Antimicrobial susceptibility and distribution trends among inducible AmpC-producing Enterobacterales at a regional health authority in British Columbia: a 5-year retrospective review

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Introduction: Existing literature supports using cefepime as a carbapenem-sparing agent to treat AmpC-producing Enterobacterales infections. To characterize existing susceptibility trends, we conducted a 5-year retrospective study assessing minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions for ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and meropenem across Vancouver Island Health Authority (Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada). Methods: MIC data for AmpC isolates between November 2019 to October 2024 were retrieved (BD Epicenter™). Blood cultures, invasive specimens, urine and miscellaneous samples (e.g., respiratory, wounds) were included; we excluded surveillance specimens. MIC values were interpreted based upon CLSI M100-E34 breakpoints (Table 2A-1). Descriptive statistics were computed and compared between moderate-risk AmpC inducers (MRAC) versus low-risk AmpC inducers (LRAC). Results: 5,631 isolates were analyzed, with 3,778 (67.1%) identified as MRAC. Across all organisms, susceptibility rates for ceftriaxone, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 82.0%, 87.0%, 95.4%, and 98.7% respectively. Compared to LRAC, MRAC organisms demonstrated lower susceptibility to ceftriaxone (76.0% versus 94.2%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (81.3% versus 98.6%). Cefepime and meropenem demonstrated similar susceptibility rates between LRAC and MRAC. MIC90 for cefepime was 1 µg/ml for all species except E. cloacae (MIC90 4µg/ml). Conclusion: Between 2019-2024, 95.4% of our isolates demonstrated susceptibility to cefepime within our local health authority. Further research will correlate patient outcomes and establish MIC thresholds to guide routine testing and clinical use of cefepime.
Full text 1,859 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Introduction: Existing literature supports using cefepime as a carbapenem-sparing agent to treat AmpC-producing Enterobacterales infections. To characterize existing susceptibility trends, we conducted a 5-year retrospective study assessing minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions for ceftriaxone, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and meropenem across Vancouver Island Health Authority (Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada).

Methods

MIC data for AmpC isolates between November 2019 to October 2024 were retrieved (BD Epicenter™). Blood cultures, invasive specimens, urine and miscellaneous samples (e.g., respiratory, wounds) were included; we excluded surveillance specimens. MIC values were interpreted based upon CLSI M100-E34 breakpoints (Table 2A-1). Descriptive statistics were computed and compared between moderate-risk AmpC inducers (MRAC) versus low-risk AmpC inducers (LRAC).

Results

5,631 isolates were analyzed, with 3,778 (67.1%) identified as MRAC. Across all organisms, susceptibility rates for ceftriaxone, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem were 82.0%, 87.0%, 95.4%, and 98.7% respectively. Compared to LRAC, MRAC organisms demonstrated lower susceptibility to ceftriaxone (76.0% versus 94.2%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (81.3% versus 98.6%). Cefepime and meropenem demonstrated similar susceptibility rates between LRAC and MRAC. MIC90 for cefepime was 1 µg/ml for all species except E. cloacae (MIC90 4µg/ml).

Conclusion

Between 2019-2024, 95.4% of our isolates demonstrated susceptibility to cefepime within our local health authority. Further research will correlate patient outcomes and establish MIC thresholds to guide routine testing and clinical use of cefepime. - Received: - Version Posted: Funding - N/A (Award N/A) - Principal Award Recipient: Not Applicable

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00