Abstract
The use of β-lactamase inhibitors in combination with β-lactam antibiotics is currently the most successful strategy to combat a specific resistance mechanism. Their broad spectrum of activity originates from the ability of respective inhibitors to inactivate a wide range of β-lactamases produced by Gram-positive, Gram-negative, anaerobic and even acid-fast pathogens. Clinical experience confirms their effectiveness in the empirical treatment of respiratory, intra-abdominal, and skin and soft tissue infections. There is evidence to suggest that they are efficacious in treating patients with neutropenic fever and nosocomial infections, especially in combination with other agents. β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are particularly useful against mixed infections. Their role in treating various multi-resistant pathogens such as Acinetobacter species and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are gaining importance. Although, generally, they do not constitute reliable therapy against extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers, their substitution in place of cephalosporins appears to reduce emergence of the latter pathogens. Similarly, their use may also curtail the emergence of other resistant pathogens such as Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are generally well tolerated and their oral forms provide effective outpatient therapy against many commonly encountered infections. In certain scenarios, they could even be more cost-effective than conventional combination therapies. With the accumulation of so much clinical experience, their role in the management of infections is now becoming more clearly defined.
Similar content being viewed by others
Growing bacterial resistance is a global emergency such that direct targeting and reversal of the underlying resistant mechanisms has become imperative.[1] Currently the use of β-lactamase inhibitors (clavulanic acid [clavulanate], sulbactam, tazobactam) is the most successful strategy to restore the efficacy of β-lactam antibiotics. This article reviews the pharmacology, clinical experience, implications and limitations pertaining to these drugs with a view to defining their current role in clinical practice.
1. β-Lactamases
β-Lactamases hydrolyse the amide bond in the β-lactam ring and prevent the active drug from reaching target penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). The latter are transpeptidases, carboxypeptidases and endopeptidases, the enzymes responsible for cross-linkages between peptidoglycans within bacterial cell walls. Over 340 β-lactamases have been described and are classified according to their substrate profile (penicillinases, cephalosporinases, carbapenemases) and susceptibility to inhibition by clavulanate (e.g. Bush functional groups 1–4); or molecular weight and genetic determinants (Ambler classes A-D).[2] The majority of Gram-negative bacteria, staphylococci, anaerobes and even mycobacteria[3] produce β-lactamases (table I); while streptococci, pneumococci and most enterococci do not. As they could be encoded chromosomally or by plasmids, wide distribution of resistance ensues. The most common β-lactamases produced by Enterobacteriaceae, such as TEM-1/-2 and SHV-1, and staphylococcal penicillinases (all belonging to Bush group 2/Ambler class A), are generally plasmid-mediated. These enzymes can be effectively inhibited by β-lactamase inhibitors unless the latter are overwhelmed by β-lactamase hyperproduction.[4,5] β-lactamases produced by anaerobes, particularly from Bacteroides and Fusobacterium species are also susceptible.[6,7]
Higher generation cephalosporins initially designed to escape from enzymatic degradation are now losing merit, as single step mutations from the basic enzymes referred to as the TEM/SHV series create extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) [e.g. TEM 3–26, SHV 2–6]. Thus, in addition to penicillins, they are capable of inactivating antibiotics, such as ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and aztreonam (all possessing aminothiazole-oxime groups), to varying extents.[2] By and large, ESBLs are readily inhibited by available inhibitors in vitro. However, at least nine types of ‘clavulanate resistant TEM’ mutants (also known as inhibitor-resistant TEMs or IRTs) have been recognised.[5] With few exceptions, chromosomally encoded broad-spectrum cephalosporinases (Bush 1/Ambler class C) are intrinsically inhibitor non-susceptible (table I). Besides being inducible by various β-lactams, including certain cephalosporins, imipenem and even clavulanate, derepressed/mutated ampC gene complexes lead to constitutive hyper-production of the respective β-lactamase.[5] Transposition of these resistant genes onto plasmids may facilitate their wide spread dissemination.[5] β-lactamase inhibitors may also be considered ineffective in situations where ESBL production co-exists with Ambler class C β-lactamase hyperproduction, or when other resistant mechanisms predominate (PBP alterations, drug efflux pumps, or change of membrane permeability due to loss of porins).[2]
2. Pharmacology
2.1 Pharmacodynamics
Clavulanate, sulbactam and tazobactam are the only β-lactamase inhibitors currently available for clinical use. Clavulanate is produced naturally by Streptomyces clavulgerus, whereas sulbactam and tazobactam are synthetic penicillanic acid sulfones structurally related to penicillin.[4] They irreversibly inhibit β-lactamases via acyl-enzyme complex formation, which allows the intact accompanying penicillin or cephalosporin to exhibit time-dependent bacterial killing (usually through binding to PBP-1 and -3). Only sulbactam possesses intrinsic antimicrobial activity, exerted through PBP-2 targets. The latter property is exploited with success against infections due to Acinetobacter species, Bacteroides fragilis and glycopeptide intermediate-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (GISA), and also provides synergism with β-lactams in other scenarios.[7–9]
β-lactamase inhibitors lower the corresponding minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against individual bacterial isolates. For instance, against β-lactamase producing Haemophilus influenzae, addition of sulbactam or clavulanate lowered the MIC of cefoperazone or amoxicillin from 0.25–0.5 to 0.06 mg/L and >64 to 1.0 mg/L, respectively.[7,10] The possibility that inoculum effect (usually inferred whenever MICs increase in the presence of higher bacterial counts) may be partially redressed by the addition of inhibitors remains controversial.[11]
