ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of Phenotypic and Genotypic Susceptibility Testing Methods for Newer β-lactam/β-lactamase Inhibitor Combinations in Multidrug Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeftazidime-avibactam (CZA), ceftolozane-tazobactam (CT), and imipenem-relebactam (IMR) are newer β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combinations used for treatment of multidrug resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa, although resistance has already emerged. Optimal use of these agents relies on timely, accurate susceptibility testing results and understanding of local resistance mechanisms.
methods183 MDR P. aeruginosa clinical isolates were used to evaluate the performance of commercial Sensititre and Phoenix panels for CZA, CT, and IMR susceptibility testing compared to broth microdilution (BMD). Genomic resistance determinants were also predicted for each isolate with AMRFinderPlus.
resultsCategorical agreement (CA) of the Sensititre panel compared to BMD was 95.8%, 90.1%, and 95.8% for CZA, CT, and IMR, respectively. CA of the Phoenix panel was 83.0% for CZA and 85.7% for CT. The Phoenix panel was biased toward under-calling CZA resistance while error rates were acceptable for CT by the error-rate-bound method. AMRFinderPlus identified acquired β-lactamases in 4.6% of first-time patient isolates. CA of genotype with BMD was 74.9% for CZA, 91.9% for CT, and 90.7% for IMR. However, all agents had unacceptably high VME rates using genotypic testing because many phenotypically resistant isolates had no identifiable genotypic resistance determinants.
conclusionsThe Sensititre panel met standard acceptance criteria while the Phoenix panel had low CA for all tested BL/BLIs compared to BMD. Acquired β-lactamases were a rare cause of BL/BLI resistance. Further understanding of resistance mechanisms is required before phenotypic BL/BLI resistance can be reliably predicted from genotype, especially in settings where prevalence of acquired β-lactamases is low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.