key: cord-0011269-j6l0vonr authors: Lasko, Maxwell J.; Nicolau, David P. title: Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales: Considerations for Treatment in the Era of New Antimicrobials and Evolving Enzymology date: 2020-02-07 journal: Curr Infect Dis Rep DOI: 10.1007/s11908-020-0716-3 sha: d6c7d53a1931f0975c070bf1f7edc754e767858a doc_id: 11269 cord_uid: j6l0vonr PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gram-negative resistance is a growing concern globally. Enterobacterales, formerly Enterobacteriaceae, have developed resistance mechanisms to carbapenems that leave very few antimicrobial options in the clinician’s armamentarium. RECENT FINDINGS: New antimicrobials like ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol, and plazomicin have the potential to overcome resistance mechanisms in Enterobacterales including different classes of carbapenemases. SUMMARY: Novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, plazomicin, and cefiderocol give the clinician options that were once not available. Utilizing these options is of the utmost importance when treating carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the 2019 World Health Organization's (WHO) top ten threats to global health [1] . With increasing exposures to antimicrobials, organisms that were once easily treatable now harbor mechanisms of resistance that leave few treatment options for clinicians. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, formerly known as Enterobacteriaceae, are a group of organisms that are among the most difficult to treat; therefore, it is no surprise that the CDC considers them to be one of the top three most urgent threats with resistance spreading rapidly in the USA and throughout the world [2] . As of 2018, the CDC has reported at least one type of carbapenemase in all 50 states, and rarer genotypic expressions are becoming more common [3] . Prior to the introduction of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors with activity against carbapenemase producers, mortality rates varied from 24% to as high as 74% [4, 5] . It is imperative that clinicians understand definitions of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), local resistance patterns, and how to optimize treatment based on infection site. There are major oversights when discussing carbapenemresistant organisms (CRO) or CREs. For one, CRE's simplified definition of Enterobacterales resistant to carbapenems does an injustice to the complexities of developed mechanisms of resistance [6] . Combinations of extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL), overexpression of ampC and loss of porin channels may confer resistance to ertapenem but meropenem or imipenem may remain active [7] [8] [9] . While considered to be CRE using conventional definitions, these non-carbapenemase-producing organisms may be amenable to high-dose carbapenem therapy and do not pose the same potential for transmissibility due to their lack of plasmid conferred resistance [10] . In contrast to these non-carbapenemaseproducing organisms, it is important to delineate if CRE are carbapenemase producers as differing enzymes will have variable phenotypic profiles to commercially available antimicrobials as well as a high degree of transmissibility due to their plasmid-mediated resistance profiles. OXA-48, a serine-based carbapenemase, may hydrolyze carbapenems, yet ceftazidime and cefepime will retain activity if no other mechanisms of resistance are expressed [11, 12] . Isolates may and often have additional mechanisms of resistance included with carbapenemase. Additional subtleties with carbapenem resistance occur demonstrating the need for more specific terminology. Moreover, the likelihood of different types of resistance varies between geographical regions. North America and Israel tend to have a higher prevalence of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) whereas metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) can be found in India, Italy, and Greece [7, [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . OXA carbapenemases are endemic to Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East [7, 11, 12, 14] . A potential treatment option for a KPC may not necessarily treat an MBL and can be overlooked using broad terminology like CRE. Table 1 highlights different groups and classifications of β-lactamase including potential carbapenemase producers. Perhaps the greatest disservice when discussing treatment of CRE is assuming the clinician knows the organism prior to starting empiric therapy. Many risk factors associated with the development of CRE are associated with other multidrugresistant nosocomial infections like Pseudomonas aeruginosa [18] . Empiric drug choice in an at-risk septic patient should take into account the roles and limitations of each therapy option. The remainder of this review will compare antimicrobials to treat CRE and discuss trends in treatment management of this infection entity. After the introduction of polymyxin B and colistin (polymyxin E) in the 1950s, they quickly fell out of favor due to their high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and