INVICTUS II: comparison of disc diffusion and broth microdilution methods for susceptibility testing of ceftolozane/tazobactam and five comparator agents against a subset of INVICTUS I Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates.
Kate Baldwin, Adela Alvarez-Buylla, Michael Allen, Ricky Henry-Grant, Edita Custic Weguelin, Mandy Wootton
{"title":"INVICTUS II: comparison of disc diffusion and broth microdilution methods for susceptibility testing of ceftolozane/tazobactam and five comparator agents against a subset of INVICTUS I <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> clinical isolates.","authors":"Kate Baldwin, Adela Alvarez-Buylla, Michael Allen, Ricky Henry-Grant, Edita Custic Weguelin, Mandy Wootton","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlag212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A subset of clinical <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> isolates from the INVICTUS I study was selected to compare antimicrobial susceptibility performance for disc diffusion and broth microdilution of ceftolozane/tazobactam and five comparator antipseudomonal agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Overall, 159 non-cystic fibrosis isolates were chosen from INVICTUS I that had the smallest zone diameters from disc testing to ceftolozane/tazobactam, including isolates that were close to the breakpoints. The isolates were tested across 14 centres in the UK. Susceptibility results were interpreted using EUCAST 2026 criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Discrepancy analysis showed combined error rates (very major and major errors) highest for ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime and piperacillin/tazobactam (15.7%, 14.5% and 12.6%, respectively); when adjusted to remove isolates close to the breakpoint for ceftolozane/tazobactam and piperacillin/tazobactam there were still remarkably high error rates (10.6% and 7.2%, respectively). Essential agreement and bias analysis were not performed as MICs were being compared with zone diameters.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings highlight substantial challenges in performing and interpreting susceptibility testing for these two important antipseudomonal β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, which are commonly employed as either first-line empirical therapy (piperacillin/tazobactam) or for serious and MDR infection (ceftolozane/tazobactam). A review of disc testing for these agents may be warranted, and diagnostic laboratories may wish to review the technical limitations and put in place mitigating measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"8 5","pages":"dlag212"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13648871/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlag212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: A subset of clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from the INVICTUS I study was selected to compare antimicrobial susceptibility performance for disc diffusion and broth microdilution of ceftolozane/tazobactam and five comparator antipseudomonal agents.
Methods: Overall, 159 non-cystic fibrosis isolates were chosen from INVICTUS I that had the smallest zone diameters from disc testing to ceftolozane/tazobactam, including isolates that were close to the breakpoints. The isolates were tested across 14 centres in the UK. Susceptibility results were interpreted using EUCAST 2026 criteria.
Results: Discrepancy analysis showed combined error rates (very major and major errors) highest for ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime and piperacillin/tazobactam (15.7%, 14.5% and 12.6%, respectively); when adjusted to remove isolates close to the breakpoint for ceftolozane/tazobactam and piperacillin/tazobactam there were still remarkably high error rates (10.6% and 7.2%, respectively). Essential agreement and bias analysis were not performed as MICs were being compared with zone diameters.
Discussion: Our findings highlight substantial challenges in performing and interpreting susceptibility testing for these two important antipseudomonal β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, which are commonly employed as either first-line empirical therapy (piperacillin/tazobactam) or for serious and MDR infection (ceftolozane/tazobactam). A review of disc testing for these agents may be warranted, and diagnostic laboratories may wish to review the technical limitations and put in place mitigating measures.