<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1d1 20130915//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta id="journal-meta-87cddb9ab7774ac9973b6a64b7cbc767">
      <journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Sciresol</journal-id>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Sciresol</journal-id>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="journal_submission_guidelines">https://jmsh.ac.in/</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Journal of Medical Sciences and Health</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn publication-format="print"/>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
        
          
            <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.46347/jmsh.v12.i1.25.282</article-id>
          
          
            <article-categories>
              <subj-group>
                <subject>ORIGINAL ARTICLE</subject>
              </subj-group>
            </article-categories>
            <title-group>
              <article-title>&lt;p&gt;Evaluation of In Vitro Susceptibility of Cefepime-Tazobactam against Clinical Isolates of &lt;em&gt;Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Proteus mirabilis&lt;/em&gt;. A Cross Sectional Study&lt;/p&gt;</article-title>
            </title-group>
          
          
            <pub-date date-type="pub">
              <day>30</day>
              <month>3</month>
              <year>2026</year>
            </pub-date>
            <permissions>
              <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
            </permissions>
          
          
            <volume>12</volume>
          
          
            <issue>1</issue>
          
          <fpage>1</fpage>

          <abstract>
            <title>Abstract</title>
            &lt;p&gt;&lt;bold&gt;Introduction:&lt;/bold&gt; Gram negative pathogens have acquired resistance to third and fourth generation cephalosporins due to their indiscriminate use and production of ESBL and AmpC and so a successful method to get rid of this problem is to use Novel β- lactam / β- lactamase inhibitor combinations (BL-BLI) like cefepime-tazobactam (CPT) for treatment of infections with Gram negative bacteria like&lt;emphasis&gt; Escherichia coli&lt;/emphasis&gt;, &lt;emphasis&gt;Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;and &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt;. &lt;bold&gt;Objective:&lt;/bold&gt; To evaluate invitro susceptibility of cefepime-tazobactam against clinically significant isolates of &lt;emphasis&gt;Escherichia coli&lt;/emphasis&gt;, &lt;emphasis&gt;Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;and &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt;. &lt;bold&gt;Results:&lt;/bold&gt; The present study was conducted to evaluate invitro susceptibility of cefepime-tazobactam against Gram negative bacteria where a total of 170 isolates of &lt;emphasis&gt;Escherichia coli&lt;/emphasis&gt;, &lt;emphasis&gt;Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;and &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt; were tested by disc diffusion method and E-test where 74.03% of&lt;emphasis&gt; Escherichia coli &lt;/emphasis&gt;isolates, 100% of &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt; isolates were sensitive but only 43.39% of &lt;emphasis&gt;Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;isolates were sensitive to cefepime-tazobactam. &lt;bold&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/bold&gt; This study gives insight into invitro susceptibility of cefepime-tazobactam against clinical isolates of &lt;emphasis&gt;Escherichia coli&lt;/emphasis&gt;, &lt;emphasis&gt;Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;and &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt; where this drug showed good sensitivity against &lt;emphasis&gt;Escherichia coli&lt;/emphasis&gt; and &lt;emphasis&gt;Proteus&lt;/emphasis&gt; &lt;emphasis&gt;mirabilis&lt;/emphasis&gt; isolates but low sensitivity rate was seen against&lt;emphasis&gt; Klebsiella pneumoniae &lt;/emphasis&gt;isolates to confirm which further multicenteric studies are required.&lt;/p&gt;
          </abstract>
          
          
            <kwd-group>
              <title>Keywords</title>
              
                <kwd>Cefepime-Tazobactam (CPT)</kwd>
              
                <kwd>ESBL</kwd>
              
                <kwd>AmpC</kwd>
              
                <kwd>Disc diffusion method</kwd>
              
                <kwd>E-test</kwd>
              
            </kwd-group>
          
        

        <contrib-group>
          
            
              <contrib contrib-type="author">
                <name>
                  <surname>Deepthi</surname>
                  <given-names>T</given-names>
                </name>
                
                  <xref rid="aff-1" ref-type="aff">1</xref>
                
              </contrib>
            
            
            
              <aff id="aff-1">
                <institution> Tutor, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
              <aff id="aff-2">
                <institution> Professor &amp; HOD, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
          
            
              <contrib contrib-type="author">
                <name>
                  <surname>Pradeep</surname>
                  <given-names>M S S</given-names>
                </name>
                
                  <xref rid="aff-2" ref-type="aff">2</xref>
                
              </contrib>
            
            
            
              <aff id="aff-1">
                <institution> Tutor, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
              <aff id="aff-2">
                <institution> Professor &amp; HOD, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
          
            
              <contrib contrib-type="author">
                <name>
                  <surname>Poojita</surname>
                  <given-names>N</given-names>
                </name>
                
                  <xref rid="aff-1" ref-type="aff">1</xref>
                
              </contrib>
            
            
            
              <aff id="aff-1">
                <institution> Tutor, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
              <aff id="aff-2">
                <institution> Professor &amp; HOD, Department of Microbiology Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Foundation, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences </institution>
                <addr-line>Andhra Pradesh India</addr-line>
              </aff>
            
          
        </contrib-group>
        
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <heading><span><bold>Introduction</bold></span></heading><p><span>Gram negative pathogens such as members of Enterobacteriaceae (especially ESBL and AmpC producers) and Non fermenters have acquired several drug resistant mechanisms to get rid of the effect of antibiotics and became an important role in both community acquired and hospital acquired infections <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-1">1</xref>]</superscript>. β–Lactam antibiotics were being used against these pathogens where indiscriminate use of 3<superscript>rd</superscript> and 4<superscript>th</superscript> generation cephalosporins has led to development of sophisticated resistance mechanisms against these drugs by production of Extended spectrum</span></p><div><span> </span></div><p><span>β-Lactamases (ESBL’s) and AmpC which lead to the use of carbapenem group of antibiotics against these pathogens and there is need to reduce the usage of carbapenems to combat resistance against this group of antibiotics <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-2">2</xref>]</superscript>. </span></p><p><span>As ESBL producing strains are highly prevalent in India leaving many antibiotics ineffective against these organisms, a successful method to get rid of these plasmid coded β–Lactamases is to use  combination of β–Lactam antibiotic with an β–Lactamase inhibitor (BL-BLI) which may provide  an effective measure to overcome this problem <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-2">2</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-3">3</xref>]</superscript> because these β–Lactamase inhibitors when administered alone do not have any antimicrobial effect, but when co-administered with β–Lactam antibiotic they act to bind and inactivate β–Lactamases and give the partner antibiotic an opportunity to overcome hydrolysis by those enzymes and potentiate the activity of the antibiotic by directly binding to the penicillin binding proteins (PBP’s) of the bacteria and leading to inhibition of cell wall synthesis <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-4">4</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-5">5</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><div><span> </span></div><p><span>Cefepime, a 4<superscript>th</superscript> generation cephalosporin was approved by FDA for clinical use in 1996 for treatment of  various infections of respiratory tract, skin &amp; soft tissue, intra abdominal infections etc. Cefepime unlike other cephalosporins has a positively charged substitution in its nucleus which makes it a zwitterion with a neutral charge facilitating it to penetrate the bacterial cell wall. As cefepime resistance is seen among Gram negatives via production of β–Lactamases and use of cefepime alone in Gram negative infections is a debatable issue and also may lead to treatment failures. Cefepime-Tazobactam (CPT) which is a novel BL-BLI combination, which is approved by Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for treatment of various infections with Gram negative bacteria and is expected to increase the susceptibility of Gram negative bacteria by overcoming the resistance mechanisms like AmpC &amp; OXA by cefepime and ESBL’s by tazobactam <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-6">6</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-8">8</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><p><span>This study was undertaken at our institute in department of microbiology after attaining Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval to evaluate the invitro susceptibility of various clinical isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> against cefepime-tazobactam.   </span></p><heading><span><bold>Materials and Methods</bold></span></heading><p><span>The present study was a cross sectional observational study conducted between March 2024 to February 2025 in the department of microbiology, Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Foundation, China Avutapalli, Andhra Pradesh which is a tertiary care centre after obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval. Reg no- Faculty/1016/23 dated 01/12/2023 (CDSCO Reg no: ECR/804/Inst/AP/2016-RR-19 and DHR Reg no: EC /NEW/Inst/2021/2140).</span></p><heading><span><bold>Inclusion Criteria</bold></span></heading><p><span>All the specimens like blood, urine, pus, swabs, sputum etc sent to microbiology laboratory for culture and sensitivity testing from various OPD’s and IPD’s of various departments from our attached General and Superspeciality hospital during study period showing clinically significant growth of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis </span></italic><span>were included in the study</span><italic><span>.</span></italic></p><heading><span><bold>Exclusion  Criteria</bold></span></heading><p><span>Repetitive samples and samples showing growth of bacterial isolates other than </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> including Gram negative non-fermenters were excluded from the study.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Sample Design</bold></span></heading><p><span>A total of 170 non duplicate strains of</span><italic><span> E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span>  isolates from various clinical samples like blood, urine, pus, swabs, sputum etc. which were identified by Gram’s stain, catalase test, oxidase test, motility, biochemical tests, amino acid utilization tests and sugar fermentation tests <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-9">9</xref>-<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-12">12</xref>]</superscript> were collected and further processed by antibiotic susceptibility testing by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) by routine antibiotics along with cefepime (30µg) and cefepime-tazobactam discs (30/10 µg) (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India)   recommended by CLSI <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>]</superscript> and the results were  interpretated and tabulated as Sensitive(S), Intermediate(I), Resistant(R) as per CLSI guidelines and these were further subjected to cefepime tazobactam by E-test on Mueller Hinton agar and were interpretated as Sensitive (S)( ≤ 2 µg/ml), Intermediate (I)(4-8µg/ml) and Resistant (R)(≥ 16 µg/ml) according to CLSI guidelines <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Study Variables</bold></span></heading><p><span>The MIC (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration) of cefepime-tazobactam against clinically significant isolates of  </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> from various samples and their cut off range is based on CLSI guidelines by Epsilometer-test (E-test) using E-strips (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) with MIC’s ranging from 0.016 to 256 µg/ml and interpretated as Sensitive (S) if MIC is ≤ 2 µg/ml, Intermediate (I) if MIC is 4-8 µg/ml and Resistant (R) if MIC is ≥ 16 µg/ml for </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Study Procedure</bold></span></heading><p><span>A total of 170 non duplicate strains of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolated from various clinical samples like blood, urine, pus, swabs etc. were identified upto species level by standard phenotypic tests like colony morphology, hemolysis, lactose fermentation, Gram’s stain, catalase test, oxidase test, motility test, indole test, nitrate test, TSI, urease test, amino acid utilization tests and sugar fermentation tests as per CLSI guidelines <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-9">9</xref>-<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-12">12</xref>]</superscript>. All these isolates were tested for their susceptibility against routine antibiotics by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method using MHA including cefepime (30µg) and cefepime-tazobactam (30/10 µg<superscript> </superscript>) discs (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) and the results were  noted and tabulated as Sensitive (S) ≥25mm, Intermediate (I) 19-24mm, Resistant (R) ≤18mm as per CLSI guidelines <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>]</superscript>. ESBL and AmpC production were detected in these strains by Double disc synergy test. The test strain with 0.5McFarland turbidity was lawn cultured onto MHA plate and discs of cefotaxime (30µg) and cefotaxime-clavulanic acid (30/10µg) (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) were placed 24mm apart (distance measured from center to center of discs) and incubated at 35-37<superscript>o</superscript>C for 18-24hrs and interpretated as ESBL producers if the zone diameter around cefotaxime-clavulanic acid is ≥ 5mm than cefotaxime <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-14">14</xref>]</superscript>. AmpC production was detected by the same procedure where cefotaxime (30µg) and cefotaxime-cloxacillin (30/200µg) (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) were used and placed 24mm apart after lawn culture of test strain and interpretated as AmpC producers if the zone diameter around cefotaxime-cloxacillin disc is ≥ 5mm than cefotaxime disc zone diameter <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-15">15</xref>]</superscript>. All the strains (including ESBL and AmpC producers) <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-12">12</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-16">16</xref>-<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-18">18</xref>]</superscript> were subjected to Epsilometer test (E-test) along with Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method using E-strips of cefepime-tazobactam with MIC’s ranging from 0.016-256 µg/ml (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) where the inoculum was prepared using 3-4 colonies of test strain and were emulsified in normal saline in a test tube and turbidity was compared to that of 0.5Mc Farland standard and turbidity was adjusted accordingly and inoculation was done on MHA plate with a sterile swab dipped into the inoculum and streaked over entire surface of MHA and then E-strips of cefepime-tazobactam were applied onto agar surface and the plates were incubated at 35-37<superscript>o</superscript>C for 18-24hrs and were then interpretated as Sensitive (S)(≤ 2 µg/ml), Intermediate (I)(4-8µg/ml) and Resistant (R)(≥ 16 µg/ml) for </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates according to CLSI guidelines <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>]</superscript>. ATCC strains </span><italic><span>Escherichia coli </span></italic><span>- 25922, </span><italic><span>Klebsiella pneumoniae</span></italic><span> – 27736 were used as controls.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Methodology flow chart</bold></span></heading><p><span>Samples - blood, urine, pus, swabs etc. → Gram’s stain → Inoculation onto Sheep Blood agar and MacConkey agar → Incubation at 35-37<superscript>o</superscript>C /18-24hrs → Reading the plates → Colony morphology, Hemolysis, Lactose fermentation → Gram’s stain → Gram negative bacilli → Subculture onto Sheep Blood agar and MacConkey agar → Incubate at 35-37<superscript>o</superscript>C /18-24hrs standard biochemical tests → Amino acid utilization tests → Sugar fermentation tests Identification upto species level → Detection of ESBL and AmpC production → Antibiotic susceptibility testing by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on MHA with routine antibiotics recommended by CLSI along with cefepime (30µg) and cefepime-tazobactam discs (30/10 µg) (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) → Interpretated as Sensitive (S) ≥25mm, Intermediate (I) 19-24mm, Resistant (R) ≤18mm according to CLSI guidelines → All strains including ESBL and AmpC  producers subjected to Epsilometer test (E-test) by E-strips of cefepime-tazobactam (Himedia Labs, Mumbai, India) with MIC’s ranging from 0.016 to 256 µg/ml </span><line-break/><line-break/><line-break/><span>→ Interpretated as Sensitive (S) if MIC is ≤ 2 µg/ml, Intermediate (I) 4-8 µg/ml and Resistant (R) ≥ 16 µg/ml for </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P.</span></italic><span> </span><italic><span>mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates → Data was collected and tabulated in microsoft excel sheet → Descriptive statistics were used to represent the variables → proportion of isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis </span></italic><span>which were Sensitive, Intermediate and Resistant to cefepime-tazobactam were tabulated and expressed in the form of numbers and percentages.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Statistical Analysis</bold></span></heading><p><span>The collected sensitivity data of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis </span></italic><span>were tabulated in Microsoft excel sheet and analysed and descriptive statistics were used to represent the variables. The proportion of isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> which were Sensitive, Intermediate and </span></p><p><span>Resistant to cefepime-tazobactam were expressed in the form of numbers and percentages.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Results</bold></span></heading><p> </p><figure id="table-1"><table><thead><tr><th><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Name of the organism</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>No. of isolates</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>104 (61.17%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>2</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>K. pneumoniae</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>53 (31.17%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>3</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>P</span></italic><span>. </span><italic><span>mirabilis</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>13 (7.64%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>4</span></p></td><td><p><span>Total</span></p></td><td><p><span>170 (100%)</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 1:</bold> <bold>Number of isolates from various clinical samples</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><figure id="table-2"><table><thead><tr><th><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>ESBL Producers</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Non ESBL Producers</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>AmpC Producers</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Total No. of isolates</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><span>30 (17.65%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>140 (82.35%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>10 (5.88%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>170 (100%)</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 2: Number of ESBL, Non ESBL and AmpC producers</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><figure id="table-3"><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th rowspan="3"><p><span><bold>Name of the organism</bold></span></p></th><th colspan="6"><p><span><bold>Name of the antibiotic</bold></span></p></th></tr><tr><th colspan="3"><p><span><bold>Cefepime</bold></span></p></th><th colspan="3"><p><span><bold>Cefepime-Tazobactam</bold></span></p></th></tr><tr><th><p><span><bold>Sensitive</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Intermediate</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Resistant</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Sensitive</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Intermediate</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Resistant</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>28 (26.92%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>22 (21.15%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>54 (51.92%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>66 (63.46%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>11 (10.57%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>27 (25.96%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>2</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>K. pneumoniae</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>17 (32.07%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (3.77%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>34 (64.15%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>21 (39.62%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>3 (5.66%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>29 (54.71%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>3</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>11 (84.61%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (15.38%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>13 (100%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 3: Antibiotic susceptibility of various isolates to cefepime (CPM) and cefepime-tazobactam (CPT) based on disc diffusion method</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><figure id="table-4"><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>Name of the organism</bold></span></p></th><th colspan="3"><p><span><bold>Cefepime-Tazobactam</bold></span></p></th></tr><tr><th><p><span><bold>Sensitive</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Intermediate</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Resistant</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>77(74.03%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>27 (25.96%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>2</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>K. pneumoniae</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>23(43.39%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>30(56.60%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>3</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>13(100%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 4: Susceptibility pattern of various isolates to cefepime–tazobactam based on E-test</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><p> </p><figure id="table-5"><table><thead><tr><th><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Name of the antibiotic</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>ESBL Producers (30 isolates)</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Non ESBL Producers (140 isolates)</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>AmpC producers</bold></span></p><p><span><bold>(10 isolates)</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><span>Cefepime- Tazobactam</span></p></td><td><p><span>23 (76.66%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>90 (64.28%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>6(60%)</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 5: Showing susceptibility pattern of cefepime–tazobactam in ESBL, Non ESBL &amp; AmpC producers based on E-test</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><figure id="table-6"><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>S. No</bold></span></p></th><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>Name of the organism</bold></span></p></th><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>ESBL producers (30)</bold></span></p></th><th colspan="2"><p><span><bold>Cefepime-Tazobactam</bold></span></p></th><th rowspan="2"><p><span><bold>AmpC producers (10)</bold></span></p></th><th colspan="2"><p><span><bold>Cefepime-Tazobactam</bold></span></p></th></tr><tr><th><p><span><bold>Disc </bold></span><line-break/><span><bold>diffusion method</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>E-test</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>Disc </bold></span><line-break/><span><bold>diffusion method</bold></span></p></th><th><p><span><bold>E-test</bold></span></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><span>1</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>23 (76.66%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>14 (60.86%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>19 (82.60%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>5 (50%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>4 (80%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>4 (80%)</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>2</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>K. pneumoniae</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>5 (16.66%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (8.69%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (8.69%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>4 (40%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td><td><p><span>-</span></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><span>3</span></p></td><td><p><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic></p></td><td><p><span>2 (6.66%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (100%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>2 (100%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>1 (10%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>1 (100%)</span></p></td><td><p><span>1 (100%)</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption><span><bold>Table 6: Susceptibility pattern of various isolates to cefepime–tazobactam in ESBL &amp; AmpC producers based on disc diffusion method and E-test</bold></span></figcaption></figure><p> </p><p><span><bold><underline><o:p><span></span></o:p></underline></bold></span></p><heading><span><bold>Discussion</bold></span></heading><p><span>There is increasing concern regarding development of multidrug resistance (MDR) especially in Gram negative bacteria globally which is complicated by absence or non availability of newer antibiotic regimens for treatment of such infections. So, now there is increased interest among clinicians in newer combination drugs such as cefepime–tazobactam (CPT) which can be used to treat various infections caused by certain Gram negative bacteria such as uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTI’s), skin and soft tissue infections, intra abdominal infections, severe lower respiratory tract infections etc <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-2">2</xref>]</superscript> and due to lack of studies regarding its </span><line-break/><line-break/><line-break/><span>efficacy and adverse reactions in case of pregnancy and lactation, it cannot be commented.</span></p><p><span>High prevalence of ESBL producers among hospital and community acquired infections also lead to carbapenem resistance due to various mechanisms where the main mechanism is production of carbapenemase enzyme. So, as an alternative, β-Lactam and β-Lactamase inhibitor (BL-BLI) combination drugs are being widely used and they proved to be effective drugs like cefepime-tazobactam <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-17">17</xref>]</superscript>. </span></p><p><span>Cefepime (CPM) is a semi synthetic , broad spectrum, fourth generation cephalosporin which has good activity against many Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria and is also effective against Gram negative isolates which are ESBL and AmpC producers due to its 3 <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-1">1</xref>]</superscript> side chain. Tazobactam is a good β-Lactamase inhibitor (BLI) which provides inhibitory action against a wide range of β-Lactamases which includes group-1 cephalosporinases and group 3 metallo β-Lactamases (MBL’S). Combination of cefepime-tazobactam (BL-BLI) was found to be very effective in treatment of Gram negative infections especially with ESBL and AmpC producers <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-11">11</xref>, <xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-17">17</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><p><span>The present study was conducted at our institute to evaluate the invitro susceptibility of cefepime-tazobactam against clinically significant isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli, K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and</span><italic><span> P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> where a total of 170 (100%) isolates were tested out of which</span><italic><span> E. coli</span></italic><span> were 104 (61.17%), </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae  </span></italic><span>were 53 (31.17%) and</span><italic><span> P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> were  13 (7.64%) <xref ref-type="link" rid="#table-1">[Table. 1]</xref>. All the isolates were being tested for antibiotic susceptibility with routine antibiotics along with cefepime (30µg) and cefepime-tazobactam (30/10 µg), (Himedia labs, Mumbai, India) by disc diffusion method and E-test for cefepime-tazobactam for all the isolates including ESBL and AmpC producers according to CLSI guidelines <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-13">13</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><p><span>ESBL production was noted in 17.65% of isolates and AmpC in 5.88% <xref ref-type="link" rid="#table-2">[Table. 2]</xref> correlating with findings of Smita Sood <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-19">19</xref>]</superscript> (26.90%), David N. Livermore et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-16">16</xref>]</superscript> (22.76%), Abdul Ghafur et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-20">20</xref>]</superscript> (24%) for ESBL production where as high prevalence rates were reported by Ramanpreet Kaur et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-1">1</xref>]</superscript><superscript> </superscript>(60%), Susan M et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-14">14</xref>]</superscript> (67.8%), Biswas S et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-21">21</xref>]</superscript> (52.41%), Mohanty S et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-22">22</xref>]</superscript> (68.78%), Meghna S et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-15">15</xref>]</superscript> (62%). AmpC producers were 5.88% in our study correlating with findings of Mona Wassef et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-23">23</xref>]</superscript> (5.8%) and high prevalence rates of ≥40% were also reported by Thean Yen Tan et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-24">24</xref>]</superscript>, Peter Getzlaff S et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-25">25</xref>]</superscript>, Roopshree S et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-26">26</xref>]</superscript>, Madhumati B et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-27">27</xref>]</superscript>.</span></p><p><span>By disc diffusion method for cefepime-tazobactam susceptibility, 63.46% of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>,</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>39.62% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>100% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates <xref ref-type="link" rid="#table-3">[Table. 3]</xref> were sensitive correlating with findings of Kalavani Ramakrishnan et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-2">2</xref>]</superscript><superscript> </superscript>who showed 83% of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>,</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>82% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span> and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>91% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive. Our findings also correlate with Susan M et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-14">14</xref>]</superscript> who showed that 86.9% of </span><italic><span>E.coli</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive, Smita Sood et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-19">19</xref>]</superscript> showed that 95.14% of </span><italic><span>E .coli</span></italic><span>, 82.8% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and 75% of</span><italic><span> P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive, Roshini Agarwal et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-11">11</xref>]</superscript> who showed 86.2% of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive, Rammurugan N et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-28">28</xref>]</superscript> who showed that 90% of</span><italic><span> E. coli </span></italic><span>and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>100% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive. In our study invitro susceptibility of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>for cefepime-tazobactam tested by disc diffusion method was low (39.62%) correlating with findings of Vivek Bhat et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-29">29</xref>]</superscript> (45.3%), Roshini Agarwal et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-11">11</xref>]</superscript> (42.7%) and Rammurugan N et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-28">28</xref>]</superscript> (42%). By E-test, 60% of AmpC producers were sensitive <xref ref-type="link" rid="#table-5">[Table. 5]</xref> in our study, correlating with findings of Burcu Isler et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-6">6</xref>]</superscript>(97%)<superscript> </superscript>and David M. Livermore et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-16">16</xref>]</superscript> (100%). Overall, by E-test 74.03% of</span><italic><span> E. coli</span></italic><span>, 100% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive to cefepime-tazobactam but only 43.39% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>isolates <xref ref-type="link" rid="#table-4">[Table. 4]</xref> were sensitive in our study, correlating with findings of Helio S Sader et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-17">17</xref>]</superscript> who showed 99.5% of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span> and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>99.8% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive, Rammurugan N et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-28">28</xref>]</superscript> who showed 90% of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span> isolates</span><italic><span>, </span></italic><span>45% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span> and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>100% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive, Helio S Sader et al <superscript>[<xref ref-type="link" rid="#ref-30">30</xref>]</superscript> who showed 99.1% of </span><italic><span>E. coli, </span></italic><span>87.7% of </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and</span><italic><span> </span></italic><span>100% of </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolates were sensitive.</span></p><heading><span><bold>Conclusion</bold></span></heading><p><span>This study gives an insight into invitro susceptibility of cefepime-tazobactam against clinically significant isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span>. According to our experience cefepime-tazobactam showed good invitro activity against clinically significant isolates of</span><italic><span> E.coli </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span>. Low invitro susceptibility was noted among </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae</span></italic><span> isolates which to confirm requires further multicenteric studies. Further invitro and in vivo studies are needed to assess the actual effectiveness of this novel combination against various Gram negative isolates, especially against ESBL and AmpC producers. Research is also going on with various novel combinations of BLI’S with cefepime regarding their effectiveness against various Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria like Cefepime–Zidebactam, Cefepime-Taniborbactam and Cefepime–Enmetazobactam.</span></p><p><span><bold>Limitations of the study:</bold> </span></p><p><span>Limited number of isolates of </span><italic><span>E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span> isolated from different samples were included in the study, which may be considered as a drawback of the study. Further multicenteric studies including invitro and in vivo studies are required to assess the actual effectiveness of cefepime-tazobactam against various Gram negative bacteria especially </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>which is a cause of multiple infections in hospital as well as in the community. Further studies may enlighten the clinicians in order to include cefepime-tazobactam as a therapeutic agent in Gram negative infections especially with</span><italic><span> E. coli</span></italic><span>, </span><italic><span>K. pneumoniae </span></italic><span>and </span><italic><span>P. mirabilis</span></italic><span>.</span></p>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      
        
          <ref id="ref-1">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Kaur R, Gautam V, Singhal L, Ray P
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Antimicrobial activity of cefepime–tazobactam combination tested against clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae</article-title>
              
              
                <source>The Journal of Antibiotics</source>
              
              
                <year>2014</year>
              
              
                <volume>67</volume>
              
              
                <issue>8</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1038/ja.2014.45</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-2">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Ramakrishnan K, Jahagirdar SM, Ravi Shankar M, Kunigal S
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Cefepime/Tazobactam – A Newer and Better β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination to Spare Carbapenem Drugs</article-title>
              
              
                <source>International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences</source>
              
              
                <year>2017</year>
              
              
                <volume>6</volume>
              
              
                <issue>10</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.163</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-3">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Karaman S, Vural S, Yidirmak Y, Emecen M, Erdem E, Kebudi R
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Comparison of piperacillin tazobactam and cefoperazone sulbactam monotherapy in treatment of febrile neutropenia</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Pediatric Blood &amp;amp; Cancer</source>
              
              
                <year>2012</year>
              
              
                <volume>58</volume>
              
              
                <issue>4</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.23245</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-4">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Lai B, Zheng B, Li Y, Zhu S, Tong Z
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>In vitro susceptibility of  &lt;I&gt;Escherichia coli&lt;/I&gt; strains isolated from urine samples obtained in mainland China to fosfomycin trometamol &amp; other antibiotics: a 9 year surveillance study</article-title>
              
              
                <source>BMC Infectious Diseases</source>
              
              
                <year>2014</year>
              
              
                <volume>14</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-66</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-5">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Kohlmann R, Bahr T, Gatermann SG
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Effect of ampC derepression on cefepime MIC in Enterobacterales with chromosomally encoded inducible AmpC β-lactamase</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Clinical Microbiology and Infection</source>
              
              
                <year>2019</year>
              
              
                <volume>25</volume>
              
              
                <issue>9</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.05.007</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-6">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Isler B, Harris P, Stewart AG, Paterson DL
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>An Update on cefepime and its future role in combination with novel β lactamase inhibitors for MDR Enterobacterales and &lt;I&gt;Pseudomonas aeruginosa&lt;/I&gt;</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy</source>
              
              
                <year>2021</year>
              
              
                <volume>76</volume>
              
              
                <issue>3</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkaa511</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-7">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Altshuler J, Guerril DJ, Ericson CD, Wanger A, Aitken SL, Ostrosky-Zeichner L
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Gram-Negative Infections Treated With Optimized Dosing Cefepime Over Various Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Pharmacy Practice</source>
              
              
                <year>2018</year>
              
              
                <volume>31</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190017696950</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-8">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Su T-Y, Ye J Jr, Yang C-C, Huang C-T, Chia, J-H, Lee M-H
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Influence of borderline cefepime MIC on the outcome of cefepime susceptible &lt;I&gt;Pseudomonas aeruginosa&lt;/I&gt; bacteremia treated with a maximal cefepime dose: a hospital based retrospective study</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials</source>
              
              
                <year>2017</year>
              
              
                <volume>16</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-017-0227-8</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
      
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-11">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Agarwal R, Agarwal V, Tewari A, Upadhyay P
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Cefepime/tazobactam as a new treatment option for multidrug resistant gram negative bacilli</article-title>
              
              
                <source>International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences</source>
              
              
                <year>2019</year>
              
              
                <volume>7</volume>
              
              
                <issue>6</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20192512</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
      
        
      
        
      
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-16">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M, Turner SJ, Woodford N
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Potential of high dose cefepime/tazobactam against multiresistant Gram Negative pathogens</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy</source>
              
              
                <year>2018</year>
              
              
                <volume>73</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx360</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-17">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Sader HS, Carvalhaes CG, Mendes RE, Castanheira M
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Antimicrobial activity of high-dose cefepime-tazobactam (WCK 4282) against a large collection of gram-negative organisms collected worldwide in 2018 and 2019</article-title>
              