While all three inhibitors in conventional doses are regarded as clinically equivalent at counteracting common (TEM-1/SHV-1) β-lactamases, considerable differences exist towards various ESBLs, class C enzymes and those released by anaerobes.[4,7,12] In this context, tazobactam provides the broadest spectrum of inhibition. Investigation of carbapenem derivatives that inhibit carbapenemase and certain class C β-lactamases, are now underway.[13] Clavulanate, but not sulbactam or tazobactam, induces class C β-lactamases in vitro, raising concerns that during treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections with ticarcillin/clavulanate, the effect of ticarcillin may become compromised.[14] In this context, piperacillin or cefoperazone have less induction potential than carbenicillin, cefazolin, cefoxitin, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone and cefotaxime, and are therefore preferred in combination with inhibitors.[14]
2.2 Pharmacokinetics
The perceived need for ‘drug partners’ to have similar elimination rates in order to maintain a fixed β-lactam/inhibitor concentration ratio in target tissues (even in the presence of disease states, e.g. renal failure), also restricts the scope for such combinations (table II).[15] The addition of inhibitor does not ameliorate the need for frequent administration; β-lactam serum concentration above MIC for >40% of the time is necessary to optimise bacterial killing and reduce emergence of resistant strains.[16] The elimination half-lives of inhibitors range from 0.5–1.0 hours, and the usual administration interval of drug combinations is 6–8 hours. Exceptionally, intravenous cefoperazone/sulbactam and oral ampicillin/sulbactam may be given 12 hourly because of their longer half-lives (up to 2.6 hours for cefoperazone) when used in combination.[17–19] For serious infections, cefoperazone/sulbactam should be given as 2g doses, although for mild infections involving organisms with a relatively low MIC, a lower dose may suffice. This is because peak post-infusion concentrations following cefoperazone 2g are sufficiently high (exceed 140 mg/L).[18,19]
Whereas tazobactam, sulbactam and most accompanying β-lactams are excreted via the renal route, clavulanate undergoes extensive metabolism into inactive metabolites. In patients with renal failure for whom the dosage interval of these combinations is usually increased (guided by creatinine clearance), the resultant deficiency of clavulanate relative to ticarcillin is believed to reduce bacterial killing.[21] Excretion of cefoperazone in bile, offers a theoretical advantage for treating biliary tract infections with cefoperazone/sulbactam.[17,22] Generally β-lactamase inhibitors distribute well into various body fluids and tissues (e.g. middle ear, lung, biliary tract, peritoneum), with sulbactam having the largest volume of distribution.[15] In contrast to higher generation cephalosporins, data regarding cerebrospinal fluid penetration of these combination products is meagre. Thus, to date they are not recommended for treating central nervous system infections.
Orally, sulbactam together with ampicillin are not used as a mixture but as the combined double-ester prodrug sultamicillin. The latter is metabolically cleaved into its two constituents after being absorbed. In contrast to ampicillin alone, like amoxicillin/clavulanate, the ampicillin/sulbactam prodrug is much more readily and consistently absorbed from the gut. Thus orally, amoxicillin/clavulanate and ampicillin/sulbactam both attain high systemic bioavailability (about 90 and 80%, respectively), and depending on the formulation, twice or three time daily dose administration generally suffices.[23,24] Since it is more convenient and cost-effective, the oral route is therefore recommended whenever feasible and appropriate.[25]
2.3 Adverse Effects
β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are generally well tolerated. Compared with taking the β-lactam component alone, the incidence of adverse effects, namely, diarrhoea, abnormal liver function tests (typically mild and reversible) and skin rashes, have been reported to be slightly higher.[4,20,23,24] Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea occurs less frequently with piperacillin/tazobactam than cephalosporins, which is possibly related to the activity against anaerobes of the former.[26] Ampicillin/sulbactam or amoxicillin/clavulanate are more controversial in this respect.[23,24] In contrast, oral amoxicillin/clavulanate has been associated with non-infective, clavulanate dose-dependent diarrhoea in up to 10% of treated persons and possibly more frequently in children.[23] Clavulanate co-administered with allopurinol increases the risk of skin rash.[20] Very rarely, clavulanate also induces reversible, non-fatal cholestatic hepatitis; advanced age, male gender and prolonged therapy being independent risk factors.[27] Cefoperazone-related coagulopathy and ticarcillin- or piperacillin-related salt overload, are other special considerations relevant to the use of these drug combinations.[4]
3. Role of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations in Various Clinical Settings
The overall antibacterial spectrum of these drug combinations depends on the intrinsic activity of the β-lactam (PBP binding, drug permeation, etc.) as well as the characteristics of the individual inhibitor towards different β-lactamases. As noted (table I), methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), H. influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Bacteroides spp. and many Enterobacteriaceae species, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella and Proteus spp. are generally susceptible. Streptococci, pneumococci, enterococci and even Pseudomonas spp. are susceptible depending on the accompanying β-lactam. Combinations containing piperacillin or cefoperazone offer the broadest antibacterial spectrum. When used alone, even potent cephalosporins such as ceftazidime will not provide satisfactory activity against Gram-positive pathogens or anaerobes.