unpredictable kinetics [19] . With the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms like CRE, the polymyxin class has re-emerged as a backbone of salvage therapy prior to the clinical availability of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLI) targeted against carbapenemases. An international guideline on polymyxin published in 2019 attempts to promote the optimal use of these drugs [20] . While this document presents a contemporary overview of the polymyxins and intends to promote strategies to improve outcome while minimizing the toxicodynamic profile of the class, it is important to note that a majority of guidance is based on small theoretical models, and for several pieces, such as polymyxin use in CRE, the committee did not reach a unanimous consensus. Polymyxin B and colistin are fairly similar chemically even though their pharmacokinetic parameters differ substantially. Both agents have a similar mechanism of action by puncturing and disrupting the outer membrane integrity leading to bactericidal activity and possible synergy with other antimicrobials [19] . These agents also demonstrate AUC/MIC pharmacodynamics with a targeted average steady state (C ss avg ) of 2 mg/L [20] . Colistin is administered as pro-drug colistin methanesulfonate (CMS) or colistimethate, and the conversion from inactive to active drug is highly variable. It may take up to several hours to achieve adequate concentrations of drug even with appropriate loading doses. Unfortunately, inadequate rapid concentrations of colistin in the critically ill have demonstrated increased risk of 30-day mortality and may breed polymyxin resistance which is incredibly concerning considering patient frailty [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] . Both the active and non-active forms of colistin are highly excreted into the urine, and the inactivated CMS is partially converted to colistin allowing the drug to reach higher concentrations in the urine than Polymyxin B [19] . Colistin dosing units can be expressed as milligrams of colistin-based activity (CBA) or international units (IU) depending on country. Approximately one million IU is equivalent to 33 mg of CBA. Polymyxin B is formulated in its active sulfate form, and it is not actively secreted in the urine. The preferable pharmacokinetics and decreased risk of AKI often make polymyxin B the preferred polymyxin for non-urinary systemic infections [19, 20, 25] . A loading dose of 2.0-2.5 mg/kg of total body weight followed by a maintenance dose of 1.25-1.5 mg/kg of total body weight divided into 2 dose 12 h apart is recommended without renal dosage adjustment [25, 26] . Neither parental polymyxin B nor colistin achieve adequate lung concentration and are suboptimal choices for the treatment of respiratory infection as monotherapy [19] . The polymyxins should generally be given in combination with another susceptible or synergistic antimicrobial when treating CRE due to the high potential for failure, variable pharmacokinetics, and development of resistance observed on monotherapy. As novel therapies active against carbapenemase-producing organisms become more widely available, the use of polymyxins as the backbone of treatment for CRE should subside and the role of these agents should be reserved as salvage therapy when all other options have been exhausted. Similar to polymyxins, aminoglycosides were first clinically used in the 1940s and were a mainstay of therapy until the 1980s with the invention of safer antimicrobials like cephalos p o r i n s , c a r b a p e n e m s , a n d f l u o r o q u i n o l o n e s . Aminoglycosides carry an increased risk of nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity compared with the antimicrobials mentioned above [27] . Higher rates of adverse events occur with more frequent dosing, and a modified once-daily dosing regimen as demonstrated in the Hartford nomogram may mitigate these risks [28] . Aminoglycosides can play a crucial role in CRE because their mechanism of action is not affected by carbapenemases; however, many CRE organisms harbor aminoglycoside modification enzymes (AME) [29, 30] . As such, the therapeutic role of conventional aminoglycosides, like gentamicin and amikacin, can be highly variable based on the widespread geographic distribution of AMEs. Plazomicin (Zemdri®) is a new aminoglycoside that is synthetically derived from sisomicin which remains stable against most AMEs and it has been shown to be synergistic when given in combination with β-lactams in vivo [31] [32] [33] . A phase III trial (CARE study) attempted to demonstrate efficacy of plazomicin combination therapy compared with polymyxin combination therapy for a multitude of carbapenemresistant Enterobacterales infections [34] . Although the study did not reach an adequate power due to slow enrollment into the study, researchers reported a descriptive decrease in allcause mortality. Fifteen patients who received plazomicin combination therapy were further evaluated to determine if adequate concentrations of each drug were achieved [35] . Of the 15 subjects treated with plazomicin combination, 0% treated with plazomicin and meropenem reached a meropenem fT > MIC of 40%. Furthermore, only 75% of subjects treated with combination plazomicin and tigecycline reached tigecycline fAUC/MIC concentrations of 0.9 mg/L or greater, yet 83% of subjects with inadequate meropenem or tigecycline concentrations achieved microbiological response. These data demonstrate the potential clinical utility of plazomicin in the treatment of CRE. While plazomicin utilizes the once-daily dosing regimen to improve efficacy and minimize toxicity, dose adjustments are required in patients with decreased renal function. Asempa and colleagues evaluated a group of 37 enrolled patients being treated for CRE bloodstream infections or pneumonia, who were originally enrolled in the CARE study [36] . Plazomicin blood samples were collected 10 h post dose to determine an appropriate dosing interval based on the Hartford nomogram. Afterwards, the information was simulated to predict toxic trough concentrations greater than 3 mg/L and an efficacious interval-normalized AUC. Use of the nomogram reduced the incidence of potentially toxic trough concentrations while maintaining similar target AUCs. Additionally, the application of the Hartford nomogram appears useful in less sick patients with UTIs [37] . While limited clinical data exist thus far, the microbiologic potency, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiles of plazomicin suggest that this agent is a viable option for CRE in combination with conventional compounds or the novel BL/BLIs. Other examples of plazomicin's utility include in combination to treat an MBL producer where novel BL/ BLIs lack in vitro activity, patients with a hypersensitivity to ceftazidime and carbapenems, or patients requiring a oncedaily injection being treated in an outpatient antimicrobial treatment program. As mentioned above, KPC is the most prevalent carbapenemase produced in the USA, and antimicrobial options were often scarce prior to the introduction of novel βlactam/β-lactamase inhibitors. Bulik and Nicolau proposed the use of combination ertapenem and high-dose doripenem or meropenem as a method to combat CRE [38] . The theoretical mechanism uses ertapenem as a suicide molecule with high affinity for KPC enzymes, allowing meropenem or doripenem to treat the organism. Both their in vitro model and murine thigh model demonstrated bacterial reduction with a roughly 3 log and 1 log reduction, respectively. Clinical studies and case reports have also demonstrated an increase in microbiological cure and a decrease in all-cause mortality compared with other options like polymyxins [39] [40] [41] [42] . While the clinical utility of double carbapenem therapy has demonstrated in patients with CRE, it is important to recognize that the efficacy of this regimen is restricted to KPC-based infections. Enterobacterales. Ceftazidime-avibactam (Avycaz®), meropenem-vaborbactam (Vabomere®), and the new BL/ BLI imipenem-relebactam (Recarbrio®) have brought welcomed treatment options to clinicians treating these MDR organisms. It is important to note that these drugs do not all cover the same carbapenemase. Table 2 highlights the differences in activity against Ambler classification of carbapenemases and the Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) MIC breakpoints for novel BL/BLIs as well as novel antimicrobials that will be discussed. Avibactam, a novel diazabicyclooctane β-lactamase inhibitor, restores ceftazidime activity against group A, and some D (OXA-48) serine carbapenemases [43, 44] . There is no ceftazidime restoration against class B metallo-β-lactamases; however, there are several successful case reports of using ceftazidime-avibactam with aztreonam for the treatment of New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM), and aztreonamavibactam is currently in clinical development [45] [46] [47] . Ceftazidime-avibactam has displayed consistently improved outcomes relative to polymyxin-based regimens as numerous reports show decreased all-cause mortality, increased microbiologic cure, and reduced toxicity [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . At present the vast majority of clinical and microbiologic outcome data with these new BL/BLIs for CRE-based infections accumulated during the clinical utilization of ceftazidime-avibactam, where this new agent is often being used as salvage therapy in patients failing polymyxin-based regimens. As a result, it is not surprising that treatment failure and the development of resistance on therapy have been observed in these pre-selected salvage use scenarios. Specifically, the emergence of a mutant KPC-3 variant has been noted during therapy [54] . While resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam, the organism's genotype reverted to resemble that of an ESBL testing susceptible to meropenem and not surprisingly to other BL/BLIs like meropenem-vaborbactam [55] . Shields and colleagues also proposed ceftazidime-avibactam treatment failure correlates to patients treated for healthcare-associated pneumonias and continuous renal replacement therapy [56] . Their single-center retrospective