CERTAIN-1 was a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study of the efficacy and safety of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. We determined susceptibility of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa baseline pathogens to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators and characterized β-lactam resistance mechanisms. Microbiologic response and clinical response were assessed in patient subsets defined by baseline pathogens that were of cefepime-, multidrug-, or carbapenem-resistant phenotype or that carried β-lactamase genes. Among Enterobacterales baseline pathogens, 26.8%, 4.1%, and 3.0% carried genes for extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, and carbapenemases, respectively. Within each treatment group, while composite success rates at Test of Cure in resistant subsets by pathogen species were similar to those by pathogen overall, composite success rates in meropenem patients were numerically lower for cefepime-resistant Escherichia coli (9/19; 47.4%) and ESBL E. coli (13/25; 52.0%) compared with E. coli overall (62/100; 62.0%). Cefepime-taniborbactam achieved composite success in 7/8 (87.5%) patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and 8/9 (88.9%) patients with Enterobacterales with a carbapenemase gene (5 OXA-48-group; 2 KPC-3; 2 NDM-1). Cefepime-taniborbactam also achieved composite success in 8/16 (50.0%) patients and clinical success in 13/16 (81.3%) patients with P. aeruginosa; corresponding rates were 4/7 (57.1%) and 6/7 (85.7%) for meropenem. Cefepime-taniborbactam demonstrated efficacy in adult cUTI patients with cefepime-, multidrug-, and carbapenem-resistant pathogens including pathogens with ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase genes.
RESULTS: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03840148.

Wagenlehner and colleagues1 demonstrated non-inferiority and superiority with respect to a primary endpoint of composite success (microbiological plus clinical) of cefepime/taniborbactam vs. meropenem in treating complicated urinary tract infections and acute pyelonephritis caused by carbapenem-susceptible gram-negative bacteria in adults. A major area of interest in real-world application of cefepime/taniborbactam is its potential role in treating carbapenem-resistant infections, which deserves further investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the most clinically relevant β-lactamases and their interplay with low outer membrane permeability on the activity of cefiderocol, ceftazidime/avibactam, aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/enmetazobactam, cefepime/taniborbactam, cefepime/zidebactam, imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, meropenem/xeruborbactam and meropenem/nacubactam against recombinant Escherichia coli strains.
METHODS: We constructed 82 E. coli laboratory transformants expressing the main β-lactamases circulating in Enterobacterales (70 expressing single β-lactamase and 12 producing double carbapenemase) under high (E. coli TG1) and low (E. coli HB4) permeability conditions. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined by reference broth microdilution.
RESULTS: Aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/zidebactam, cefiderocol, meropenem/xeruborbactam and meropenem/nacubactam were active against all E. coli TG1 transformants. Imipenem/relebactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, cefepime/taniborbactam and cefepime/enmetazobactam were also highly active, but unstable against most of MBL-producing transformants. Combination of β-lactamases with porin deficiency (E. coli HB4) did not significantly affect the activity of aztreonam/avibactam, cefepime/zidebactam, cefiderocol or meropenem/nacubactam, but limited the effectiveness of the rest of carbapenem- and cefepime-based combinations. Double-carbapenemase production resulted in the loss of activity of most of the compounds tested, an effect particularly evident for those E. coli HB4 transformants in which MBLs were present.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the promising activity that cefiderocol and new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors have against recombinant E. coli strains expressing widespread β-lactamases, including when these are combined with low permeability or other enzymes. Aztreonam/avibactam, cefiderocol, cefepime/zidebactam and meropenem/nacubactam will help to mitigate to some extent the urgency of new compounds able to resist MBL action, although NDM enzymes represent a growing challenge against which drug development efforts are still needed.

The impact of penicillin-binding protein 3 (PBP3) modifications that may be identified in Escherichia coli was evaluated with respect to susceptibility to β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations including ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, and to cefiderocol. A large series of E. coli recombinant strains producing broad-spectrum β-lactamases was evaluated. While imipenem-relebactam showed a similar activity regardless of the PBP3 background, susceptibility to other molecules tested was affected at various levels. This was particularly the case for ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam-avibactam, and cefepime-taniborbactam.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa are global health threats. Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational β-lactam and β-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa expressing serine and metallo-β-lactamases.
METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned hospitalized adults with complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours for 7 days; this duration could be extended up to 14 days in case of bacteremia. The primary outcome was both microbiologic and clinical success (composite success) on trial days 19 to 23 in the microbiologic intention-to-treat (microITT) population (patients who had a qualifying gram-negative pathogen against which both study drugs were active). A prespecified superiority analysis of the primary outcome was performed after confirmation of noninferiority.
RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who underwent randomization, 436 (66.0%) were included in the microITT population. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years, and 38.1% were 65 years of age or older. In the microITT population, 57.8% of the patients had complicated UTI, 42.2% had acute pyelonephritis, and 13.1% had bacteremia. Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009). Differences in treatment response were sustained at late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and clinical success. Adverse events occurred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, respectively, with headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea the most frequently reported; the frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem. (Funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals and others; CERTAIN-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03840148.).

Metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) have evolved relatively rapidly to become an international public health threat. There are no clinically available β-lactamase inhibitors with activity against MBLs. This may change with the introduction of cefepime-taniborbactam. Herein, we review three manuscripts (S. I. Drusin, C. Le Terrier, L. Poirel, R. A. Bonomo, et al., Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e01168-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01168-23; C. Le Terrier, C. Viguier, P. Nordmann, A. J. Vila, and L. Poirel, Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e00991-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00991-23; D. Ono, M. F. Mojica, C. R. Bethel, Y. Ishii, et al., Antimicrob Agents Chemother 68:e01332-23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01332-23) in which investigators describe elegant experiments to explore MBL/taniborbactam interactions and modifications to MBLs, in response, to reduce the affinity of taniborbactam. Challenges with MBL inhibition will not disappear; rather, they will evolve commensurate with advancements in medicinal chemistry.

Taniborbactam (TAN; VNRX-5133) is a novel bicyclic boronic acid β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) being developed in combination with cefepime (FEP). TAN inhibits both serine and some metallo-β-lactamases. Previously, the substitution R228L in VIM-24 was shown to increase activity against oxyimino-cephalosporins like FEP and ceftazidime (CAZ). We hypothesized that substitutions at K224, the homologous position in NDM-1, could impact FEP/TAN resistance. To evaluate this, a library of codon-optimized NDM K224X clones for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) measurements was constructed; steady-state kinetics and molecular docking simulations were next performed. Surprisingly, our investigation revealed that the addition of TAN restored FEP susceptibility only for NDM-1, as the MICs for the other 19 K224X variants remained comparable to those of FEP alone. Moreover, compared to NDM-1, all K224X variants displayed significantly lower MICs for imipenem, tebipenem, and cefiderocol (32-, 133-, and 33-fold lower, respectively). In contrast, susceptibility to CAZ was mostly unaffected. Kinetic assays with the K224I variant, the only variant with hydrolytic activity to FEP comparable to NDM-1, confirmed that the inhibitory capacity of TAN was modestly compromised (IC50 0.01 µM vs 0.14 µM for NDM-1). Lastly, structural modeling and docking simulations of TAN in NDM-1 and in the K224I variant revealed that the hydrogen bond between TAN\'s carboxylate with K224 is essential for the productive binding of TAN to the NDM-1 active site. In addition to the report of NDM-9 (E149K) as FEP/TAN resistant, this study demonstrates the fundamental role of single amino acid substitutions in the inhibition of NDM-1 by TAN.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the different present and future therapeutic β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) alternatives, namely aztreonam-avibactam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, cefepime-taniborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, and sulbactam-durlobactam against clinical isolates showing reduced susceptibility or resistance to cefiderocol in Enterobacterales, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
METHODS: MIC values of aztreonam, aztreonam-avibactam, cefepime, cefepime-taniborbactam, cefepime-zidebactam, imipenem, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem, meropenem-vaborbactam, meropenem-nacubactam, sulbactam-durlobactam, and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were determined for 67, 9, and 11 clinical Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa or A. baumannii isolates, respectively, showing MIC values of cefiderocol being ≥1 mg/L. If unavailable, the respective β-lactam breakpoints according to EUCAST were used for BL/BLI combinations.
RESULTS: For Enterobacterales, the susceptibility rates for aztreonam, cefepime, imipenem, and meropenem were 7.5%, 0%, 10.4%, and 10.4%, respectively, while they were much higher for cefepime-zidebactam (91%), cefiderocol-zidebactam (91%), meropenem-nacubactam (71.6%), cefiderocol-nacubactam (74.6%), and cefiderocol-taniborbactam (76.1%), as expected. For P. aeruginosa isolates, the higher susceptibility rates were observed for imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol-zidebactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam (56% for all combinations). For A. baumannii isolates, lower susceptibility rates were observed with commercially or under development BL/BLI combos; however, a high susceptibility rate (70%) was found for sulbactam-durlobactam and when cefiderocol was associated to some BLIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Zidebactam- and nacubactam-containing combinations showed a significant in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales clinical isolates with reduced susceptibility to cefiderocol. On the other hand, imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam showed the highest susceptibility rates against P. aeruginosa isolates. Finally, sulbactam-durlobactam and cefiderocol combined with a BLI were the only effective options against A. baumannii tested isolates.

The design of inhibitors against metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs), the largest family of carbapenemases, has been a strategic goal in designing novel antimicrobial therapies. In this regard, the development of bicyclic boronates, such as taniborbactam (TAN) and xeruborbactam, is a major achievement that may help in overcoming the threat of MBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. Of concern, a recent report has shown that New Delhi MBL-9 (NDM-9) escapes the inhibitory action of TAN by a single amino acid substitution with respect to New Delhi MBL-1 (NDM-1), the most widely disseminated MBL. Here, we report a docking and computational analysis that identifies that \"escape variants\" against TAN can arise by disruption of the electrostatic interaction of negative charges in the active site loops of MBLs with the N-(2-aminoethyl)cyclohexylamine side chain of TAN. These changes result in non-productive binding modes of TAN that preclude reaction with the MBLs, a phenomenon that is not restricted to NDM-9. This analysis demonstrates that single amino acid substitutions in non-essential residues in MBL loops can unexpectedly elicit resistance to TAN.

Taniborbactam (TAN) is a novel broad-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor with significant activity against subclass B1 metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs). Here, we showed that TAN exhibited an overall excellent activity against B1 MBLs including most NDM- and VIM-like as well as SPM-1, GIM-1, and DIM-1 enzymes, but not against SIM-1. Noteworthy, VIM-1-like enzymes (particularly VIM-83) were less inhibited by TAN than VIM-2-like. Like NDM-9, NDM-30 (also differing from NDM-1 by a single amino acid substitution) was resistant to TAN.