Accumulating experience with β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations has resulted in a better appreciation of their role in clinical practice. Importantly, they are indicated for the empirical treatment of a variety of infections (table III), particularly against mixed infections involving anaerobes and against certain multi-resistant pathogens responsible for nosocomial infections.[28,29] When compared with more conventional regimens, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are relatively well tolerated and are at least as efficacious if not superior (table IV). The available oral formulations also provide convenient outpatient or step-down therapy against susceptible pathogens.
3.1 Respiratory Tract Infections
Common bacterial pathogens involved in sinusitis and otitis media are H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Oral amoxicillin/clavulanate or ampicillin/sulbactam provide effective, convenient and relatively well tolerated empirical treatment for this purpose in both adult and paediatric general practice.[23,24] Whereas acute bacterial pharyngitis is mostly due to non-β-lactamase producing group A streptococci, amoxicillin/clavulanate therapy has been recommended for recurrent culture-positive patients in whom it achieves higher rates of pathogen eradication; killing of co-pathogenic anaerobes in the tonsillar area being the putative explanation.[41] Similarly, ampicillin/sulbactam and piperacillin/tazobactam are suitable against oral cavity, and head and neck infections in otherwise healthy and immunocompromised patients, respectively.[42,43] Apparently, amoxicillin/clavulanate reduces penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae (PRSP) nasal carriage in the community more effectively than oral cephalosporins, macrolides or co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole).[44] The slightly lower MIC of amoxicillin in vitro compared with penicillin is a possible explanation. Despite a net reduction in PRSP nasal carriage under these circumstances, ironically the proportion of S. pneumoniae that are penicillin-resistant increases, presumably because amoxicillin/clavulanate has more effect on penicillin-sensitive than penicillin-resistant pneumococci. In view of these observations, the impact of amoxicillin/clavulanate on the PRSP pandemic warrants further study.[45]
The role of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in treating community acquired pneumonia (CAP) has been discussed in several authoritative published guidelines.[30,46] Depending on local prevalence, empirical antibacterial therapy should be directed against S. pneumoniae (including PRSP), H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis, MSSA, ‘atypical pathogens’ (Mycoplasma, Chlamydia and Legionella spp.) and, under appropriate clinical settings, Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes. According to a worldwide surveillance programme, up to 99% of H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis clinical isolates are sensitive to amoxicillin/clavulanate, which is comparable or superior to most oral cephalosporins.[8] In the same study, less than 3% of S. pneumoniae had in vitro resistance to amoxicillin/clavulanate; despite an overall resistance of 10–18% to penicillin and 9–39% to oral cephalosporins or macrolides.
PRSP mediate resistance via mutations of PBP. According to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) guidelines, an MIC breakpoint of 0.1–1.0 mg/L could be used to define PRSP with intermediate penicillin resistance. However, the corresponding MIC breakpoints are now regarded as overestimates, as they were originally derived for the treatment of meningitis not pneumonia. It is now accepted that so long as the serum concentration exceeds the MIC during 40–50% of the dose administration interval, an isolate may be regarded as susceptible to penicillins.[47] In general, for isolates with an amoxicillin MIC ≤2 mg/L such drug concentrations can be readily achieved even by the oral route (figure 1).[48] Theoretically, a single 875mg oral dose of amoxicillin provides about 42% coverage time above MIC against a PRSP isolate that has an MIC of 2 mg/L during a 12-hourly dose administration interval. Similarly, amoxicillin 500mg administered every 8 hours provides a corresponding coverage time of about 65% against a PRSP isolate that has an MIC of 1 mg/L.[49]
Few other oral β-lactams show such favourable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.[49] Moreover against PRSP, amoxicillin shows greatest in vitro activity followed by ampicillin, penicillin, piperacillin and ticarcillin in that order.[42,46] Among cephalosporins, cefotaxime or ceftriaxone constitute more reliable therapy for PRSP because they have lower MICs against S. pneumoniae than cefuroxime or ceftazidime.[30,46] Although requiring further evaluation, oral amoxicillin/clavulanate is seemingly an attractive treatment option for patients with mild CAP or as step-down/outpatient therapy, especially in regions where intermediate penicillin-resistant and/or high grade (via target modification) macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae are prevalent. Under these circumstances, empirical macrolide monotherapy may become unreliable. Since β-lactam antibiotics like amoxicillin/clavulanate do not possess activity against Mycoplasma, Chlamydia or Legionella species, dual therapy with a macrolide is usually recommended.
For the more seriously ill patients with CAP in general medical wards and intensive care unit (ICU) settings, amoxicillin/clavulanate (if available), ampicillin/sulbactam or piperacillin/tazobactam should be used intravenously initially, so as to attain high drug concentrations quickly. In this context, concomitant administration of a macrolide or fluoroquinolone is again preferable.[30,46] However, in a retrospective analysis[50] of CAP in elderly patients, the use of β-lactam/inhibitor combinations together with a macrolide was associated with a higher 30-day mortality than other regimens. Ironically, the latter regimens included β-lactam/inhibitor combinations used alone. The explanation postulated was that a macrolide was added to an already failing therapy. Notably, ticarcillin/clavulanate was associated with a higher mortality rate than ampicillin/sulbactam or piperacillin/tazobactam. This observation appears compatible with the intrinsic differences in activity of the respective β-lactams against S. pneumoniae. Further prospective studies are clearly warranted to resolve this issue.
Whereas β-lactam antibiotics are generally still effective against S. pneumoniae, increasingly encountered resistance to fluoroquinolones, especially among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has fuelled moves to relegate fluoroquinolone monotherapy from among the first-line drugs to treat such respiratory infections.[51] β-lactam/inhibitor combinations are also useful in treating aspiration pneumonia because of their activity against anaerobes, such activity is not possessed by many cephalosporins.[17,30,46] Cost-effectiveness issues pertaining to the use of these drugs in CAP need to be addressed further, as generally they are more expensive than their β-lactam components alone.[52,53]
For nosocomial and ventilator-associated pneumonia, piperacillin/tazobactam or cefoperazone/sulbactam provide suitable empirical therapy, as MSSA, Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa are all generally susceptible.[7,8,31] Clinical success rates approaching 80% have been demonstrated for piperacillin/tazobactam, which is comparable to rates achieved with ceftazidime plus amikacin or monotherapy with imipenem/cilastatin.[4,31,32] Nevertheless, in patients with serious culture-documented pseudomonal pneumonia, it is not unusual to employ a combination regimen that also includes ciprofloxacin or an aminoglycoside to facilitate possible synergism.[29,30,46] Ticarcillin/clavulanate is less reliable in this respect and this is possibly related to the intrinsically higher MIC of ticarcillin against P. aeruginosa.[14,17]
3.2 Urinary Tract Infections
In uncomplicated urinary infections, >80% of which are due to E. coli, at one time cure rates of 80–90% were reported after treatment with oral amoxicillin/clavulanate or ampicillin/sulbactam.[23,24] These success rates may no longer be attainable, because of the emergence of certain E. coli and Proteus mirabilis strains that encode for inhibitor-resistant β-lactamases (IRT) or deploy alternative resistance mechanisms. Such resistance has been reported in up to 7–8% of urinary isolates.[2,5,54] Piperacillin/tazobactam tends not to select for these pathogens and remains effective even in complicated urinary tract infections,[55] consistent with the greater activity of tazobactam than clavulanate or sulbactam against IRT strains.[5] Despite the limitations of β-lactam/inhibitor combinations in treating systemic infections by ESBL producing pathogens, in exclusively lower urinary tract infections they may nevertheless overwhelm such pathogens by achieving very high urinary drug concentrations due to their renal elimination.[1,2,5,11,56]
3.3 Intra-Abdominal Infections
For the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, such as peritonitis, abscesses and biliary sepsis, empirical use of antibiotics is usually directed against aerobic Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes, such as B. fragilis. β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations containing sulbactam and tazobactam are particularly useful because, besides activity against gram-negative bacilli, they have comparable efficacy to clindamycin, cefoxitin or metronidazole against anaerobes.[6] Standard regimens involving combinations consisting of one of the latter agents together with cephalosporins and aminoglycosides are complicated and adverse effects are frequent.[17] In comparison, use of piperacillin/tazobactam is relatively simple and avoids drug concentration monitoring. Moreover, as clinical response rates approach 90%, this β-lactam/inhibitor combination appears as efficacious and possibly more cost-effective than older regimens or imipenem/cilastatin monotherapy.[32,33,57] Cefoperazone/sulbactam also achieved similar results.[34] Similar evidence supports the use of sulbactam combinations for surgical chemoprophylaxis, especially in the course of elective colorectal surgery to prevent post-operative wound infections.[58] However, the increasing extent of B. fragilis resistance to sulbactam (up to 7%) deserves attention.[6,59] Notably, β-lactam/inhibitor combinations containing ampicillin, amoxicillin and piperacillin (but not ticarcillin or cefoperazone) enable treatment of infections involving enterococci, which possibly take on pathogenic significance in immunocompromised patients.[17]
3.4 Neutropenic Fever
Neutropenic fever is regarded as a medical emergency, mandating immediate, empirical intervention with broad-spectrum antibacterials, although the responsible pathogens are frequently difficult to identify. The widespread use of antibacterial prophylaxis against Gram-negative pathogens appears to have rendered such patients liable to Gram-positive bacterial infections, particularly those due to viridans streptococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci.[29,60] In this context, piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin was reported to yield superior clinical results to ceftazidime plus amikacin and a lower incidence of superinfections, and was as efficacious as cefepime plus amikacin.[4,35,36] In other comparisons, cefoperazone/sulbactam plus amikacin achieved similar efficacy to imipenem/cilastatin, whereas ticarcillin/clavulanate appeared less satisfactory.[17,37] While piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin has become an accepted regime for neutropenic fever, the use of piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy without the addition of an aminoglycoside is more controversial.[61] In low-risk patients expected to have <10 days of neutropenia and no other co-morbidity, empirical therapy for fever with oral amoxicillin/clavulanate plus ciprofloxacin was evidently as effective and well tolerated as intravenous therapy with a third-generation cephalosporin ± amikacin.[38,61] Thus, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations hold out promise for preventing nosocomial infections possibly by virtue of out-patient therapy. Some authorities recommend amoxicillin/clavulanate as ‘standby’ therapy for fever in asplenic patients since the latter is active against S. pneumoniae, H. Influenzae and meningococci; but this practice still requires verification.[62]
3.5 Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
While skin and soft tissue infections, such as cellulitis, are commonly caused by S. aureus or group A streptococci, deep/surgical wound infections or those in compromised hosts (e.g. diabetic/ischaemic foot infections, decubitus sores) are often polymicrobial and involve anaerobes and Gram-negative pathogens. Although amoxicillin/clavulanate or ampicillin/sulbactam (intravenously and even orally) are considered effective alternatives to treat superficial infections, in general they offer no additional advantage over cloxacillin or cefazolin and are more costly.[23,24] However, amoxicillin/clavulanate is considered a drug of choice in the empirical treatment of infections related to bites by cats and dogs, as it is active against incriminated pathogens such as Pasteurella multocida.[63]
β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations nevertheless provide the necessary broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity to overcome mixed infections.[64] Clinically, ampicillin/sulbactam is as efficacious but more cost-effective than imipenem/cilastatin in treating diabetic foot infections and comparable to cefoxitin in managing cellulitis in intravenous drug users.[39,40] Piperacillin/tazobactam has also been used successfully in more serious/complicated infections.[4,64] Whether substitution of cefazolin and cefoxitin by β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations can reduce the selection pressure on ampC mutants and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is still to be resolved.[65] Clinical evidence also supports the use of such combinations in various gynaecological infections (e.g. pelvic inflammatory disease) but additional cover against Chlamydia spp. is advisable.[4,17]
3.6 Special Pathogens & Nosocomial Infections
MRSA manifests resistance by virtue of mutated PBPs with low β-lactam binding affinity, thus rendering it non-susceptible to β-lactam/inhibitor combinations. Occasionally, β-lactamase hyperproducing strains (also known as borderline oxacillin-resistant S. aureus or BORSA) may mimic MRSA phenotypically. Although appearing methicillin-resistant upon sensitivity testing, in experimental models they are susceptible to high doses of β-lactamase inhibitors and sometimes genetic testing is required to confirm their true identity.[66] According to a case report and experimental data, ampicillin/sulbactam plus arbekacin (a novel aminoglycoside) in conjunction with surgical debridement, may be effective in treating GISA, although the mechanisms involved are complex.[9,67]
Piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam and, to a lesser extent, ticarcillin/clavulanate possess satisfactory activity against Pseudomonas species.[4,17,68] Nevertheless, against known infections with such difficult to treat pathogens, it is recommended that these β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations be used with an aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone in order to exploit possible synergy.[17] Notably, in addition to activity against plasmid-mediated pseudomonal β-lactamases, tazobactam is active against some of their chromosomally mediated enzymes. Overall, susceptibility of clinical isolates to piperacillin/tazobactam is >85%, which is somewhat superior to piperacillin alone.[8] Although appearing to be an attractive therapeutic option in the context of possible rapidly emerging imipenem or ciprofloxacin resistance, other factors such as loss of porins or the presence of efflux pumps may limit its efficacy and create multi-drug resistant strains.[2,8] Among β-lactams, ticarcillin/clavulanate has unique intrinsic activity against the carbapenemase producing, multi-drug resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Depending on the results of sensitivity testing, it can therefore be used alone or synergistically with co-trimoxazole in more serious infections; overall >85% of isolates are susceptible.[8] Typically, the common nosocomial pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii is also multi-drug resistant, except to sulbactam, polymyxin and carbapenems. While the incidence of carbapenem-resistant strains is increasing, >90% of the strains retain in vitro susceptibility to ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoperazone/sulbactam.[8,69] Cefoperazone/sulbactam plus co-trimoxazole therapy has comparable clinical efficacy to the more traditional ceftazidime plus co-trimoxazole combination regimens against acute Burkholderia pseudomallei infection (melioidosis; prevalent in certain parts of south-east Asia), whereas oral amoxicillin/clavulanate is useful for suppressing relapses.[70,71]
Cutaneous infections due to Nocardia brasiliensis frequently involve β-lactamase production and can be effectively treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate.[43] The efficacy of β-lactam/inhibitor combinations against Mycobacterium species is also being recognised. Such optimism is based on in vitro data and studies in animal models involving successful treatment of infections with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, M. leprae and atypical mycobacterium species with ampicillin/sulbactam.[3] Further studies to explore the clinical relevance of β-lactam/inhibitor combinations in human mycobacterial infections are clearly warranted.