study looked at treatment failure with ceftazidime-avibactam and found that 60% of clinical failures were treated for pneumonia compared with 29% of successes (p = 0.045, OR 3.09, 1.03-9.34). Similar success and failure trends were seen with continuous renal replacement therapy at 7% and 37% respectively (p = 0.046, OR 4.78, 95% CI 1.03-22.2). This raises the question whether resistance and treatment failure were observed because of inappropriate dosing in these critically ill patients. This controversy with ceftazidime-avibactam highlights that it is crucial that patients receiving these novel BL/BLIs are aggressively dosed with optimal exposures to achieve clinical cure. Vaborbactam, another non-β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor, restores meropenem against Ambler group A and C βlactamase [55, 57] . The addition of a boron structure allows for higher affinity for KPC-producing Enterobacterales, but has no effect on other MDR like Acinetobacter baumannii or P. aeruginosa. Vaborbactam, furthermore, does not restore meropenem activity against group B or D carbapenemases. Targeting Antibiotic Non-susceptible Gram-negative Organisms (TANGO-II) trial evaluated meropenemvaborbactam against best available therapy (either monotherapy or combination of polymyxin, colistin, high-dose meropenem, ceftazidime-avibactam (n = 1), or aminoglycoside) for the treatment of CRE infections [58] . Eligible patients were enrolled from 8 countries where KPC is prevalent. It is important to note that a majority of isolates grew Klebsiella pneumoniae (87.2%), and the major sites of infection were bacteremia (46.8%), followed by complicated urinary tract infection (34%), healthcare-and ventilatorassociated pneumonia (10.6%), and complicated intraabdominal infection (8.6%). All patients with previous antimicrobial failure were placed in the meropenem-vaborbactam group. Meropenem-vaborbactam had statistically significant 3-3.7, p = 0.02). Drug-related adverse events, including nephrotoxicity, were seen less often in the meropenemvaborbactam-treated patients (24%) than in best available therapy (44%). Of concern with meropenem-vaborbactam is that the current CLSI-/FDA-approved breakpoint for Enterobacterales is ≤ 4/8. This encompasses 30-40% of the MIC distribution for OXA-producing organisms despite the designation of no in vitro activity for this class of carbapenemases as mentioned in the package insert of the commercially available product. Despite no activity and no clinical data, the elevated breakpoint relative to that of meropenem at ≤ 1 is due solely to the nuances in dosing between the products [59] . As a result, caution should be exercised when using meropenemvaborbactam for the treatment of susceptible carbapenemaseproducing Enterobacterales when OXA-based enzymes are in the differential and genotypic profiling has not confirmed the enzymologic driver of resistance. Relebactam, like avibactam, is a diazabicyclooctane βlactamase inhibitor restoring imipenem against group A and C β-lactamases [60, 61] . In vitro and animal models show efficacy with imipenem-relebactam, and it has recently been approved for complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] . Motsch and colleagues recently published a randomized controlled trial comparing imipenem-relebactam to imipenem and colistin for imipenem non-susceptible bacterial infections [67] . Out of the 31 modified microbiologic intent to treat population, a majority of isolates were P. aeruginosa, (77%) followed by Klebsiella spp. (16%) and other Enterobacterales (6%). Imipenem-relebactam was considered non-inferior for microbiological cure (71%) compared with imipenem and colistin (70%) and had a significant 28-day favorable response (71% vs. 40%, 90% CI 1.3-51.5). The authors further described a non-significant reduced 28-day all-cause mortality of 10% with imipenem-relebactam compared with 30% of imipenem and colistin subjects. Notably, CRE specific data demonstrated only one out of four carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales showing a microbiological cure compared with one out of one imipenem and colistin treated subject. Authors attributed microbiologic failure of imipenem-relebactam to organisms harboring several group A and C extended β-lactamases. The therapeutic niche of imipenem-relebactam remains unclear as it may be used as an additional option for CRE or it may be more useful in treating multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa including those producing carbapenemases [62] . Similarly to ceftazidime-avibactam, the additional pseudomonal coverage may make imipenem-relebactam an appropriate option for empiric therapy in a septic patient with high risk of CRE and pseudomonal infection. Unlike the two previously approved β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors which are recommended to have each dose administered over 2-3 h, imipenem-relebactam is given via a 30-min infusion. Shorter infusion durations may be advocated in some institutional settings. Zidebactam, a novel diazabicyclooctane β-lactamase inhibitor, serves two functions by preventing broad spectrum hydrolysis