and 205 ⁄ 226 Klebsiella spp. isolates (Table 1). These rates are at least as good as those for nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin[8]. Moreover: (i) a 1 mg ⁄ L break-
point may be too conservative for urinary tract infections; and (ii) unlike nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin, cefpodoxime–clavulanate would potentially be useful in ascending urinary infections. As an antibiotic that is ordinarily given twicedaily rather than three-times-daily, cefpodoxime (or cefixime) is imperfectly matched to clavulanate, although this mismatch might be overcome with slow-release formulations or by dividing the dosage. An alternative would be to combine clavulanate with mecillinam (amdinocillin), a compound with moderate stability to both ESBLs and AmpC enzymes, but for which the MICs for ESBL producers rise markedly at high inoculum [18]. Addition of clavulanate prevented this rise, with mecillinam MICs for 28 ⁄ 29 ESBL-positive E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates remaining £4 mg ⁄ L in high-inoculum tests in the presence of 4 mg ⁄ L clavulanate, and £0.06 mg ⁄ L in 21 ⁄ 29 cases. In the absence of clavulanate, 23 ⁄ 29 highinoculum mecillinam MICs exceeded 4 mg ⁄ L for ESBL producers [18]. Anecdotally, we are aware of two sites in the UK where amoxycillin–clavulanate plus either cefpodoxime or cefixime has been widely and successfully used in urinary tract infections due to ESBL-producing E. coli, but neither has yet published their experience, and anyone following their example would be advised to do so with caution and, perhaps, also to consult with their Ethics Committee. In summary, the commercialised clavulanate combinations have inconsistent activity, at best, against ESBL producers, and should be used with great caution. Despite the successes reported by Rodriguez-Ban˜o et al. [12], we would consider that they are better avoided in life-threatening infections. Combinations of clavulanate with cefepime and cefpirome deserve evaluation as alternatives to carbapenems in severe infections due to ESBL producers. Cefpodoxime–clavulanate (or cefixime–clavulanate), while imperfectly matched, might well be better than the oral agents presently used against urinary tract infections due to ESBL producers in the community. The problem lies in having these combinations evaluated clinically. Cefepime, cefpirome, clavulanate and cefpodoxime were developed and marketed by different companies (Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo SmithKline and Aventis, or their predecessors), and are now either out of patent, or at the very end of their patent life. Who will
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193
Livermore et al.
finance the requisite phase III trials for combinations of these agents, costing several hundred million dollars? We see two rays of hope. First, new cephalosporins are being developed for their anti-methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus activity, notably ceftobiprole and ceftaroline. These are vulnerable to ESBLs [19,20], and manufacturers may seek to formulate them with clavulanate or other b-lactamase inhibitors so as to widen their spectra. Such combinations would enjoy patent protection for as long as the cephalosporins themselves. Second, it is possible to launch a drug combination in India—a fast-developing country with one-sixth of the world’s population—on the basis of what, in the West, would count as phase II data. Ceftriaxone– sulbactam is marketed on this basis by at least one local company (Ceftrimax, VHB Group, Mumbai, http://www.vhbgroup.com). Whilst, in the period between the Venice meeting and publication of this supplement, Ranbaxy (http://www.ranbaxy.com) have launched a cefepime-tazobactum combination. It will be intriguing to see the clinical results against ESBL producers and, if these are positive, the reactions of both western microbiologists and companies! REFERENCES 1. Livermore DM. Determinants of the activity of b-lactamase inhibitor combinations. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 (suppl A): 9–21. 2. Andrews JM. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing method (version 4). J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56: 60–76. 3. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard M02-A8, 8th edn. Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 2003. 4. Jacoby GA, Carreras I. Activities of b-lactam antibiotics against Escherichia coli strains producing extended-spectrum b-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 858–862. 5. Woodford N, Ward ME, Kaufmann ME et al. Community and hospital spread of Escherichia coli producing CTX-M extended-spectrum b-lactamases in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 735–743. 6. Pai H, Kim MR, Seo MR, Choi TY, Oh SH. A nosocomial outbreak of Escherichia coli producing CTX-M-15 and OXA30 b-lactamase. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27: 312– 314.
Clavulanate combinations against ESBL producers 193
7. Livermore DM, Woodford N. The beta-lactamase threat in Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter. Trends Microbiol 2006; 14: 413–420. 8. Potz NA, Hope R, Warner M, Johnson AP, Livermore DM. Prevalence and mechanisms of cephalosporin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae in London and South-East England. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 320–326. 9. Du Bois SK, Marriott MS, Amyes SG. TEM- and SHV-derived extended-spectrum b-lactamases: relationship between selection, structure and function. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 7–22. 10. Lagace-Wiens PR, Nichol KA, Nicolle LE et al. Treatment of lower urinary tract infection caused by multidrugresistant extended-spectrum-b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli with amoxicillin ⁄ clavulanate: case report and characterization of the isolate. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 1262–1263. 11. Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum b-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18: 657–686. 12. Rodriguez-Ban˜o J, Navarro MD, Romero L et al. Bacteremia due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in the CTX-M era: a new clinical challenge. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 1407–1414. 13. Curtis NA, Orr D, Ross GW, Boulton MG. Competition of b-lactam antibiotics for the penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella aerogenes, Proteus rettgeri, and Escherichia coli: comparison with antibacterial activity and effects upon bacterial morphology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979; 16: 325–328. 14. Woodford N, Dallow JW, Hill RL et al. Ertapenem resistance among Klebsiella and Enterobacter submitted in the UK to a reference laboratory. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007; 29: 456–459. 15. Livermore DM, Akova M, Wu PJ, Yang YJ. Clavulanate and b-lactamase induction. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24 (suppl B): 23–33. 16. Nikaido H, Liu W, Rosenberg EY. Outer membrane permeability and b-lactamase stability of dipolar ionic cephalosporins containing methoxyimino substituents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 337–342. 17. Valverde A, Coque TM, Sanchez-Moreno MP, Rollan A, Baquero F, Canton R. Dramatic increase in prevalence of fecal carriage of extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae during nonoutbreak situations in Spain. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 4769–4775. 18. Thomas K, Weinbren MJ, Warner M, Woodford N, Livermore D. Activity of mecillinam against ESBL producers in vitro. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 367–368. 19. Jones RN, Deshpande LM, Mutnick AH, Biedenbach DJ. In vitro evaluation of BAL9141, a novel parenteral cephalosporin active against oxacillin-resistant staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 915–932. 20. Mushtaq S, Warner M, Ge Y, Kaniga K, Livermore DM. In vitro activity of ceftaroline (PPI-0903M, T-91825) against bacteria with defined resistance mechanisms and phenotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60: 300–311.
2008 The Authors Journal Compilation 2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 1), 189–193