In many parts of the world, 5–25% of E. coli, and Klebsiella and Pseudomonas spp. isolates are now producing ESBLs, which is ascribed to selection pressure due to extensive use of late-generation cephalosporins.[2,8] ESBLs are susceptible to β-lactamase inhibitors; indeed β-lactam/clavulanate synergy is actually used for their detection.[5,72] For TEM-derived ESBLs, sulbactam appears to be a slightly more efficient inhibitor than tazobactam or clavulanate; whereas against SHV-derived ESBLs, clavulanate is slightly more effective.[12,73] Despite in vitro sensitivity to these antibiotics, clinical failure rates of >50% have been reported[74] as co-existing resistance mechanisms (e.g. TEM enzyme hyperproduction, concomitant AmpC expression or loss of porins) appear to be operating. Since ESBL producers carry resistance genes for other drug groups (e.g. aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones) on the same plasmid, therapeutic options are rather limited.[1] Carbapenems constitute the only reliable therapy as they are stable in the presence of all serine based β-lactamases.[74] Strategies that can be deployed to prevent the dissemination of ESBL producing pathogens include stringent infection control measures and minimising selection pressure through curtailing the use of incriminated antibacterials.[56] Multiple studies have demonstrated that restricting third-generation cephalosporin use curtails the emergence of ESBL producers, mostly by means of substituting piperacillin/tazobactam.[75–78] The low propensity of piperacillin/tazobactam to select ESBL producing and ampC mutant pathogens is also evident from in vitro observations.[12,73,79,80] Although the activity of tazobactam against Ambler class C β-lactamases (particularly for certain pseudomonal enzymes) is reported to be superior to sulbactam and clavulanate, it does not constitute reliable therapy as >50–65% of such isolates are resistant,[81] and cefepime or carbapenems are clearly more reliable treatment options.[77]
Implementing policies similar to those described in the previous paragraph has also reduced the incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhoea, rectal carriage of glycopeptide-resistant enterococci and even MRSA, which has far reaching and important implications.[26,65,82–84] Thus, in response to a rising incidence of infections due to certain resistant pathogens, strategic antibacterial rotation policies involving β-lactam/inhibitor combinations, carbapenems and extended-spectrum cephalosporins ± aminoglycosides have been proposed for ICUs.[85] Presumably because of the vast scale of β-lactamase inhibitor prescribing, IRT-producing strains are being increasingly recognised. Reduction in overall antibacterial consumption, together with optimal dose administration regimens rather than simple substitution, should be the ultimate strategy to reduce the emergence of such bacterial resistance.[56,77,86,87]
4. Conclusion
β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations have become widely used antibiotics. With better understanding of their microbiology and pharmacology, and the accumulation of clinical experience, their utility is gradually becoming established and more rational prescribing becomes possible. Besides their unique form of therapeutic efficacy, they may have a role in curbing the emergence of bacterial resistance and, in certain situations, they appear to offer greater cost-effectiveness than antibacterials used hitherto.
References
Virk A, Steckelberg JM. Clinical aspects of antimicrobial resistance. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75: 200–14
Bush K. New β-lactamases in gram-negative bacteria: diversity and impact on selection of antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 1085–9
Prabhakaran K, Harris EB, Randhawa B. Bactericidal action of ampicillin/sulbactam against intracellular mycobacteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999; 13(2): 133–5
Wright AJ. The penicillins. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 290–307
Amyes SGB. Genes and spectrum. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27 Suppl. 1: S21–8
Aldridge KE, Ashcraft D, Cambre K, et al. Multicenter survey of the changing in vitro antimicrobial susceptibilities of clinical isolates of Bacteroides fragilis group, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas, and Peptostreptococcus species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 1238–43
Williams JD. β-lactamase inhibition and in vitro activity of sulbactam and sulbactam/cefoperazone. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 494–7
SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997–1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32 Suppl. 2: S81–113, S147-155
Backo M, Gaenger E, Burkart A, et al. Treatment of experimental staphylococcal endocarditis due to a strain with reduced susceptibility in vitro to vancomycin: efficacy of ampicillinsulbactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2565–8
Schito GC, Georgopoulos A, Prieto J. Antibacterial activity of oral antibiotics against community-acquired respiratory pathogens from three European countries. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 7–11
Balko T, Karlowsky JA, PalatnickL P, et al. Characterization of inoculum effect with haemophilus influenzae and betalactams. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1999; 33: 47–58
Sirot D. Extended-spectrum plasmid-mediated β-lactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 Suppl. A: 19–34
Nagano R, Adachi Y, Imamura H, et al. Carbapenem derivatives as potential inhibitors of various β-lactamases, including class B metallo-β-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2497–503
Lister PD, Gardner VM, Sanders CC. Clavulanate induces expression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa AmpC cephalosporinase at physiologically relevant concentrations and antagonizes the antibacterial activity of ticarcillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Apr; 43(4): 882–9
De la Pena A, Derendorf H. Pharmacokinetic properties of β-lactamase inhibitors. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 37: 63–75
William AC. Does the dose matter?Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: S233–7
Munoz P, Garcia-Garrote F, Bouza E. Broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotics with β-lactamase inhibitors. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1996; 7: S9–S14
Saito A, Shimada J, Ohmori M, et al. Phase I study of sulbactam. Chemotherapy 1984; 32 Suppl. 4: 192–201
Kumada T. Phase I study of sulbactam/cefoperazone (6-times administration trial). Chemotherapy 1984; 32 Suppl. 4: 214–21