of cefepime and binding PBP2 [68, 69] . Currently it is in phase I of development. The combination theoretically works against A, C, and D β-lactamase Enterobacterales with additional in vitro restored function to some group B β-lactamase Enterobacterales, drug-resistant P. aeruginosa, and drug-resistant A. baumannii [69] . In vivo cefepime-zidebactam has shown 1 to greater than 3 log reductions of growth, and 1.6 log reductions in growth for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, respectively [68] . Further research is warranted for zidebactam as it may be the next breakthrough novel antimicrobial. There are limited data comparing β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors in the treatment of CRE which makes it difficult to determine a superior drug with overlapping susceptibilities. At least one BL/BLI which covers carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa should be on each hospital formulary. Local resistance patterns to Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa as well as the availability of microbiologic testing should be taken into account when making formulary decisions. Coined as the "Trojan horse" antimicrobial, cefiderocol uses a siderophore to hijack bacteria's iron uptake system and enter the cell to disrupt cell wall synthesis [70] [71] [72] . Cefiderocol is stable and potent against all Ambler group β-lactamases in vitro, including MBLs, without the addition of a βlactamase inhibitor [70, 73, 74] . In vivo and healthy volunteer studies have demonstrated adequate tissue concentration into epithelial lining fluid making it a promising therapy in bacterial pneumonia [73, 75] . Cefiderocol responded well against Gram-negative isolates of Klebsiella spp., P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii with a greater than 3 log bacterial growth reduction in a rat lung model. Similar results were seen in an immunocompromised murine thigh infection model with greater than 3 log bacterial growth reduction against various Enterobacterales [74] . Cefiderocol is currently approved for complicated urinary tract infections as it was non-inferior to imipenem in a phase II trial. It is important to note that carbapenem-resistant isolates were excluded from this trial [76] . Cefiderocol is a welcomed novel antimicrobial for a clinician's repertoire. Not only is this a novel mechanism of delivery, but also it may be one of the first monotherapy agents to effectively treat metallo-β-lactamase with minimal adverse events. Further clinical development will help determine the exact niche for cefiderocol. IV fosfomycin is a treatment gaining interest in the USA for the treatment of various MDR organisms due to high rates of susceptibility and tolerability [77, 78] . A small prospective study including 11 critically ill patients evaluated the use of IV fosfomycin in combination against hospital-acquired carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and found that all-cause mortality rates (18.2%) were lower than other best available therapies [79] . A potential fail point of this therapy is development of resistance during treatment when used as monotherapy [80] . The USA lags behind a majority of other countries as oral fosfomycin is the only formulation available at this moment; however, an IV formulation is currently under development [81] . Fosfomycin will likely be combined with additional agents for its additive and synergistic effects. Avery and colleagues evaluated combination fosfomycin against various CPE isolates using the E-test method [82] . Fosfomycin had no antagonism against any tested antimicrobial and had at least one isolate that was additive making it a potential option for treating multidrug-resistant organisms. The treatment of a non-metallo carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales with monotherapy or combination has been a topic of interest for many clinicians now that novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors have been introduced into clinical practice. Historically, the high mortality rates of polymyxins due to poor microbiologic potency and less than optimal drug exposures that have been limited by toxicity have mandated the use of combination therapy in severely ill patients. A large retrospective cohort study evaluated the treatment of bloodstream infections either with monotherapy or combination therapy [83] . Three hundred forty-three subjects were stratified into groups based on severity of illness with a primary endpoint of overall mortality. There were no statistical differences among combined cohorts (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08) and the low mortality score cohort (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.62-2.23); however, subjects identified as a high risk of mortality had a statistically significant decrease in overall mortality (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.39-0.93). It is important to note the above study did not include novel therapies like BL/BLIs which should take over as the mainstay of CPO therapy. The shift away from using nephrotoxic agents with unpredictable pharmacokinetics has reopened the debate of which agent is superior. There is a growing amount of literature demonstrating ceftazidimeavibactam, imipenem-relebactam, and meropenemvaborbactam lead to better treatment outcomes with less adverse events compared with polymyxin best available therapy regimens [49, 52-54, 58, 67] . A summary comparing BL/BLI therapy to traditional colistin-based therapy can be seen in Table 3 . If an organism is susceptible to a novel β-lactam/βlactamase inhibitor, then that agent may be considered for monotherapy because these compounds have demonstrated efficacy in the setting of severe infections. Even with novel agents demonstrating superiority over colistin, prescribing habits are slow to change. A recent publication by Clancy and colleagues show that polymyxin and colistin are still the most prescribed antimicrobials for CRE infections which is Fig. 1 Algorithm for the empiric therapy of the critically ill septic patient. Choose empiric coverage based on patient specific factors, local epidemiology, and concordant resistance. ABX, antimicrobial, CRO, carbapenem-resistant organism deeply concerning [84] . Gaining access to novel agents to treat CRE should be a priority for all clinicians as these βlactam/β-lactamase inhibitors have been shown to improve outcomes and reduced toxicities relative to polymyxin-based regimens. Anothe r carb apen emase tr eatment d ogma o ften overshadowed in literature is when to use empiric therapy which covers carbapenemase. A prospective observational cohort study conducted by Gianella and colleagues evaluated risk factors for development of CRE bloodstream infection from previously colonized subjects and found ICU admission, invasive abdominal procedures, chemotherapy/radiation, and multiple CRE colonization sites independently increased risk [85] . Another study conducted in Israel demonstrated that clinically significant increased risks in carbapenem-resistant colonized patients developing infection were treated with antipseudomonal penicillins [86] . In an effort to maximize the probability of early appropriate therapy in patients at risk for resistant pathogens, clinicians need to become increasingly comfortable with the antimicrobial spectrum, pharmacokinetic and toxicodynamic profiles of the novel therapies discussed so that optimal empiric therapy can be initiated at the onset of infection (Fig. 1) . Unfortunately a single source of antimicrobial susceptibility data for the agents included in this review is not available and thus comparative assessments based on percent susceptible collated from multiple sources are potentially misleading for CRE due to differing genotypic profiles across the globe. As such, these challenges highlight the importance of local susceptibility testing to determine the most suitable agent(s) for clinical practice in any given region. While the use of novel broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents may be warranted in the setting of initial empirical therapy for the septic patient, great effort should be taken to utilize the available diagnostic techniques (i.e., invasive sampling strategies, molecular tests) to identify the causative pathogen(s) and thus allow a rapid, narrow targeted approach to treatment. The rapid emergence of carbapenemase-producing organisms is a major concern for human health. It is of utmost importance that clinicians are familiar with what antimicrobials can be used to treat serious infections like carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales as well as the evolving enzymology associated with these pathogens. With the introduction of new βlactam/β-lactamase inhibitors and the improved clinical outcomes associated with these compounds, a shift away from the less efficacious, more toxic polymyxin-based regimens appears completely warranted. While the β-lactam/βlactamase inhibitors will play an important role moving forward, other parenteral agents such as plazomicin, fosfomycin, and cefiderocol show great promise and are welcomed options for treating multidrug-resistant organisms. Top ten threats to global health in 2019 Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Tracking CRE HAI Role of newer and re-emerging older agents in the treatment of infections caused by carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae Bloodstream infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae in onco-hematological patients: clinical impact of carbapenem resistance in a multicentre prospective survey Facility guidance for control of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) The epidemiology of carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae: the impact and evolution of a global menace Frequent emergence of porin-deficient subpopulations with reduced carbapenem susceptibility in ESBL-producing Escherichia coli during exposure to ertapenem in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model Characterization of Ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae in a Taiwanese university hospital Comparing the outcomes of patients with carbapenemaseproducing and non-carbapenemase-producing carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia Treatment of infections by OXA-48-producing Enterobacteriaceae OXA-type carbapenemases The rapid spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae The global epidemiology of carbapenemaseproducing Enterobacteriaceae The emergence and implications of metallo-βlactamases in Gram-negative bacteria Novel carbapenem-hydrolyzing βlactamase, KPC-1, from a carbapenem-resistant strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae Characterization of a new metallo-β-lactamase gene, Bla-NDM-1, and a novel erythromycin esterase gene carried on a unique genetic structure in Klebsiella pneumoniae sequence type 14 from India Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: risk factors and clinical impact Colistin and polymyxin B: peas in a pod, or chalk and cheese? International Consensus guidelines for the optimal use of the polymyxins: endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) High rate of colistin resistance among patients with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection accounts for an excess of mortality Intravenous colistin in the treatment of sepsis from multiresistant Gram-negative bacilli in critically ill patients Polymyxins: to combine or not to combine? Antibiotics (Basel) Treatment outcome of bacteremia due to KPCproducing Klebsiella pneumoniae: superiority of combination antimicrobial regimens Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous polymyxin B in critically ill patients: implications for selection of dosage regimens Dosing and pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B in patients with renal insufficiency Aminoglycosides: an overview. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Experience with a once-daily aminoglycoside program administered to 2,184 adult patients 16S ribosomal RNA methylation: emerging resistance mechanism against aminoglycosides Distribution of 16S rRNA methylases among different species of Gram-negative bacilli with high-level resistance to aminoglycosides In vivo efficacy of plazomicin alone or in combination with meropenem or tigecycline against Enterobacteriaceae isolates exhibiting various resistance mechanisms in an immunocompetent murine septicemia model In vitro activity of plazomicin against Gramnegative and Gram-positive isolates collected from U.S. hospitals and comparative activities of aminoglycosides against carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae and isolates carrying carbapenemase genes In vitro activity of plazomicin against beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Plazomicin for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Evaluation of plazomicin, tigecycline, and meropenem pharmacodynamic exposure against carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae in patients with bloodstream infection or hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia from the CARE study A simulated application of the Hartford Hospital aminoglycoside dosing nomogram for plazomicin dosing interval selection in patients with serious infections caused by carbapenemresistant Enterobacterales Application of the Hartford Hospital nomogram for plazomicin dosing interval selection in patients with complicated urinary tract infection Double-carbapenem therapy for carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Ertapenem-containing double-carbapenem therapy for treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Double carbapenem as a rescue strategy for the treatment of severe carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: a two-center, matched case-control study Effectiveness of a double-carbapenem regimen for infections in humans due to carbapenemase-producing pandrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Double-carbapenem combination as salvage therapy for untreatable infections by KPC-2-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae DBOs): a potent new class of non-beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitors In vitro activity of ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam-avibactam against OXA-48-carrying Enterobacteriaceae isolated as part of the international network for optimal resistance monitoring (INFORM) global surveillance program from In vitro activity of aztreonam-avibactam against Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated by clinical laboratories in 40 countries from 2012 to 2015 Can ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam overcome β-lactam resistance conferred by metallo-β-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae? Synergistic activity of ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam against serine and metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens Clinical efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam versus other active agents for the treatment of bacteremia due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hematologic patients Ceftazidime-avibactam is superior to other treatment regimens against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia Effectiveness of ceftazidime/avibactam as salvage therapy for treatment of infec