Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 271–289 | Cite as

Cefiderocol: A Siderophore Cephalosporin with Activity Against Carbapenem-Resistant and Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli

  • George G. ZhanelEmail author
  • Alyssa R. Golden
  • Sheryl Zelenitsky
  • Karyn Wiebe
  • Courtney K. Lawrence
  • Heather J. Adam
  • Temilolu Idowu
  • Ronald Domalaon
  • Frank Schweizer
  • Michael A. Zhanel
  • Philippe R. S. Lagacé-Wiens
  • Andrew J. Walkty
  • Ayman Noreddin
  • Joseph P. Lynch III
  • James A. Karlowsky
Review Article

Abstract

Cefiderocol is an injectable siderophore cephalosporin discovered and being developed by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. As with other β-lactam antibiotics, the principal antibacterial/bactericidal activity of cefiderocol occurs by inhibition of Gram-negative bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to penicillin binding proteins; however, it is unique in that it enters the bacterial periplasmic space as a result of its siderophore-like property and has enhanced stability to β-lactamases. The chemical structure of cefiderocol is similar to both ceftazidime and cefepime, which are third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, respectively, but with high stability to a variety of β-lactamases, including AmpC and extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs). Cefiderocol has a pyrrolidinium group in the side chain at position 3 like cefepime and a carboxypropanoxyimino group in the side chain at position 7 of the cephem nucleus like ceftazidime. The major difference in the chemical structures of cefiderocol, ceftazidime and cefepime is the presence of a catechol group on the side chain at position 3. Together with the high stability to β-lactamases, including ESBLs, AmpC and carbapenemases, the microbiological activity of cefiderocol against aerobic Gram-negative bacilli is equal to or superior to that of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem, and it is active against a variety of Ambler class A, B, C and D β-lactamases. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem versus Acinetobacter baumannii, including meropenem non-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. Cefiderocol’s activity against meropenem–non-susceptible and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriales is comparable or superior to ceftazidime-avibactam. Cefiderocol is also more potent than both ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem against all resistance phenotypes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The current dosing regimen being used in phase III studies is 2 g administered intravenously every 8 h (q8 h) using a 3-h infusion. The pharmacokinetics of cefiderocol are best described by a three-compartment linear model. The mean plasma half-life (t½) was ~ 2.3 h, protein binding is 58%, and total drug clearance ranged from 4.6–6.0 L/h for both single- and multi-dose infusions and was primarily renally excreted unchanged (61–71%). Cefiderocol is primarily renally excreted unchanged and clearance correlates with creatinine clearance. Dosage adjustment is thus required for both augmented renal clearance and in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. In vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic studies have reported that as with other cephalosporins the pharmacodynamic index that best predicts clinical outcome is the percentage of time that free drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT > MIC). In vivo efficacy of cefiderocol has been studied in a variety of humanized drug exposure murine and rat models of infection utilizing a variety of MDR and extremely drug resistant strains. Cefiderocol has performed similarly to or has been superior to comparator agents, including ceftazidime and cefepime. A phase II prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of cefiderocol 2000 mg q8 h versus imipenem/cilastatin 1000 mg q8 h, both administered intravenously for 7–14 days over 1 h, in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI, including pyelonephritis) or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in hospitalized adults. A total of 452 patients were initially enrolled in the study, with 303 in the cefiderocol arm and 149 in the imipenem/cilastatin arm. The primary outcome measure was a composite of clinical cure and microbiological eradication at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, that is, 7 days after the end of treatment in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population. Secondary outcome measures included microbiological response per pathogen and per patient at early assessment (EA), end of treatment (EOT), TOC, and follow-up (FUP); clinical response per pathogen and per patient at EA, EOT, TOC, and FUP; plasma, urine and concentrations of cefiderocol; and the number of participants with adverse events. The composite of clinical and microbiological response rates was 72.6% (183/252) for cefiderocol and 54.6% (65/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Clinical response rates per patient at the TOC visit were 89.7% (226/252) for cefiderocol and 87.4% (104/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Microbiological eradication rates were 73.0% (184/252) for cefiderocol and 56.3% (67/119) for imipenem/cilastatin in the MITT population. Additionally, two phase III clinical trials are currently being conducted by Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Japan. The two trials are evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of serious infections in adult patients caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens and evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol in the treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia or healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Cefiderocol appears to be well tolerated (minor reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal and phlebitis related), with a side effect profile that is comparable to other cephalosporin antimicrobials. Cefiderocol appears to be well positioned to help address the increasing number of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant and MDR Gram-negative bacilli, including ESBL- and carbapenemase-producing strains (including metallo-β-lactamase producers). A distinguishing feature of cefiderocol is its activity against resistant P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Roger Echols, Alice Haynes and Dr. Yoshinori Yamano from Shionogi Inc. for their efforts obtaining published literature on cefiderocol.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Summer research student Karyn Wiebe received a stipend from Shionogi Inc. for data collation and preparation of tables and figures.

Conflict of interest

George Zhanel has received research grant funding from Shionogi Inc. Alyssa Golden, Sheryl Zelenitsky, Karyn Wiebe, Courtney Lawrence, Heather Adam, Temilolu Idowu, Ronald Domalaon, Frank Schweizer, Michael Zhanel, Philippe Lagacé-Wiens, Andrew Walkty, Joseph Lynch and James Karlowsky have no conflicts to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:4943–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB, Kallen AJ. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:60–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buehrle DJ, Shields RK, Clarke LG, Potoski BA, Clancy CJ, Hong Nguyen M. Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: risk factors for mortality and microbiologic treatment failure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e01243-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Higgins PG, Dammhayn C, Hackel M, Seifert H. Global spread of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;65:233–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance global report on surveillance [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/.
  6. 6.
    Zhanel GG, Chung P, Adam H, Zelenitsky S, Denisuik A, Schweizer F, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam: a novel cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Drugs. 2014;74:31–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hackel MA, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Karlowsky JA, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against a recent collection of clinically relevant Gram-negative bacilli from North America and Europe, including carbapenem-nonsusceptible isolates (SIDERO-WT-2014 study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00093-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hackel MA, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Karlowsky JA, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of the siderophore cephalosporin, cefiderocol, against carbapenem-nonsusceptible and multidrug-resistant isolates of Gram-negative bacilli collected worldwide in 2014 to 2016. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01968-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhanel GG, Lawson CD, Adam H, Schweizer F, Zelenitsky S, Lagacé-Wiens PRS, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam: a novel cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Drugs. 2013;73:159–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlet J, Jarlier V, Harbarth S, Voss A, Goossens H, Pittet D. Ready for a world without antibiotics? The Pensières antibiotic resistance call to action. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012;1:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohira N, West J, Ito A, Ito-Horiyama T, Nakamura R, Sato T, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a siderophore cephalosporin, S-649266, against Enterobacteriales clinical isolates, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:729–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Portsmouth S, van Veenhuyzen D, Echols R, Machida M, Arjona Ferreira JC, Ariyasu M, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a novel siderophore antibiotic cefiderocol versus imipenem/cilastatin for complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(12):1319–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunn G. Ceftizoxime and other third-generation cephalosporins: structure-activity relationships. J Antimicrob Chemother Chemother. 1982;10(Suppl C):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neu HC. β-lactam antibiotics: structural relationships affecting in vitro activity and pharmacologic properties. Rev Infect Dis. 1986;8:237–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ito A, Nishikawa T, Matsumoto S, Yoshizawa H, Sato T, Nakamura R, et al. Siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol utilizes ferric iron transporter systems for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:7396–401.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ito A, Sato T, Ota M, Takemura M, Nishikawa T, Toba S, et al. In vitro antibacterial properties of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01454-17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ito A, Toba S, Nishikawa T, Oota M, Kanazawa S, Fukuhara N, et al. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: binding affinity to PBP and in vitro bactericidal activity. In: 25th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; Copenhagen. 2015.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ito-Horiyama T, Ishii Y, Ito A, Sato T, Nakamura R, Fukuhara N, et al. Stability of novel siderophore cephalosporin S-649266 against clinically relevant carbapenemases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:4384–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Domalaon R, Idowu T, Zhanel GG, Schweizer F. Antibiotic hybrids: the next generation of agents and adjuvants against Gram-negative pathogens? Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018;31:e00077-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leemans E, Fisher JF, Mobashery S. The β-lactam antibiotics: their future in the face of resistance. In: Marinelli F, Genilloud O, editors. Antimicrob. new old mol. Fight against multi-resistant Bact. Switzerland AG: Springer; 2014. p. 59–84.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacoby GA. AmpC beta-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22:161–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bush K, Jacoby GA. Updated functional classification of β-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:969–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazmierczak KM, Biedenbach DJ, Hackel M, Rabine S, De Jonge BLM, Bouchillon SK, et al. Global dissemination of bla KPC into bacterial species beyond Klebsiella pneumoniae and in vitro susceptibility to ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam-avibactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:4490–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Duin D, Doi Y. The global epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Virulence. 2017;8:460–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Köhler T, Michea-Hamzehpour M, Epp SF, Pechere JC. Carbapenem activities against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: respective contributions of OprD and efflux systems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:424–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ito A, Nishikawa T, Matsumoto S, Fukuhara N, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, et al. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: II. Impact of active transport via iron regulated outer membrane proteins on resistance selection. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ito A, Toba S, Nishikawa T, Kohira N, Sato T, Tsuji M, et al. Contribution of active iron transporters and binding ability to penicillin binding proteins of cefiderocol (S-649266) to its antibacterial/bactericidal activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. In: ASM Microbe 2017; New Orleans. 2017.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olofsson SK, Cars O. Optimizing drug exposure to minimize selection of antibiotic resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:S129–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andersson DI. Improving predictions of the risk of resistance development against new and old antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:894–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kohira N, Nakamura R, Ito A, Nishikawa T, Ota M, Sato T, et al. Resistance acquisition studies of cefiderocol by serial passage and in vitro pharmacodynamic model under human simulated exposure. In: ASM Microbe 2018; Atlanta. 2018.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tsuji M, Kazmierczak K, Hackel M, Echols R, Yamano Y, Sahm D. Cefiderocol (S-649266) susceptibility against globally isolated meropenem non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria containing serine and metallo-carbapenemase genes. In: ASM Microbe 2018; Atlanta. 2018.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yamano Y, Tsuji M, Hackel MA, Echols R, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against globally collected carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacteria including isolates resistant to ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and colistin: SIDERO-CR-2014/2016 study. In: 27th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; Vienna. 2017.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsuji M, Hackel M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Sahm DF. Surveillance of cefiderocol in vitro activity against Gram-negative clinical isolates collected in Europe: SIDERO-WT-2014. In: 27th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; Vienna. 2017.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tsuji M, Hackel MA, Echols R, Yamano Y, Sahm DF. Global surveillance of cefiderocol (S-649266) against Gram-negative clinical strains collected in North America: SIDERO-WT-2014. In: ASM Microbe 2017; New Orleans. 2017.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hackel M, Tsuji M, Echols R, Sahm D. In vitro antibacterial activity of cefiderocol (S-649266) against Gram-negative clinical strains collected in North America and Europe (SIDERO-WT-2014 study). In: IDWeek; New Orleans. 2016.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsuji M, Yamaguchi T, Nakamura R, Kanazawa S, Ito-Horiyama T, Sato T, et al. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: In vitro activity against Gram-negative bacteria isolated in Japan including carbapenem resistant strains. In: IDWeek; San Diego. 2015.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tsuji M, Hackel M, Echols R, Yamano Y, Sahm DF. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against globally collected carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria isolated from urinary tract source: SIDERO-CR-2014/2016. In: IDWeek; San Diego. 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ito A, Kohira N, Yoshizawa H, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, et al. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: I. In vitro activity against Gram-negative bacteria including multidrug-resistant strains. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsuji M, Kohira N, Nakamura R, Sato T, Yamano Y. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: in vitro combination effect of S-649266 and other antibiotics against Gram-negative bacteria. In: 26th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; Amsterdam. 2016.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jacobs MR, Abdelhamed AM, Good CE, Rhoads DD, Hujer KM, Hujer AM, et al. In vitro activity of cefiderocol (S-649266), a siderophore cephalosporin, against Enterobacteriaceae with defined extended-spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases. In: IDWeek; San Francisco. 2018.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsuji M, Hackel M, Echols R, Yamano Y, Sahm D. In vitro activity of cefiderocol against Gram-negative clinical isolates collected in North America from urinary tract source: SIDERO-WT-2014/SIDERO-WT-2015. In: IDWeek; San Diego. 2017.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Falagas M, Skalidis T, Vardakas K, Legakis N, Tsiplakou S, Papaioannou V, et al. Activity of cefiderocol (S-649266) against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria collected from inpatients in Greek hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:1704–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dobias J, Dénervaud-Tendon V, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Activity of the novel siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36:2319–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tsuji M, Hackel M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Sahm DF. The in vitro activity of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, against a global collection of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. In: 27th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; Vienna. 2017.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shields RK, Kline EG, Jones CE, Mettus RT, Clancy CJ, Hong Nguyen M, et al. Cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentrations against ceftazidime-avibactam susceptible and resistant carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. In: ASM Microbe 2018; Atlanta. 2018.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. M100, 28th ed; Wayne. 2018.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 20776-1:2006. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems—susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices—part 1: reference method for testing the in vitro. 2006.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ito A, Ishibashi N, Kitanishi K, Osaki H, Sato T, Tsuji M, et al. Contribution of chelating ability with iron(III) and the utilization of iron transporters through the outer membrane to the in vitro activity of cefiderocol (S-649266) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In: ASM Microbe 2017; New Orleans. 2017.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saisho Y, Katsube T, White S, Fukase H, Shimada J. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin for Gram-negative bacteria, in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e02163-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Katsube T, Echols R, Arjona Ferreira JC, Krenz HK, Berg JK, Galloway C. Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin for Gram-negative bacterial infections: pharmacokinetics and safety in subjects with renal impairment. J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;57:584–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Katsube T, Wajima T, Ishibashi T, Arjona Ferreira JC, Echols R. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation of cefiderocol, a parenteral siderophore cephalosporin, for dose adjustment based on renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e01381-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kawaguchi N, Katsube T, Echols R, Wajima T. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of cefiderocol, a parenteral siderophore cephalosporin, in healthy subjects, subjects with various degrees of renal function, and patients with complicated urinary tract infection or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01391-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nakamura R, Toba S, Ito A, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Shimada J. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: V. Pharmacodynamic assessment in murine thigh infection models. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Horiyama T, Toba S, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Shimada J. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: VI. Magnitude of PK/PD parameter required for efficacy in murine lung infection model. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Horiyama T, Toba S, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Shimada J. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: VII. Magnitude of PK/PD parameter required for efficacy in murine thigh infection model. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ghazi IM, Monogue ML, Tsuji M, Nicolau DP. Pharmacodynamics of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa neutropenic murine thigh model. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51:206–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Monogue ML, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Echols R, Nicolaua DP. Efficacy of humanized exposures of cefiderocol (S-649266) against a diverse population of Gram-negative bacteria in a murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e01022-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matsumoto S, Singley CM, Hoover J, Nakamura R, Echols R, Rittenhouse S, et al. Efficacy of cefiderocol against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in immunocompetent-rat respiratory tract infection models recreating human plasma pharmacokinetics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00700–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ito A, Kohira N, Bouchillon SK, West J, Rittenhouse S, Sader HS, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of S-649266, a catechol-substituted siderophore cephalosporin, when tested against non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:670–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Horiyama T, Singley CM, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Echols R, Rittenhouse S, et al. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: VIII. Efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in rat lung infection model with humanized exposure profile of 2 g dose with 1 h infusion. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nakamura R, Toba S, Tsuji M, Yamano Y, Shimada J. S-649266, a novel siderophore cephalosporin: IV. In vivo efficacy in various murine infection models. In: 54th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ghazi IM, Monogue ML, Tsuji M, Nicolau DP. Humanized exposures of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, display sustained in vivo activity against siderophore-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharmacology. 2018;101:278–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Portsmouth S, van Veenhuyzen D, Echols R, Machida M, Arjona Ferreira JC, Ariyasu M, et al. Clinical response of cefiderocol compared with imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections with or without pyelonephritis or acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis: results from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study (APEKS-cUTI). In: IDWeek; San Diego. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • George G. Zhanel
    • 1
    • 7
    Email author
  • Alyssa R. Golden
    • 1
  • Sheryl Zelenitsky
    • 2
  • Karyn Wiebe
    • 2
  • Courtney K. Lawrence
    • 2
  • Heather J. Adam
    • 1
    • 3
  • Temilolu Idowu
    • 4
  • Ronald Domalaon
    • 4
  • Frank Schweizer
    • 1
    • 4
  • Michael A. Zhanel
    • 1
  • Philippe R. S. Lagacé-Wiens
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew J. Walkty
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ayman Noreddin
    • 5
  • Joseph P. Lynch III
    • 6
  • James A. Karlowsky
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Max Rady College of Medicine, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.College of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Diagnostic Services, Shared HealthWinnipegCanada
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  5. 5.College of PharmacyUniversity of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  6. 6.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Clinical ImmunologyThe David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Clinical MicrobiologyHealth Sciences CentreWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations