Comparative evaluation of eravacycline susceptibility testing methods in 587 clinical carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates: broth microdilution, MIC test strip and disc diffusion.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Qihui Liu, Shirong Li, Xuan Wang, Yijing Lin, Haoqin Jiang, Ning Li
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of eravacycline susceptibility testing methods in 587 clinical carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates: broth microdilution, MIC test strip and disc diffusion.","authors":"Qihui Liu, Shirong Li, Xuan Wang, Yijing Lin, Haoqin Jiang, Ning Li","doi":"10.1093/jac/dkae426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different methods for determining carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) susceptibility to eravacycline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected 587 CRAB strains from Huashan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University between 2019 and 2023. The broth microdilution (BMD) method served as the reference standard. The susceptibility results were evaluated using the clinical breakpoints established by the Chinese Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (ChinaCAST) (susceptible MIC,  ≤ 1 mg/L; inhibition zone diameter,  ≥ 15 mm). The study compared the reliability of the MIC test strip (MTS) and disc diffusion (DD) methods in detecting CRAB susceptibility to eravacycline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MICs required to inhibit 50% and 90% of CRAB growth were as follows: BMD, 0.5/1 mg/L; MTS, 0.38/0.75 mg/L. According to the ChinaCAST breakpoints, the BMD method demonstrated a 98.13% (576/587) susceptibility rate, whereas the MTS and DD methods showed susceptibility rates of 97.96% (575/587) and 97.61% (573/587), respectively. The essential agreement rate between the MTS and BMD methods was 94.55%. Categorical agreement (CA) rates for the MTS and DD methods were 99.83% and 99.49%, respectively. The major error (ME) rate for MTS was 0.17%, with no very major errors (VMEs) observed. For the DD method, the ME rate was 0.51%, also with no VMEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MTS and DD methods demonstrated strong consistency with the BMD reference method, with CA, ME and VME rates meeting methodological evaluation criteria. Both MTS and DD methods are reliable alternatives for assessing the antibacterial activity of eravacycline in clinical microbiology laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":14969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkae426","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different methods for determining carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) susceptibility to eravacycline.

Methods: We collected 587 CRAB strains from Huashan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University between 2019 and 2023. The broth microdilution (BMD) method served as the reference standard. The susceptibility results were evaluated using the clinical breakpoints established by the Chinese Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (ChinaCAST) (susceptible MIC,  ≤ 1 mg/L; inhibition zone diameter,  ≥ 15 mm). The study compared the reliability of the MIC test strip (MTS) and disc diffusion (DD) methods in detecting CRAB susceptibility to eravacycline.

Results: The MICs required to inhibit 50% and 90% of CRAB growth were as follows: BMD, 0.5/1 mg/L; MTS, 0.38/0.75 mg/L. According to the ChinaCAST breakpoints, the BMD method demonstrated a 98.13% (576/587) susceptibility rate, whereas the MTS and DD methods showed susceptibility rates of 97.96% (575/587) and 97.61% (573/587), respectively. The essential agreement rate between the MTS and BMD methods was 94.55%. Categorical agreement (CA) rates for the MTS and DD methods were 99.83% and 99.49%, respectively. The major error (ME) rate for MTS was 0.17%, with no very major errors (VMEs) observed. For the DD method, the ME rate was 0.51%, also with no VMEs.

Conclusion: The MTS and DD methods demonstrated strong consistency with the BMD reference method, with CA, ME and VME rates meeting methodological evaluation criteria. Both MTS and DD methods are reliable alternatives for assessing the antibacterial activity of eravacycline in clinical microbiology laboratories.

对 587 例临床耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌分离物进行的阿拉维生素药敏试验方法比较评估:肉汤微量稀释法、MIC 试纸法和盘式扩散法。
研究目的本研究旨在评估不同方法测定耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)对阿拉维生素敏感性的准确性:方法:我们在2019年至2023年期间从复旦大学附属华山医院收集了587株CRAB菌株。肉汤微稀释(BMD)法作为参考标准。药敏结果采用中国抗菌药物敏感性检测委员会(ChinaCAST)确定的临床断点(药敏 MIC,≤ 1 mg/L;抑菌区直径,≥ 15 mm)进行评价。该研究比较了 MIC 试条法(MTS)和盘扩散法(DD)在检测 CRAB 对依拉韦辛敏感性方面的可靠性:结果:抑制50%和90%CRAB生长所需的MIC如下BMD,0.5/1 mg/L;MTS,0.38/0.75 mg/L。根据 ChinaCAST 的断点,BMD 方法的药敏率为 98.13%(576/587),而 MTS 和 DD 方法的药敏率分别为 97.96%(575/587)和 97.61%(573/587)。MTS 和 BMD 方法的基本一致率为 94.55%。MTS 和 DD 方法的分类一致率(CA)分别为 99.83% 和 99.49%。MTS 方法的主要误差(ME)率为 0.17%,没有发现非常主要的误差(VME)。结论:结论:MTS 和 DD 方法与 BMD 参考方法具有很强的一致性,CA、ME 和 VME 率均符合方法学评估标准。MTS 和 DD 方法都是临床微生物实验室评估阿维菌素抗菌活性的可靠替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.80%
发文量
423
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes articles that further knowledge and advance the science and application of antimicrobial chemotherapy with antibiotics and antifungal, antiviral and antiprotozoal agents. The Journal publishes primarily in human medicine, and articles in veterinary medicine likely to have an impact on global health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信