Ceftazidime-avibactam as salvage therapy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms Efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam salvage therapy in patients with infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae Colistin versus ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Clinical outcomes, drug toxicity, and emergence of ceftazidimeavibactam resistance among patients treated for carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae infections Vaborbactam: spectrum of beta-lactamase inhibition and impact of resistance mechanisms on activity in Enterobacteriaceae Pneumonia and renal replacement therapy are risk factors for ceftazidime-avibactam treatment failures and resistance among patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections Activity of meropenem-vaborbactam in mouse models of infection due to KPC-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus best-available therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections: the TANGO II randomized clinical trial Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing Activity of imipenem-relebactam and comparator agents against genetically characterized isolates of carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae Imipenem-relebactam and meropenemvaborbactam: two novel carbapenem-beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations Activity of imipenem-relebactam alone or in combination with amikacin or colistin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Identifying spectra of activity and therapeutic niches for ceftazidime-avibactam and imipenem-relebactam against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae In vitro activity of imipenem-relebactam against Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens isolated by clinical laboratories in the United States in 2015 (results from the SMART global surveillance program) Phase 2, dose-ranging study of relebactam with imipenemcilastatin in subjects with complicated intra-abdominal infection In vivo efficacy of relebactam (MK-7655) in combination with imipenem-cilastatin in murine infection models RESTORE-IMI 1: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/ relebactam vs colistin plus imipenem in patients with imipenemnonsusceptible bacterial infections In vivo efficacy of WCK 5222 (cefepimezidebactam) against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the neutropenic murine thigh infection model In vitro and in vivo activities of β-lactams in combination with the novel β-lactam enhancers zidebactam and WCK 5153 against multidrug-resistant metallo-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against a recent collection of clinically relevant Gramnegative bacilli from North America and Europe Siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol utilizes ferric iron transporter systems for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin for Gramnegative bacterial infections: pharmacokinetics and safety in subjects with renal impairment Efficacy of cefiderocol against carbapenemresistant Gram-negative bacilli in immunocompetent-rat respiratory tract infection models recreating human plasma pharmacokinetics Efficacy of humanized cefiderocol exposures over 72 hours against a diverse group of Gram-negative isolates in the neutropenic murine thigh infection model Intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, in healthy adult subjects Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial Fosfomycin activity versus carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, Detroit, 2008-10 Intravenous fosfomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in critically ill patients: a prospective evaluation The potential of fosfomycin for multi-drug resistant sepsis: an analysis of in vitro activity against invasive paediatric Gram-negative bacteria Fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) vs piperacillintazobactam (PIP-TAZ) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) including acute pyelonephritis (AP): ZEUS, a phase 2/3 randomized trial In vitro investigation of synergy among fosfomycin and parenteral antimicrobials against carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae Effect of appropriate combination therapy on mortality of patients with bloodstream infections due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (INCREMENT): a retrospective cohort study Estimating the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections in the United States using antibiotic prescription data Risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection among rectal carriers: a prospective observational multicentre study Risk factors for developing clinical infection with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in hospital patients initially only colonized with carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Conflict of Interest MJL has no conflicts of interest to declare.DPN is a consultant, speaker's bureau member, or have received research funding from Allergan, Bayer, Cepheid, Merck, Melinta, Pfizer, Wockhardt, Shionogi, and Tetraphase.Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.