              
                <source>International Journal of Infectious Diseases</source>
              
              
                <year>2022</year>
              
              
                <volume>116</volume>
              
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2022.01.029</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-18">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Hocquet D, Nordmann P, El Garch F, Cabanne L, Plésiat P
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Involvement of the MexXYOprM efflux system in emergence of cefepime resistance in clinical strains of &lt;I&gt;Pseudomonas aeruginosa&lt;/I&gt;</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy</source>
              
              
                <year>2006</year>
              
              
                <volume>50</volume>
              
              
                <issue>4</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.50.4.1347-1351.2006</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-19">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Sood S
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Comparative Evaluation of the in-vitro Activity of Six β -lactam/ β -lactamase Inhibitor Combinations against Gram Negative Bacilli</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research</source>
              
              
                <year>2013</year>
              
              
                <volume>7</volume>
              
              
                <issue>2</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2013/4564.2733</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-20">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Ghafur A, Pushparaju R, Nalini S, Kumar KR, Sureshkumar D
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Sensitivity pattern of Gram negative bacteria to the new β-lactam/ β-lactamase inhibitor combination: Cefepime/tazobactam</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases</source>
              
              
                <year>2012</year>
              
              
                <volume>2</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.02.2012.01.0033</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-21">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Biswas S, Kelkar  R
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>P081: Cefepime-tazobactam: a new antibiotic against ESBL producing enterobacteriaceae in cancer patients</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control</source>
              
              
                <year>2013</year>
              
              
                <volume>2</volume>
              
              
                <issue>S1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-2-s1-p81</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-23">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Wassef M, Behiry I, Younan M, El Guindy N, Mostafa S, Abada E
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Genotypic Identification of AmpC β-Lactamases Production in Gram-Negative Bacilli Isolates</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology</source>
              
              
                <year>2014</year>
              
              
                <volume>7</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.8556</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-24">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Tan TY, Ng LSY, He J, Koh TH, Hsu LY
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Evaluation of screening methods to detect plasmid mediated AmpC in &lt;I&gt;Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae&lt;/I&gt; and &lt;/I&gt;Proteus mirabilis&lt;/I&gt;</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy</source>
              
              
                <year>2009</year>
              
              
                <volume>53</volume>
              
              
                <issue>1</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00862-08</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-25">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Peter-Getzlaff S, Polsfuss S, Poledica M, Hombach M, Giger, J, Böttger EC, &lt;I&gt;et al&lt;/I&gt;
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Detection of AmpC Beta-Lactamase in Escherichia coli: Comparison of Three Phenotypic Confirmation Assays and Genetic Analysis</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</source>
              
              
                <year>2011</year>
              
              
                <volume>49</volume>
              
              
                <issue>8</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00091-11</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-26">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Roopashree S, Kaup S
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Prevalence of various Beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae in a tertiary care hospital in South India: A Cross-sectional study</article-title>
              
              
                <source>IP International Journal of Medical Microbiology and Tropical Diseases</source>
              
              
                <year>2021</year>
              
              
                <volume>7</volume>
              
              
                <issue>3</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmmtd.2021.039</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-28">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Rammurugan N, Sasireha R
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Antimicrobial Sensitivity of Gram Negative Bacteria with Beta lactam/Beta lactamase inhibitor combination of drugs in comparison to other antibiotics in a tertiary care center</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences</source>
              
              
                <year>2019</year>
              
              
                <volume>8</volume>
              
              
                <issue>7</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2019/92</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-29">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Bhat V, Gupta S, Kelkar R, Biswas S, Khattry N, Moiyadi A, &lt;I&gt;et al&lt;/I&gt;
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Bacteriological profile and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of clinical isolates in a tertiary care cancer center</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology</source>
              
              
                <year>2016</year>
              
              
                <volume>37</volume>
              
              
                <issue>01</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-5851.177010</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
        
          <ref id="ref-30">
            <element-citation publication-type="journal">
              
                <person-group person-group-type="author">
                  <name>
                    Sader HS, Castanheira M, Mendes RE, Flamm RK, Jones RN
                  </name>
                </person-group>
              
              
                <article-title>Antimicrobial Activity of High-Proportion Cefepime-Tazobactam (WCK 4282) against a Large Number of Gram-Negative Isolates Collected Worldwide in 2014</article-title>
              
              
                <source>Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy</source>
              
              
                <year>2017</year>
              
              
                <volume>61</volume>
              
              
                <issue>4</issue>
              
              
                <uri>https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02409-16</uri>
              
            </element-citation>
          </ref>
        
      
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
