Dataset Information

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity and In Vivo Efficacy of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Pathogenic Burkholderia Species.

ABSTRACT: The Gram-negative bacterial genus Burkholderia includes several hard-to-treat human pathogens: two biothreat species, Burkholderia mallei (causing glanders) and B. pseudomallei (causing melioidosis), and the B. cepacia complex (BCC) and B. gladioli, which cause chronic lung infections in persons with cystic fibrosis. All Burkholderia spp. possess an Ambler class A Pen β-lactamase, which confers resistance to β-lactams. The β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combination sulbactam-durlobactam (SUL-DUR) is in clinical development for the treatment of Acinetobacter infections. In this study, we evaluated SUL-DUR for in vitro and in vivo activity against Burkholderia clinical isolates. We measured MICs of SUL-DUR against BCC and B. gladioli (n = 150), B. mallei (n = 30), and B. pseudomallei (n = 28), studied the kinetics of inhibition of the PenA1 β-lactamase from B. multivorans and the PenI β-lactamase from B. pseudomallei by durlobactam, tested for bla _PenA1 induction by SUL-DUR, and evaluated in vivo efficacy in a mouse model of melioidosis. SUL-DUR inhibited growth of 87.3% of the BCC and B. gladioli strains and 100% of the B. mallei and B. pseudomallei strains at 4/4 μg/ml. Durlobactam potently inhibited PenA1 and PenI with second-order rate constant for inactivation (k ₂ /K) values of 3.9 × 10⁶ M^-1 s^-1 and 2.6 × 10³ M^-1 s^-1 and apparent K_i (K_i _app) of 15 nM and 241 nM, respectively, by forming highly stable covalent complexes. Neither sulbactam, durlobactam, nor SUL-DUR increased production of PenA1. SUL-DUR demonstrated activity in vivo in a murine melioidosis model. Taken together, these data suggest that SUL-DUR may be useful as a treatment for Burkholderia infections.

SUBMITTER: Papp-Wallace KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8092549 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bacterial infections present a serious challenge to healthcare practitioners due to the emergence of resistance to numerous conventional antibacterial drugs. Therefore, new bacterial targets and new antimicrobials are unmet medical needs. Rhodanine derivatives have been shown to possess potent antimicrobial activity via a novel mechanism. However, their potential use as antibacterials has not been fully examined. In this study, we determined the spectrum of activity of seven rhodanine derivatives (compounds Rh 1-7) against clinical isolates of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strains and Candida albicans. We also synthesized and tested three additional compounds, ethyl ester and amide of rhodanine 2 (Rh 8 and Rh 10, respectively) and ethyl ester of rhodanine 3 (Rh 9) to determine the significance of the carboxyl group modification towards antibacterial activity and human serum albumin binding. A broth microdilution assay confirmed Rh 1-7 exhibit bactericidal activity against Gram-positive pathogens. Rh 2 had significant activity against various vancomycin-resistant (MIC90 = 4 μM) and methicillin-resistant (MIC90 = 4 μM) Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA and MRSA), Staphylococcus epidermidis (MIC = 4 μM) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) strains (MIC90 = 8 μM). The rhodanine compounds exhibited potent activity against Bacillus spp., including Bacillus anthracis, with MIC range of 2-8 μM. In addition, they had potent activity against Clostridium difficile. The most potent compound, Rh 2, at 4 and 8 times its MIC, significantly decreased S. epidermidis biofilm mass by more than 35% and 45%, respectively. None of the rhodanine compounds showed antimicrobial activity (MIC > 128 μM) against various 1) Gram-negative pathogens (Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Salmonella Typhimurium) or 2) strains of Candida albicans (MIC > 64 μM). The MTS assay confirmed that rhodanines were not toxic to mouse murine macrophage (J774.1A) up to 64 μM, human keratinocytes (HaCat) up to 32 μM, and human ileocecal colorectal cell (HRT-18) up to 128 μM. Overall, these data suggest that certain rhodanine compounds may have potential use for the treatment of several multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infections.

Project description:Objective: Cefoperazone/sulbactam is a commonly used antibiotic combination against the extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing bacteria. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new cefoperazone/sulbactam combination (3:1) for Enterobacteriaceae infection via model-informed drug development (MIDD) approaches. Methods: Sulperazon [cefoperazone/sulbactam (2:1)] was used as a control. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data was collected from a clinical phase I trial. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using two-fold broth microdilution method. The percent time that the free drug concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT>MIC) was used as the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indicator correlated with efficacy. Models were developed to characterize the PK profile of cefoperazone and sulbactam. Monte Carlo simulations were employed to determine the investigational regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) for the treatment of infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae based on the probability of target attainment (PTA) against the tested bacteria. Results: Two 2-compartment models were developed to describe the PK profiles of cefoperazone and sulbactam. Simulation results following the single-dose showed that the regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam combinations in the ratios of 3:1 and 2:1 achieved similar PTA against the tested bacteria. Simulation results from the multiple-dose showed that the dosing regimen of cefoperazone/sulbactam (4 g, TID, 3 g:1 g) showed slightly better antibacterial effect than cefoperazone/sulbactam (6 g, BID, 4 g:2 g) against the Escherichia coli (ESBL−) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL−). For the other tested bacteria, the above regimens achieved a similar PTA. Conclusions: Cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) showed similar bactericidal activity to sulperazon [cefoperazone/sulbactam (2:1)] against the tested bacteria. For the ESBL-producing and cefoperazone-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae, Cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) did not exhibit advantage as anticipated. Our study indicated that further clinical trials should be carried out cautiously to avoid the potential risks of not achieving the expected target.

Dataset Information

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity and In Vivo Efficacy of Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Pathogenic Burkholderia Species.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets