Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Yu Shi, Shaozeng Li, Lijing He, Haibin Wang, Yupeng Shang, Kang Zhang, Xinwei Han, Yuan Wei, Wanli Chu, Yulin Xiong
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii.","authors":"Yu Shi, Shaozeng Li, Lijing He, Haibin Wang, Yupeng Shang, Kang Zhang, Xinwei Han, Yuan Wei, Wanli Chu, Yulin Xiong","doi":"10.1186/s12941-026-00869-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of different tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for CRKP and CRAB using the broth microdilution (BMD) method as the gold standard, under different breakpoint criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 53 CRKP and 47 CRAB clinical isolates, collected from December 2021 to January 2023, were tested for tigecycline susceptibility using six clinically common methods: Vitek2 (using the Vitek2 Compact system), the Kirby-Bauer (KB) disk diffusion susceptibility test, the modified KB (mKB) test with a buffer solution, the Epsilometer test (E-test), minimum inhibitory concentration test strips (MTS) and BMD (as the reference standard). The susceptibility test results were interpreted based on the standards issued by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing(EUCAST), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy(BSAC). The performance of each method was assessed through essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), error rates and Kappa (κ) values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of methodology, the mKB significantly increased the inhibition zone diameter compared with the KB for both CRKP (3.2 ± 0.8 mm) and CRAB (3.6 ± 0.8 mm) (P < 0.05, respectively). Using BMD as the gold standard and following FDA criteria, the mKB demonstrated an accuracy rate significantly higher than the KB in interpreting CRKP susceptibility results (62.3% vs. 1.9%, P < 0.05). The agreement rate between the E-test and the MTS for CRKP was as high as 84.9%, indicating no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the E-test yielded significantly higher accuracy than the mKB (98.1% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.05). For CRAB, the accuracy of the E-test was lower than that for CRKP (68.1% vs. 98.1%). When compared with BMD, the E-test had a high EA value of 92.5% for CRKP and a lower EA value of 68.1% for CRAB. Under the FDA standard for CRKP, the E-test yielded a CA value of 98.1%, with very major error (VME) and major error (ME) rates of 0%, a minor error (mE) rate of 1.9% and a κ-value of 0.658, indicating substantial agreement. In contrast, when applied to CRAB, the performance of the E-test declined markedly, with a CA value of only 68.1%, VME and ME rates still at 0%, but a much higher mE rate of 31.9% and a κ-value of just 0.082, indicating poor agreement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mKB improves the detection performance of the KB, suggesting that pH variation is one of the factors affecting the accuracy of KB-test-based TST. Among the five clinical verification methods included in this study, the E-test demonstrates the best overall performance under all interpretive criteria, making it more suitable for confirming the tigecycline susceptibility of CRKP. However, this method appears less reliable for CRAB, indicating the significant impact of interspecies differences on TST performance. Additionally, the verification methods aligned better with the FDA interpretive criteria. Future research should focus on methodological optimisation based on various influencing factors and on refining interpretive breakpoints specific to each method, which will be key to improving TST accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":8052,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13491962/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-026-00869-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of different tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for CRKP and CRAB using the broth microdilution (BMD) method as the gold standard, under different breakpoint criteria.

Methods: A total of 53 CRKP and 47 CRAB clinical isolates, collected from December 2021 to January 2023, were tested for tigecycline susceptibility using six clinically common methods: Vitek2 (using the Vitek2 Compact system), the Kirby-Bauer (KB) disk diffusion susceptibility test, the modified KB (mKB) test with a buffer solution, the Epsilometer test (E-test), minimum inhibitory concentration test strips (MTS) and BMD (as the reference standard). The susceptibility test results were interpreted based on the standards issued by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing(EUCAST), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy(BSAC). The performance of each method was assessed through essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), error rates and Kappa (κ) values.

Results: In terms of methodology, the mKB significantly increased the inhibition zone diameter compared with the KB for both CRKP (3.2 ± 0.8 mm) and CRAB (3.6 ± 0.8 mm) (P < 0.05, respectively). Using BMD as the gold standard and following FDA criteria, the mKB demonstrated an accuracy rate significantly higher than the KB in interpreting CRKP susceptibility results (62.3% vs. 1.9%, P < 0.05). The agreement rate between the E-test and the MTS for CRKP was as high as 84.9%, indicating no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the E-test yielded significantly higher accuracy than the mKB (98.1% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.05). For CRAB, the accuracy of the E-test was lower than that for CRKP (68.1% vs. 98.1%). When compared with BMD, the E-test had a high EA value of 92.5% for CRKP and a lower EA value of 68.1% for CRAB. Under the FDA standard for CRKP, the E-test yielded a CA value of 98.1%, with very major error (VME) and major error (ME) rates of 0%, a minor error (mE) rate of 1.9% and a κ-value of 0.658, indicating substantial agreement. In contrast, when applied to CRAB, the performance of the E-test declined markedly, with a CA value of only 68.1%, VME and ME rates still at 0%, but a much higher mE rate of 31.9% and a κ-value of just 0.082, indicating poor agreement.

Conclusion: The mKB improves the detection performance of the KB, suggesting that pH variation is one of the factors affecting the accuracy of KB-test-based TST. Among the five clinical verification methods included in this study, the E-test demonstrates the best overall performance under all interpretive criteria, making it more suitable for confirming the tigecycline susceptibility of CRKP. However, this method appears less reliable for CRAB, indicating the significant impact of interspecies differences on TST performance. Additionally, the verification methods aligned better with the FDA interpretive criteria. Future research should focus on methodological optimisation based on various influencing factors and on refining interpretive breakpoints specific to each method, which will be key to improving TST accuracy.

耐碳青霉烯肺炎克雷伯菌与鲍曼不动杆菌替加环素药敏试验方法的比较评价。
背景:本研究以微量肉汤稀释法(BMD)为金标准,评价不同替加环素药敏试验方法在不同断点标准下对CRKP和CRAB的敏感性。方法:于2021年12月至2023年1月收集53株CRKP和47株CRAB临床分离株,采用临床常用的6种方法进行替加环素药敏试验:Vitek2(使用Vitek2 Compact系统)、Kirby-Bauer (KB)圆盘扩散药敏试验、改良KB (mKB)缓冲液试验、Epsilometer试验(E-test)、最低抑菌浓度试验条(MTS)和BMD(作为参比标准)。药敏试验结果依据欧洲药敏试验委员会(EUCAST)、美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)、英国抗微生物化疗学会(BSAC)标准进行解释。通过基本一致性(EA)、分类一致性(CA)、错误率和Kappa (κ)值来评估每种方法的性能。结果:在方法学上,mKB对CRKP(3.2±0.8 mm)和CRAB(3.6±0.8 mm)的抑制带直径均显著高于KB (P < 0.05);结论:mKB提高了KB的检测性能,提示pH变化是影响基于KB测试的TST准确性的因素之一。在本研究纳入的5种临床验证方法中,E-test在所有解释标准下的综合性能最好,更适合用于确认CRKP的替加环素敏感性。然而,这种方法在螃蟹中似乎不太可靠,这表明物种间差异对TST性能有显著影响。此外,验证方法更符合FDA的解释标准。未来的研究应侧重于基于各种影响因素的方法优化,并细化每种方法特定的解释断点,这将是提高TST准确性的关键。
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
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials considers good quality, novel and international research of more than regional relevance. Research must include epidemiological and/or clinical information about isolates, and the journal covers the clinical microbiology of bacteria, viruses and fungi, as well as antimicrobial treatment of infectious diseases. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials is an open access, peer-reviewed journal focusing on information concerning clinical microbiology, infectious diseases and antimicrobials. The management of infectious disease is dependent on correct diagnosis and appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and with this in mind, the journal aims to improve the communication between laboratory and clinical science in the field of clinical microbiology and antimicrobial treatment. Furthermore, the journal has no restrictions on space or access; this ensures that the journal can reach the widest possible audience.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书