Carbapenems, Carbapenem/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations, and Aztreonam

Author

Russell E. Lewis, Pharm.D.

Published

today




Link to recorded lecture

1 Short View Summary

1.1 Carbapenem Class

  • Decrease dose and/or dosing interval in renal failure
  • Avoid use with valproic acid (VPA) — one carbapenem dose results in precipitous and immediate decrease in VPA concentrations
  • Avoid in history of patients with carbapenem allergy
  • Bacterial kill is time-dependent and optimal use requires maintaining an adequate concentration of free drug over the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the organism for most of the dosing interval (fT>MIC 50%–100%)
TipClinical Pearl

All carbapenems share time-dependent killing pharmacodynamics. The key PK/PD target is fT>MIC of 50%–100% of the dosing interval. Extended or prolonged infusions can optimize this parameter for critically ill patients.

1.2 Ertapenem

  • Adult dose: 1 g IV every 24 hours via 30-minute infusion
  • Pediatric dose (up to 12 years): 15 mg/kg IV every 12 hours (max 1 g/day) via 30-minute infusion
  • Adverse effects: diarrhea, nausea, hypokalemia, infused vein complication
  • Common uses: diabetic foot infection, intraabdominal infection, pelvic infection, bacteremia step-down therapy, bite wounds, osteomyelitis, urinary tract infection
  • Niche in therapy: outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales or susceptible polymicrobial infections requiring IV therapy (once-daily dosing in adults)
TipClinical Pearl

Ertapenem is extensively protein bound — use caution in patients with hypoalbuminemia (increased clearance leading to clinical failure). Minimal to no relevant in vitro activity against Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii.

1.3 Imipenem

  • Adult dose: 0.5 g IV every 6 hours or 1 g IV every 6 to 8 hours; increase to every 6 hours for patients with cystic fibrosis; 30-minute infusion
  • Pediatric dose (3 months to 12 years): 15 to 25 mg/kg IV every 6 hours (max 4 g/day for severe infection and patients with cystic fibrosis); 30-minute infusion
  • Adverse effects: rash, hypersensitivity, seizure, diarrhea, increased serum aminotransferases
  • Common uses: mycobacterial infection, nocardiosis, melioidosis, neutropenic fever, cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbation
  • Niche in therapy: mycobacterial infection, nocardiosis, mixed gram-negative and Enterococcus spp. infections
WarningImportant

Imipenem has decreased infusion stability compared with other β-lactams, increased likelihood of adverse events (including seizures), and more frequent dosing interval compared with other carbapenems, limiting clinical use for gram-negative bacteria. It is administered with cilastatin, which inhibits the renal dehydropeptidase (DHP-I) enzyme that degrades imipenem; dosing is based on the imipenem component alone.

1.4 Meropenem

  • Adult dose: 1 to 2 g IV every 8 hours (consider extended infusion over 3 hours for serious infections)
  • Pediatric dose: 40 mg/kg IV every 8 hours for meningitis (max 6 g/day); 30-minute infusion (consider extended infusion over 3 hours for serious infections)
  • Adverse effects: diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, headache, seizure
  • Common uses: septic shock, bacteremia, pneumonia, meningitis, neutropenic fever
  • Niche in therapy: ESBL-producing or class C (AmpC)-producing Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas spp. (if susceptible), susceptible polymicrobial infections requiring IV therapy
TipClinical Pearl

Meropenem is not stable as a continuous infusion but can combine total daily dose in 2 bags and infuse each over 12 hours.

1.5 Meropenem-Vaborbactam (Vabomere)

  • Adult dose: 4 g IV every 8 hours via 3-hour infusion (2 g meropenem, 2 g vaborbactam)
  • Safety and efficacy not established in children
  • Adverse effects: rash, nausea, diarrhea, headache
  • Common uses: complicated urinary tract infection including pyelonephritis (labeled indication), pneumonia, septic shock
  • Niche in therapy: infections by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing strains
TipClinical Pearl

Dose adjustments are based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula; vaborbactam unlikely to enhance in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa compared with meropenem alone unless a carbapenemase is present.

1.6 Imipenem-Relebactam (Recarbrio)

  • Adult dose: 1.25 g IV every 6 hours via 30-minute infusion
  • Safety and efficacy not established in children
  • Adverse effects: anemia, increased serum aminotransferases, rash, hypokalemia, diarrhea, seizure
  • Common uses: intraabdominal infection, urinary tract infection, pneumonia
  • Niche in therapy: difficult-to-treat P. aeruginosa
TipClinical Pearl

Relebactam is likely to enhance in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa compared with imipenem alone through inhibition of AmpC. Dose in normal renal function is 500 mg imipenem + 500 mg cilastatin + 250 mg relebactam (indicated as 1.25 g per packaging).

1.7 Aztreonam

  • Adult dose: 2 g IV every 8 hours (consider extended infusion over 3 hours for serious infections)
  • Pediatric dose: 30 mg/kg IV every 6 to 8 hours (max 120 mg/kg/day); a higher dose may be used for patients with cystic fibrosis
  • Adverse effects: rash, diarrhea, increased serum aminotransferases, neutropenia, phlebitis
  • Common uses: patients with severe β-lactam allergy as monotherapy or in combination with ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of infections due to metallo-β-lactamase-producing strains
  • Niche in therapy: treatment of infections by metallo-β-lactamase-producing strains
ImportantKey Point

Aztreonam has no in vitro activity against anaerobic organisms or any gram-positive pathogen. It uses a monobactam ring rather than a β-lactam ring structure. It has a similar side chain to ceftazidime and cefiderocol.

2 Carbapenems

Three carbapenems — ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem — are available for clinical use in the United States and are also the most commonly used carbapenems worldwide. Additionally, several other carbapenems including doripenem, panipenem, tebipenem, and biapenem are available outside the United States. Carbapenems display in vitro activity against a broad range of gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria because of their efficient penetration through the bacterial outer membrane, high affinity for multiple penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs), and stability against most β-lactamases, including class A extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and class C β-lactamases (AmpCs).

2.1 Chemistry

Carbapenems are derivatives of thienamycin, an antibiotic produced by the soil organism Streptomyces cattleya. They differ from penicillins by a carbon atom replacing the sulfur at position 1 and a double bond between C2 and C3 in the five-membered thiazolidine ring (see Figure 1). The trans-1α-hydroxyethyl side chain in the trans-configuration at C6 confers the excellent stability against ESBLs and AmpC β-lactamases, which is associated with the broad spectrum of activity of carbapenems [1].

Thienamycin was chemically too unstable, which prompted the development of its N-formimidoyl derivative imipenem. However, imipenem is degraded in vivo by mammalian renal dehydropeptidase (DHP-I) and must be coadministered with cilastatin, a selective antagonist of this enzyme. Meropenem and ertapenem differ from imipenem by having a 1β-methyl, 2-thiopyrrolidinyl substituent at C2. The 1β-methyl constituent is believed to provide stability to DHP-I, which allows them to be administered without cilastatin, unlike imipenem.

Figure 1: Core structure and substituents for carbapenem antibiotics (thienamycin, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, doripenem).

2.2 Mechanism of Action

Carbapenems, like all β-lactam antibiotics, inhibit cell wall synthesis by binding to most PBPs. Although variations exist depending on the specific agent, carbapenems preferentially bind to PBPs 1a, 1b, 2, and 4 and to a lesser extent PBP3, which is the primary target of aminopenicillins and cephalosporins. The affinity of carbapenems to multiple PBPs of various bacteria contributes to the broad spectrum of activity of these agents. Carbapenems traverse the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria through specific outer membrane proteins (OMPs) to reach the periplasmic space.

2.3 Resistance

Resistance to carbapenems is mediated by one or a combination of the following mechanisms: (1) production of β-lactamase enzyme(s) that hydrolyzes carbapenems; (2) diminished permeability (i.e., less drug available inside the cell) due to impaired expression of certain OMPs; (3) efflux of drug across the outer membrane; and (4) production of an altered or low-affinity target, which is more relevant in gram-positive bacteria but increasingly reported for gram-negative organisms as well [2].

A single mechanism of resistance may not be sufficient to cause a clinically relevant degree of resistance to carbapenems for most gram-negative bacteria; frank resistance often occurs through an interplay involving β-lactamase production, impaired permeability, and enhanced efflux.

2.3.1 β-Lactamase Production

Production of β-lactamase enzyme(s) that confers resistance to carbapenems is observed most commonly in gram-negative bacteria. Carbapenems are readily hydrolyzed by Ambler class B β-lactamases, which are zinc-dependent metalloenzymes, and no clinically available β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) compound (i.e., sulbactam, clavulanic acid, tazobactam, avibactam, relebactam, vaborbactam) prevents this hydrolysis [3]. Some lactose-nonfermenting species, including Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, are intrinsically resistant to carbapenems due to metallo-β-lactamase production.

Additionally, several Ambler class A β-lactamases hydrolyze carbapenems (i.e., carbapenemases); however, carbapenems are stable to hydrolysis by the majority of class A and class C β-lactamases (e.g., ESBLs, AmpC enzymes). In particular, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) have emerged as an important carbapenem resistance determinant in gram-negative bacteria worldwide, mostly in K. pneumoniae [4]. Ambler class D oxacillinase β-lactamases (OXAs) that hydrolyze carbapenems are also found frequently in Acinetobacter baumannii and are emerging in Enterobacterales in certain geographic areas [4].

2.3.2 Decreased Permeability and Efflux

Decreased drug permeability via downregulated production or absence of OMP OprD is a major contributor to carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, particularly when combined with β-lactamase production or efflux [5,6]. Imipenem is the preferred substrate of OprD and is affected most, whereas the effect of the lack of OprD on resistance is less pronounced for meropenem [7,8]. Likewise, decreased expression of OmpK35 and OmpK36 for K. pneumoniae and OmpC and OmpF for Enterobacter spp. has been associated with carbapenem resistance [7,911].

Meropenem, but not imipenem, are substrates of the tripartite multidrug efflux system MexA-MexB-OprM in P. aeruginosa [12,13]. Here, MexB is the cytoplasmic protein, OprM is the outer membrane component forming channels, and MexA is the membrane fusion protein linking the two membrane proteins. Upregulation of this efflux system augments resistance to meropenem.

ImportantDifferential Susceptibility in P. aeruginosa

Imipenem resistance in P. aeruginosa is driven primarily by OprD loss, whereas meropenem resistance is driven by both OprD loss and MexA-MexB-OprM efflux upregulation. This explains why discordant susceptibility results are common — an isolate may be resistant to imipenem but susceptible to meropenem, or vice versa. OprD loss frequently occurs during therapy, making it a common cause of emergent resistance.

Non-carbapenemase-mediated resistance in Enterobacterales (porin loss combined with ESBL or AmpC production) is increasingly recognized. These organisms may test resistant phenotypically but are not true carbapenemase producers. This distinction matters for both infection control (no need for aggressive isolation measures specific to carbapenemase producers) and treatment (these organisms may respond to carbapenem-BLI combinations or high-dose extended-infusion carbapenem therapy).

2.3.3 Altered PBP Targets

Production of a low-affinity PBP may mediate β-lactam class resistance and is the main mechanism of carbapenem resistance in gram-positive bacteria. Examples include PBP2a in oxacillin-resistant staphylococci [14] and PBP5 in Enterococcus faecium [15]. Approximately 40% to 50% of Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains are resistant to oxacillin, and by extension to carbapenems, whereas 60% to 80% of E. faecium clinical strains are resistant to ampicillin, and by extension to carbapenems, due to low-affinity PBPs [16].

2.3.4 PBP3 Insertions in Gram-Negative Bacteria

PBP3 four-amino-acid insertions (typically YRIN or YRIK between residues 333–334 in the β2b–β2c loop, adjacent to the transpeptidase active site) reduce susceptibility to PBP3-targeting β-lactams including aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime [17]. First described in 2015 with reduced aztreonam–avibactam susceptibility, these insertions are now common in globally disseminated high-risk E. coli lineages (ST167, ST405, ST410, ST648), which frequently co-carry NDM metallo-β-lactamases plus CMY cephalosporinases or CTX-M ESBLs.

Many β-lactams rely predominantly on PBP3 inhibition and are therefore vulnerable to these target alterations. Carbapenems, with broader PBP binding (PBPs 1a, 1b, 2, and 4), are less affected — though carbapenem–BLI combinations differ in their behavior. Whole-genome sequencing is increasingly needed to detect uncommon resistance genotypes such as PBP3 insertions and guide rational combination therapy [18].

NoteClinical Case Example

A 65-year-old man without identifiable risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens was admitted with peritonitis, isolating NDM-producing E. coli from intraoperative samples. After initial treatment with ceftazidime-avibactam/aztreonam failed, he was switched to imipenem-relebactam/aztreonam with successful outcome. Whole-genome sequencing detected blaNDM-5 and blaCMY-148 β-lactamases, a PBP3 YRIN insertion, and a mutated cirA gene — illustrating the importance of considering multiple resistance mechanisms when choosing combination therapy [18].

2.4 Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales

Increasing incidence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, including those producing carbapenemases and non-carbapenemase-mediated resistance via porin mutations, ESBL or AmpC production, and less commonly, efflux, has aroused concern about erosion of utility for this important class of antibacterial agents [4]. Equally concerning is the difficulty encountered in detecting carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in the routine diagnostic laboratory, particularly in community and critical access locations.

The ECDC EARS-Net Annual Epidemiological Report for 2024 documented a statistically significant increasing trend in carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CRKP) bloodstream infections across the EU/EEA between 2019 and 2024, with the estimated total EU incidence reaching 3.51 per 100,000 population (country range: 0.02–20.31). This represents a 61% increase compared to the 2019 baseline year and exceeds the 2030 EU target of 2.07 per 100,000 population. Higher resistance rates are generally reported by countries in southern, central, and eastern Europe, with a pronounced north-to-south gradient.

In 2011, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) decreased the carbapenem breakpoints of Enterobacterales fourfold for imipenem, meropenem, and ertapenem [19]. This change was made to accommodate carbapenem resistance mechanisms that were undetected at the higher 2010 breakpoints. The revised breakpoints negate the need to perform phenotypic carbapenemase detection tests (e.g., modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method, Carba NP test) unless warranted for epidemiologic and infection control purposes. However, confirming the presence of carbapenemase genes remains important to guide treatment decisions regardless of pathogen MIC:

  • KPC → meropenem-vaborbactam preferred
  • MBL (NDM, VIM, IMP) → aztreonam + ceftazidime-avibactam
  • OXA-48 → ceftazidime-avibactam

2.5 Carbapenem-β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

Two carbapenem-BLI combination antibiotics were recently developed to combat the increasing incidence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: meropenem-vaborbactam (2017) and imipenem-relebactam (2019) [20].

Feature Meropenem-Vaborbactam (Vabomere) Imipenem-Relebactam (Recarbrio)
Approval year 2017 2019
BLI class Cyclic boronic acid Diazabicyclooctane
Inhibits KPC Yes (potently) Yes
Inhibits AmpC Yes Yes
Inhibits MBL No No
Inhibits OXA-48 No No
Primary clinical niche KPC-producing CRE Difficult-to-treat P. aeruginosa

Vaborbactam is a non-β-lactam, cyclic boronic acid BLI. Relebactam is a non-β-lactam, bicyclic diazabicyclooctane BLI. Both BLIs inhibit Ambler class A enzymes including ESBLs and KPC carbapenemases and class C (AmpC) β-lactamases, potentially restoring activity of the parent carbapenem compounds against pathogens harboring enzymes that would confer resistance (i.e., KPC). They do not inhibit class B (metallo-β-lactamase) or class D (e.g., OXA-48-like) carbapenemases.

Vaborbactam was uniquely designed to bind potently to KPC, making meropenem-vaborbactam a preferred agent for the treatment of infections due to KPC-producing strains [21]. Relebactam inhibits KPC in vitro, but clinical data are lacking for its use for these infections. Rather, imipenem-relebactam’s role in therapy has emerged for the treatment of difficult-to-treat P. aeruginosa, because AmpC enzyme production appears to play a greater role in resistance to imipenem versus meropenem.

2.6 Antibacterial Activity

The carbapenems have similar antibacterial spectra [22,23]. All have excellent in vitro activity against gram-positive cocci in general. For Streptococcus pneumoniae, the MICs are less than 0.03 μg/mL for penicillin-susceptible strains and around 0.5 μg/mL for penicillin-resistant strains, which are achievable human exposures when administering package insert doses. β-Hemolytic streptococci are exquisitely susceptible to carbapenems.

Oxacillin-susceptible strains of S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are inhibited at carbapenem concentrations of less than 0.5 μg/mL, but oxacillin-resistant strains are highly resistant to currently available carbapenems. Enterococcus faecalis is typically susceptible to imipenem, with MICs of 2 μg/mL or less, but is more resistant to ertapenem and meropenem. None of the carbapenems is active against E. faecium except for rare strains that are susceptible to ampicillin.

Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Neisseria meningitidis are highly susceptible to carbapenems, with MICs typically less than 0.1 μg/mL. Most ceftriaxone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae remain susceptible to ertapenem, although resistance is increasing globally [24,25].

MICs of Haemophilus influenzae are 0.1 μg/mL or less for ertapenem and meropenem and 1 μg/mL or less for imipenem, including β-lactamase-producing strains. Most Enterobacterales are inhibited by imipenem at concentrations of 1 μg/mL (the current susceptibility breakpoint) or less, whereas Morganella, Providencia, and Proteus strains have higher MIC values and therefore the CLSI does not recommend breakpoints for these pathogens for imipenem; relebactam does not restore activity against these pathogens. Corresponding MICs of ertapenem and meropenem are typically 0.1 μg/mL or less, including for strains producing ESBLs.

KPC-producing K. pneumoniae strains are typically resistant to all carbapenems, with MICs of 8 μg/mL or greater. However, KPC-producing Escherichia coli are inhibited at lower carbapenem concentrations, and therefore many have MICs between 0.5 and 4 μg/mL; the lower end of this range would be considered susceptible based on current breakpoints. Likewise, meropenem and imipenem MICs for KPC-producing Enterobacter cloacae complex tend to be lower than those for K. pneumoniae.

NoteAnaerobic Activity

Ertapenem and meropenem have excellent in vitro activity against most clinically relevant anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis group and Clostridium spp. Imipenem also has good anaerobic activity but may have slightly higher MICs against some Bacteroides strains. All carbapenems lack activity against Clostridioides difficile [26].

2.6.1 MIC90 Comparison Tables

The following tables summarize comparative MIC90 values (μg/mL) for the three major carbapenems. Values are from Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases.

Gram-Positive Cocci

Organism Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem
S. aureus, oxacillin-susceptible 0.25 0.12 0.12
S. aureus, oxacillin-resistant >16 >16 >16
CoNS, oxacillin-susceptible 0.25 0.12 0.12
CoNS, oxacillin-resistant >16 >16 >16
Streptococcus pneumoniae 0.06–0.5 0.06–0.25 0.06–1
β-Hemolytic streptococci 0.06 0.06 0.06
Viridans group streptococci 0.12 0.03 0.03
Enterococcus faecalis 8 1 8
Enterococcus faecium >8 >8 >8
Listeria monocytogenes 0.25 0.06 0.12

Gram-Negative Cocci and Enterobacterales

Organism Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem
Haemophilus influenzae 0.03 0.25 0.06
Moraxella catarrhalis 0.03 0.25 0.03
Neisseria gonorrhoeae 0.06 0.25 0.03
Neisseria meningitidis 0.03 0.03 0.03
Escherichia coli 0.06 0.5 0.03
E. coli, ESBL-producing 0.06 0.5 0.06
Klebsiella pneumoniae 0.12 0.5 0.12
Enterobacter cloacae 0.06 0.5 0.12
Morganella morganii 0.06 8 0.12
Serratia marcescens 0.06 0.5 0.12
Proteus mirabilis 0.06 1 0.12

Non-Fermenters and Anaerobes

Organism Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem
Pseudomonas aeruginosa >8 1 to >8 0.5 to >8
Acinetobacter baumannii >8 >8 >8
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia >8 >8 >8
Burkholderia cepacia >8 >8 4
Bacteroides fragilis 0.5 0.5 0.25
Clostridium perfringens 0.06 0.5 0.06
Clostridioides difficile 4 2 2
TipClinical Pearl

Note that imipenem has notably higher MICs for Morganella and Proteus species (no CLSI breakpoints for imipenem), and that ertapenem has no useful activity against P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, or S. maltophilia. These are important gaps when selecting empiric therapy.

2.7 Pharmacokinetics

Carbapenems are administered parenterally. Pharmacokinetic properties vary among the three agents:

Parameter Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem
Protein binding 92%–95% ~20% ~2%
Half-life (h) ~4 ~1 ~1
Dosing frequency q24h q6–8h q8h
CSF penetration Poor Moderate Good
DHP-I stability Yes No (needs cilastatin) Yes
Renal elimination Yes Yes Yes

Meropenem has the most well-characterized pharmacokinetic profile [27]. It distributes well into most body sites including the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which is why it is the carbapenem of choice for meningitis. Protein binding is approximately 2%, which means nearly all circulating drug is free. The half-life is approximately 1 hour with normal renal function.

Imipenem has similar distribution to meropenem but is coadministered with cilastatin to prevent renal DHP-I degradation [28]. Protein binding is approximately 20%. The half-life is approximately 1 hour. Imipenem also penetrates the CSF but has a higher seizure risk compared with meropenem in the meningitis setting.

Ertapenem has significantly higher protein binding (~92%–95%) and a longer half-life (~4 hours), enabling once-daily dosing [29]. However, the high protein binding is a double-edged sword — in patients with hypoalbuminemia, free drug concentrations increase, leading to faster clearance and potentially subtherapeutic levels [30].

ImportantPharmacodynamic Optimization

Extended-infusion meropenem (3-hour infusion) is recommended for serious infections to maximize the time above MIC (fT>MIC). This is particularly important for organisms with elevated MICs [31,32].

2.8 Pharmacodynamics of Carbapenem-BLI Combinations

For meropenem-vaborbactam, the PK/PD driver of vaborbactam efficacy is %fT>CT (percentage of time the free drug concentration exceeds a threshold concentration), with a target threshold concentration of approximately 8 μg/mL [33].

For imipenem-relebactam, the PK/PD driver of relebactam efficacy is AUC/MIC ratio. The pharmacodynamics of relebactam in combination with imipenem have been evaluated in murine thigh models, demonstrating restoration of imipenem activity against KPC-producing and AmpC-producing organisms [34].

2.9 Adverse Effects

2.9.1 Seizures

All carbapenems can lower the seizure threshold, but the risk varies by agent. Imipenem has the highest seizure risk (reported rates of 1%–3% in general populations, up to 10% in patients with predisposing factors), followed by meropenem and ertapenem [35]. Risk factors include renal impairment, central nervous system pathology, and high doses. Dose adjustment for renal function is critical.

WarningValproic Acid Interaction

Carbapenems cause a precipitous and often irreversible decrease in valproic acid concentrations within 24 hours of coadministration. The mechanism involves increased glucuronidation and inhibition of intestinal absorption of valproate. This interaction is a class effect — all carbapenems should be avoided in patients receiving valproic acid [36].

2.9.2 Allergic Cross-Reactivity

Carbapenems share the β-lactam core structure with penicillins and cephalosporins. However, the cross-reactivity between penicillins and carbapenems is low (~1%), and carbapenems can generally be used safely in patients with a history of penicillin allergy, although caution is warranted in patients with a history of severe (anaphylactic) reactions [37].

NoteAztreonam and Allergy

Aztreonam, as a monobactam, has a different ring structure and does not cross-react with penicillins, cephalosporins, or carbapenems. It is the safest β-lactam option for patients with severe β-lactam allergy, with the notable exception that it shares a side chain with ceftazidime — patients with ceftazidime allergy may also react to aztreonam.

2.10 Clinical Applications

2.10.1 ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales

Carbapenems remain the agents of choice for serious infections due to ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. The MERINO trial demonstrated that meropenem was superior to piperacillin-tazobactam for definitive treatment of bloodstream infections caused by ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli or K. pneumoniae [38]. Ertapenem may be used for less severe infections or step-down therapy, with the advantage of once-daily dosing facilitating OPAT.

2.10.2 KPC-Producing Enterobacterales

Meropenem-vaborbactam is preferred for infections due to KPC-producing organisms based on IDSA guidance [21,39]. Ceftazidime-avibactam is an alternative. Imipenem-relebactam has activity against KPC-producers in vitro but less clinical experience is available.

2.10.3 Difficult-to-Treat P. aeruginosa

Imipenem-relebactam has emerged as a key agent for difficult-to-treat P. aeruginosa, where AmpC production drives resistance to imipenem [21,40]. Relebactam restores imipenem activity by inhibiting AmpC. For P. aeruginosa with MBL production, aztreonam-based combinations (aztreonam + ceftazidime-avibactam) are recommended.

2.10.4 Metallo-β-Lactamase Producers

No currently available BLI inhibits metallo-β-lactamases. Aztreonam is stable to MBL hydrolysis and, when combined with ceftazidime-avibactam (which provides avibactam to protect aztreonam from serine β-lactamases), offers coverage against MBL-producing Enterobacterales [2].

2.11 Treatment Algorithm: Choosing the Right Carbapenem

The following table summarizes the preferred carbapenem or carbapenem-based regimen for common clinical scenarios:

Clinical Scenario Preferred Agent
ESBL bacteremia Meropenem (extended infusion)
ESBL step-down / OPAT Ertapenem
Mixed gram-negative + E. faecalis Imipenem
KPC-producing CRE Meropenem-vaborbactam
DTR P. aeruginosa Imipenem-relebactam
MBL-producing CRE Aztreonam + ceftazidime-avibactam
Severe β-lactam allergy + GN coverage Aztreonam
Meningitis Meropenem
Nocardiosis Imipenem

The choice of carbapenem depends on: (1) the pathogen suspected or confirmed, (2) the resistance mechanism, (3) the site of infection, and (4) patient factors including allergy, renal function, and albumin levels.

3 Aztreonam

Aztreonam is the only clinically available monobactam. Its unique ring structure — a monocyclic β-lactam rather than the bicyclic structure of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems — confers minimal cross-allergenicity with other β-lactam classes.

3.1 Spectrum of Activity

Aztreonam’s spectrum is limited exclusively to aerobic gram-negative bacteria. It has no activity against gram-positive organisms or anaerobes. It has good activity against most Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, similar to aminoglycosides in its gram-negative focus. It is stable to hydrolysis by metallo-β-lactamases (Ambler class B), which makes it uniquely valuable in the treatment of MBL-producing organisms.

3.2 Clinical Role

Aztreonam is primarily used in two clinical scenarios: (1) as a β-lactam option for patients with severe penicillin/cephalosporin/carbapenem allergy who need gram-negative coverage, and (2) in combination with ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of infections due to MBL-producing Enterobacterales, where avibactam protects aztreonam from non-MBL β-lactamases while aztreonam resists MBL hydrolysis.

4 Key Takeaways

  1. Carbapenems are time-dependent killers — optimize fT>MIC with extended infusions (3 hours for meropenem)
  2. Ertapenem has a narrow niche: no Pseudomonas, no Acinetobacter, no Enterococcus — but ideal for OPAT
  3. Know the resistance mechanism to choose the right agent: KPC → meropenem-vaborbactam; DTR-PA → imipenem-relebactam; MBL → aztreonam + ceftazidime-avibactam
  4. Avoid carbapenems with valproic acid — class-wide interaction causing precipitous VPA decline (50%–90%)
  5. Aztreonam is uniquely safe in severe β-lactam allergy and uniquely active against MBL-producers
  6. All carbapenems require renal dose adjustment and have no activity against MRSA or VRE
  7. Neither available BLI (vaborbactam, relebactam) covers metallo-β-lactamases or OXA-48 carbapenemases
  8. The MERINO trial established meropenem as superior to piperacillin-tazobactam for ESBL bacteremia (mortality 3.7% vs 12.3%)
  9. PBP3 insertions (YRIN/YRIK) in high-risk E. coli lineages represent an emerging resistance mechanism that may compromise aztreonam-based combinations — whole-genome sequencing may be needed for detection
  10. CRE incidence is increasing significantly across Europe, with CRKP bloodstream infection incidence 61% higher in 2024 than the 2019 baseline, exceeding the EU 2030 target

References

1.
Zhanel GG, Wiebe R, Dilay L, others. Comparative review of the carbapenems. Drugs 2007;67:1027–1052.
2.
Ma K, Feng Y, Zong Z. Aztreonam-avibactam may not replace ceftazidime/avibactam: The case of KPC-21 carbapenemase and penicillin-binding protein 3 with four extra amino acids. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2022;60:106642.
3.
Bush K, Bradford PA. Epidemiology of \(\beta\)-lactamase-producing pathogens. Clin Microbiol Rev 2020;33:e00047–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00047-19.
4.
Nordmann P, Naas T, Poirel L. Global spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis 2011;17:1791–1798.
5.
Trias J, Nikaido H. Outer membrane protein D2 catalyzes facilitated diffusion of carbapenems and penems through the outer membrane of pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:52–57.
6.
Satake S, Yoshihara E, Nakae T. Diffusion of \(\beta\)-lactam antibiotics through liposome membranes reconstituted from purified porins of the outer membrane of pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:685–690.
7.
Davies TA, Marie Queenan A, Morrow BJ, others. Longitudinal survey of carbapenem resistance and resistance mechanisms in Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters from the USA in 2007-09. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011;66:2298–2307.
8.
Livermore DM. Interplay of impermeability and chromosomal \(\beta\)-lactamase activity in imipenem-resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992;36:2046–2048.
9.
Yigit H, Anderson GJ, Biddle JW, others. Carbapenem resistance in a clinical isolate of enterobacter aerogenes is associated with decreased expression of OmpF and OmpC porin analogs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:3817–3822.
10.
Doumith M, Ellington MJ, Livermore DM, Woodford N. Molecular mechanisms disrupting porin expression in ertapenem-resistant klebsiella and enterobacter spp. Clinical isolates from the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63:659–667.
11.
Martinez-Martinez L, Pascual A, Hernandez-Alles S, others. Roles of \(\beta\)-lactamases and porins in activities of carbapenems and cephalosporins against klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:1669–1673.
12.
Kohler T, Michea-Hamzehpour M, Epp SF, Pechere JC. Carbapenem activities against pseudomonas aeruginosa: Respective contributions of OprD and efflux systems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:424–427.
13.
Masuda N, Sakagawa E, Ohya S, Gotoh N, Tsujimoto H, Nishino T. Substrate specificities of MexAB-OprM, MexCD-OprJ, and MexXY-oprM efflux pumps in pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:3322–3327.
14.
Fuda C, Suvorov M, Vakulenko SB, Mobashery S. The basis for resistance to \(\beta\)-lactam antibiotics by penicillin-binding protein 2a of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. J Biol Chem 2004;279:40802–40806.
15.
Hujer AM, Kania M, Gerken T, others. Structure-activity relationships of different \(\beta\)-lactam antibiotics against a soluble form of enterococcus faecium PBP5, a type II bacterial transpeptidase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:612–618.
16.
Weiner-Lastinger LM, Abner S, Edwards JR, others. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with adult healthcare-associated infections: Summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2015–2017. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;41:1–18.
17.
Stellfox ME, Doi Y. Case commentary: When one target is not enough—PBP3 insertions and target redundancy in Escherichia coli. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2026;70:e00053–26. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00053-26.
18.
Fabrizio C, Valzano F, Giuliano S, Morelli E, Serio D, Buccoliero GB, Cervellera M, La Bella G, Arena F, Hujer AM, others. Optimizing target inactivation to treat multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli with NDM and PBP3 mutations: “Going the extra mile.” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2026;70:e00887–25. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00887-25.
19.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-first informational supplement. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2011.
20.
Zhanel GG, Lawrence CK, Adam H, others. Imipenem-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam: Two novel carbapenem-\(\beta\)-lactamase inhibitor combinations. Drugs 2018;78:65–98.
21.
Tamma PD, Aitken SL, Bonomo RA, Mathers AJ, Duin D van, Clancy CJ. Infectious diseases society of America 2023 guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial resistant gram-negative infections. Clin Infect Dis 2023;ciad428. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad428.
22.
Fritsche TR, Sader HS, Stillwell MG, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of doripenem tested against prevalent gram-positive pathogens: Results from a global surveillance study (2003-2007). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;63:440–446.
23.
Jones RN, Bell JM, Sader HS, Turnidge JD, Stilwell MG. In vitro potency of doripenem tested against an international collection of rarely isolated bacterial pathogens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;63:434–439.
24.
Unemo M, Golparian D, Limnios A, others. In vitro activity of ertapenem versus ceftriaxone against neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates with highly diverse ceftriaxone MIC values and effects of ceftriaxone resistance determinants: Ertapenem for treatment of gonorrhea? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:3603–3609.
25.
Li X, Le W, Lou X, Genco CA, Rice PA, Su X. In vitro activity of ertapenem against neisseria gonorrhoeae clinical isolates with decreased susceptibility or resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporins in Nanjing, China (2013 to 2019). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2022;66:e0010922.
26.
Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Merriam CV, Warren YA, Tyrrell KL, Fernandez H. Comparative in vitro activities of ertapenem (MK-0826) against 469 less frequently identified anaerobes isolated from human infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:1136–1140.
27.
Moon YS, Chung KC, Gill MA. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in animals, healthy volunteers, and patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:S249–S255.
28.
Drusano GL. An overview of the pharmacology of imipenem/cilastatin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986;18:79–92.
29.
Majumdar AK, Musson DG, Birk KL, others. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:3506–3511.
30.
Zusman O, Farbman L, Tredler Z, others. Association between hypoalbuminemia and mortality among subjects treated with ertapenem versus other carbapenems: Prospective cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:54–58.
31.
Nicolau DP. Pharmacodynamic optimization of \(\beta\)-lactams in the patient care setting. Crit Care 2008;12:S2.
32.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Alffenaar JC, Bassetti M, others. Antimicrobial therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill adult patients: A position paper. Intensive Care Med 2020;46:1127–1153.
33.
Griffith DC, Sabet M, Tarazi Z, Lomovskaya O, Dudley MN. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of vaborbactam, a novel \(\beta\)-lactamase inhibitor, in combination with meropenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;63:e01659–18.
34.
Mavridou E, Melchers RJ, Mil AC van, Mangin E, Motyl MR, Mouton JW. Pharmacodynamics of imipenem in combination with \(\beta\)-lactamase inhibitor MK7655 in a murine thigh model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:790–795.
35.
Miller AD, Ball AM, Bookstaver PB, Dornblaser EK, Bennett CL. Epileptogenic potential of carbapenem agents: Mechanism of action, seizure rates, and clinical considerations. Pharmacother 2011;31:408–423.
36.
Mori H, Takahashi K, Mizutani T. Interaction between valproic acid and carbapenem antibiotics. Drug Metab Rev 2007;39:647–657.
37.
Frumin J, Gallagher JC. Allergic cross-sensitivity between penicillin, carbapenem, and monobactam antibiotics: What are the chances? Ann Pharmacother 2009;43:304–315.
38.
Harris PNA, Tambyah PA, Lye DC, others. Effect of piperacillin-tazobactam vs meropenem on 30-day mortality for patients with e coli or klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection and ceftriaxone resistance: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320:984–994.
39.
Shields RK, McCreary EK, Marini RV, others. Early experience with meropenem-vaborbactam for treatment of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae infections. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:667–671.
40.
Reyes J, Komarow L, Chen L, others. Global epidemiology and clinical outcomes of carbapenem-resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa and associated carbapenemases (POP): A prospective cohort study. Lancet Microbe 2023;4:e159–e170.