Parfitt K, Sweetman SC, Blake PS, et al. Martindale: the complete drug reference. 32th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 1999
Thomas C, Steven CB, Sabine R, et al. Comparison of ampicillin-sulbactam and ticarcillin-clavulanic acid in patients with chronic renal failure: effects of differential pharmacokinetics on serum bactericidal activity. Pharmacotherapy 1994; 14: 147–52
Nakagawa K, Momono S, Sasaki YU, et al. Preoperative administration of a sulbactam/cefoperazone mixture during cholecystectomy. Surgical Care 1990; 32(6): 875–9
Todd PA, Benfield P. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid: an update. Drugs 1990; 39: 264–307
Pitts NE, Gilbert GS, Knirsch AK, et al. Worldwide clinical experience with sultamicillin. APMIS Suppl 1989; 5: 23–4
Seto WH, Chiang TY, Kou M, et al. Hospital antibiotic prescribing successfully modified by immediate concurrent feedback. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 41: 229–34
Settle CD, Wilcox MH, Fawley WN, et al. Prospective study of the risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in elderly patients following treatment with cefotaxime or piperacillin-tazobactam. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 1217–23
Larrey D, Vial T, Micaleff A, et al. Hepatitis associated with amoxycillin-clavulanic acid combination: report of 15 cases. Gut 1992; 33: 368–71
Hedberg M, Lindqvist L, Tuner K, et al. Effect of betalactamase inhibitors on beta-lactamases from anaerobic bacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 11: 1100–4
Eugene BB. Current guidelines for the treatment and prevention of nosocomial infections. Drugs 1999; 58: 51–67
Mandell LA, Marrie TJ, Grossman RF, et al. Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian infectious diseases society and the Canadian thoracic society. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 383–421
Brun-Buisson C, Sollet JP, Schweich H. Treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with piperacillin-tazobactam/amikacin versus ceftazidime/amikacin: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 346–54
Jaccard C, Troillet N, Harbarth S, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem-cilastatin and piperacillin-tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia or peritonitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Nov; 42(11): 2966–72
Brismar B, Malmborg AS, Tunevall G, et al. Piperacillin-tazobactam versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of intraabdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2766–72
Akyurek N, Bedirli A, Kucuk KC, et al. Randomised comparison of cefoperazone-sulbactam and imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections [abstract]. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 880
Cometta A, Zinner S, de Bock R, et al. Piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin versus ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 445–52
Sanz MA, Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, et al. Cefepime plus amikacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam plus amikacin for initial antibiotic therapy in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia: results of an open, randomized, multicentre trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 79–88
Winston DJ, Bartoni K, Bruckerner DA, et al. Randomized comparison of sulbactam/cefoperazone with imipenem as empirical monotherapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 576–83
Finberg RW, Talcott JA. Fever and neutropenia: how to use a new treatment strategy. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 362–3
McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 57–63
Talan DA, Summanen PH, Finegold SM. Ampicillin/sulbactam and cefoxitin in the treatment of cutaneous and other soft tissue abscesses in patients with or without histories of injection drug abuse. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 464–71
Alan LB, Michael AG, Jack MG, et al. Diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: a practice guideline. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 574–83
Kuriyama T, Karasawa T, Nakagawa K, et al. Incidence of betalactamase production and antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic gram-negative rods isolated from pus specimens of orofacial odontogenic infections. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2001; 16: 10–5
Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R. Principle and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 689–699, 2641-2642
Goldstein FW. Penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: selection by both β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 141–4
Douglas S, Peter D. Association between antibiotic resistance and community prescribing: a critical review of bias and confounding in published studies. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: S193–205
John GB, Scott FD, Lionel AM, etal. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 347–82
Craig WA. The future: can we learn from the past? Diagn Microbial Infect Dis 1997; 27: 49–53
Thorburn CE, Knott SJ, Edwards DI. Iitn vititro activities of oral beta-lactams at concentrations achieved in humans against penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumoncocci and potential to select resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 1973–9
Auckenthaler R. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral beta-lactam antibiotics as a two-dimensional approach to their efficacy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 13–7
Gleason PP, Meehan TP, Fine JM, et al. Associations between initial antimicrobial therapy and medical outcomes for hospitalized elderly patients with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2562–72
Ho PL, Tse WS, Tsang KWT, et al. Risk factors for acquisition of levofloxacin-resistant streptococcus pneumoniae: a casecontrol study. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 701–7
Quenzer RW, Pettit KG, Arnold RJ, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of selected antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infection. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3: 1027–36
Dilip N, Ethan R, Gavin B, et al. Do guidelines for communityacquired pneumonia improve the cost-effectiveness of hospital care? Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 728–41
Chanal C, Bonnet R, De Champs C, et al. Prevalence of betalactamases among 1072 clinical stains of Proteus mirabilis: a 2 year survey in a French hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1930–5
Kaye KS, Harris AD, Gold H, et al. Risk factors for recovery of ampicillin-sulbactam resistant Escherichia coli in hospitalised patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1004–9
Lautenbach E, Patel JB, Bilker WB, et al. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumonia: risk factors for infection and impact of resistance on outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 1162–71
Davey PG, Vacani P, Parker SE, et al. Assessing cost effectiveness of antimicrobial treatment: monotherapy compared with combination therapy. Eur J Surg Suppl 1994; 573: 67–72
Claude M, Agnes C, Annick G, et al. Comparison of concentrations of sulbactam-ampicillin administered by bolus injections or bolus plus continous infusion in tissues of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 1093–7
Carmen B, Ana S, Maria G, et al. Iitn vititro susceptibility of species of the Bacteroides fragilis group to newer β-lactam agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 133–6
Ninin E, Moreau P, Andre-Richet B, et al. Longitudinal study of bacterial, viral, and fungal infections in adult recipients of bone marrow transplants. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 41–7
Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, et al. 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 730–51
Davidson RN, Wall RA. Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7: 657–60
Talan DA, Citron DM, Abrahamian FM, et al. Bacteriological analysis of infected dog and cat bites. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 85–92
Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33 Suppl. 2: S84–93
Asensio A, Guerrero A, Quereda C, et al. Colonization and infection of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: associated factors and eradication. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 20–8
Pefanis A, Thauvin-Eliopoulos C, Eliopoulos GM, et al. Activity of ampicillin-sulbactam and oxacillin in experimental endocarditis caused by beta-lactamase-hyperproducing Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 507–11
Hiramatsu K, Hanaka H, Ino T, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. J Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 40: 135–6
Lister PD. Beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations with extended-spectrum penicillins: factors influencing antibacterial activity against enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 213S-8S
Corbella X, Ariza J, Ardanuy C, et al. Efficacy of sulbactam alone and in combination with ampicillin in nosocomial infections caused by multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42: 793–802
Leelarasamee A. Burkholderia pseudomallei: the unbeatable foe? Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1998; 29: 410–5
Chetchotisakd P, Porramatikul S, Mootsikapun P, et al. Randomized, double-blind, controlled study of Cefoperazone-sulbactam plus cotrimoxazole versus ceftazidime plus cotrimoxazole for the treatment of severe melioidosis. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 29–34
Livermore DM, Brown DFJ. Detection of β-lactamase-mediated resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48 Suppl. 1: 59–64
Essack SY. Treatment options for extended-spectrum betalactamase-producers. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2000; 190: 181–4
Paterson DL. Recommendation for treatment of severe infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs). Clin Microbiol Infect 2000; 6: 460–3
Rice LB, Eckstein EC, Vente JD, et al. Ceftazidime-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates recovered at the Cleveland department of Veterans affairs medical center. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 118–24
Pena C, Pujol M, Ardanuy C, et al. Epidemiology and successful control of a large outbreak due to Klebsiella pneumoniae producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases. J Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 53–8
Drusano GL. Infection in the intensive care unit: β-lactamasemediated resistance among Enterobacteriaceae and optimal antimicrobial dosing. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27 Suppl. 1: S111–6
Calil R, Marba ST, von Nowakonski A, et al. Reduction in colonization and nosocomial infection by multiresistant bacteria in a neonatal unit after institution of educational measures and restriction in the use of cephalosporins. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 133–8
Higashitani F, Nishida K, Hyodo A, et al. Effects of tazobactam on the frequency of the emergence of resistant strains from Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii, and Proteus vulgaris (beta-lactamase derepressed mutants). J Antibiot (Tokyo) 1995; 48: 1027–33
Kadima TA, Weiner JH. Mechanism of suppression of piperacillin resistance in enterobacteria by tazobactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 2177–83
Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Marshall SA, et al. Inducible amp C beta-lactamase producing gram-negative bacilli from blood stream infections: frequency, antimicrobial susceptibility, and molecular epidemiology in a national surveillance program (SCOPE). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1997; 28: 211–9
Bradley SJ, Wilson ALT, Allen MC, et al. The control of hyperendemic glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcous spp. on a haematology unit by changing antibiotic usage. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 261–6
Quale J, Landman D, Saurina G, et al. Manipulation of a hospital antimicrobial formulary to control an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 1020–125
Sullivan A, Edlund C, Nord CE. Effect of antimicrobial agents on the ecology balance of human microflora. Lancet Infect Dis 2001; I: 101–14
Gould IM. A review of the role of antibiotic policies in the control of antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 459–65
Chaibi EB, Sirot D, Paul G, et al. Inhibitor-resistant TEM β-lactamases: phenotypic, genetic and biochemical characteristics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 447–58
Leflon-Guibout V, Speldooren V, Heym B, et al. Epidemiology survey of amoxicillin-clavulanate resistance and corresponding molecular mechanisms in Escherichia coli isolates in France: new genetic features of bla (TEM) genes. J Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 2709–14
Acknowledgements
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. Professors Yuen and Kumana have received sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies to attend international conferences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, N., Yuen, KY. & Kumana, C.R. Clinical Role of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations. Drugs 63, 1511–1524 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200363140-00006
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200363140-00006