用肉汤微量稀释法测定耐多药革兰氏阴性杆菌中可乐定最低抑制浓度与其他常用表型法的比较评估

N. Goyal, Seema Gangar, Malika Grover, Narendra Pal Singh, Aditya Nath Dwivedi, Ananya Varshney, Deeksha Chaudhary, Neelam Arya
{"title":"用肉汤微量稀释法测定耐多药革兰氏阴性杆菌中可乐定最低抑制浓度与其他常用表型法的比较评估","authors":"N. Goyal, Seema Gangar, Malika Grover, Narendra Pal Singh, Aditya Nath Dwivedi, Ananya Varshney, Deeksha Chaudhary, Neelam Arya","doi":"10.4081/mm.2023.11573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: over the past decade, the dependency on colistin as a last resort antibiotic has driven the global emergence of colistin resistance among many bacterial species. This study comparatively evaluated the colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) by various phenotypic methods, including the reference method of Broth Microdilution (BMD), other approved methods of Colistin Broth Disk Elution (CBDE), and Colistin Agar Test (CAT) and widely available method of Epsilometer Test (E-test) among Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria. Methods: ninety Gram-negative bacterial isolates that were resistant to three or more classes of drugs (MDR) were included in the study. All the MDR isolates were subjected to colistin susceptibility determination by BMD, CBDE, CAT, and E-test. Results: amongst 1118 samples, 90 (8.05%) samples yielded MDR Gram-negative bacilli. All the MDR Gram-negative isolates were colistin intermediate by all four methods of phenotypic colistin susceptibility. Three Acinetobacter baumannii and two Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates that had MIC of 2 μg/mL by BMD, displayed MIC of <1 μg/mL by CBDE and CAT. Three isolates (2 Citrobacter koseri and 1 Enterobacter spp.) showed higher MIC by the E-strip method in comparison to BMD. Conclusions: our study holds significance, as there is a paucity of data comparing the four phenotypic methods for colistin MIC determination; BMD is the most reliable, gold standard method, but it is labor-intensive and requires technical expertise. In the present study, CBDE and CAT methods showed good concordance with BMD, and are easy to perform with limited logistics. Thus, they can be used as an alternative to BMD. We found that even though the Etest method was less accurate, it can still be used with caution to exclude the possibility of colistin resistance.","PeriodicalId":422034,"journal":{"name":"Microbiologia Medica","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative evaluation of colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration determination by reference broth microdilution with other commonly used phenotypic methods in Multidrug-Resistant Gram-negative bacilli\",\"authors\":\"N. Goyal, Seema Gangar, Malika Grover, Narendra Pal Singh, Aditya Nath Dwivedi, Ananya Varshney, Deeksha Chaudhary, Neelam Arya\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/mm.2023.11573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: over the past decade, the dependency on colistin as a last resort antibiotic has driven the global emergence of colistin resistance among many bacterial species. This study comparatively evaluated the colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) by various phenotypic methods, including the reference method of Broth Microdilution (BMD), other approved methods of Colistin Broth Disk Elution (CBDE), and Colistin Agar Test (CAT) and widely available method of Epsilometer Test (E-test) among Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria. Methods: ninety Gram-negative bacterial isolates that were resistant to three or more classes of drugs (MDR) were included in the study. All the MDR isolates were subjected to colistin susceptibility determination by BMD, CBDE, CAT, and E-test. Results: amongst 1118 samples, 90 (8.05%) samples yielded MDR Gram-negative bacilli. All the MDR Gram-negative isolates were colistin intermediate by all four methods of phenotypic colistin susceptibility. Three Acinetobacter baumannii and two Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates that had MIC of 2 μg/mL by BMD, displayed MIC of <1 μg/mL by CBDE and CAT. Three isolates (2 Citrobacter koseri and 1 Enterobacter spp.) showed higher MIC by the E-strip method in comparison to BMD. Conclusions: our study holds significance, as there is a paucity of data comparing the four phenotypic methods for colistin MIC determination; BMD is the most reliable, gold standard method, but it is labor-intensive and requires technical expertise. In the present study, CBDE and CAT methods showed good concordance with BMD, and are easy to perform with limited logistics. Thus, they can be used as an alternative to BMD. We found that even though the Etest method was less accurate, it can still be used with caution to exclude the possibility of colistin resistance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":422034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microbiologia Medica\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microbiologia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/mm.2023.11573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/mm.2023.11573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的十年中,对粘菌素作为最后手段的抗生素的依赖已经推动了全球许多细菌物种中粘菌素耐药性的出现。本研究采用多种表型方法对多药耐药(MDR)革兰氏阴性菌的黏菌素最低抑制浓度(MIC)进行了比较评价,包括肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)、其他经批准的黏菌素肉汤盘洗脱法(CBDE)、黏菌素琼脂试验法(CAT)和广泛应用的Epsilometer试验法(E-test)。方法:90株革兰氏阴性细菌分离株对3类及以上耐药(MDR)。采用BMD、CBDE、CAT和E-test检测耐多药菌株的粘菌素敏感性。结果:1118份样品中检出耐多药革兰氏阴性杆菌90株(8.05%)。所有耐多药革兰氏阴性菌株均为粘菌素中间体。3株鲍曼不动杆菌和2株肺炎克雷伯菌BMD检测MIC均为2 μg/mL, CBDE和CAT检测MIC均<1 μg/mL。e条法测定3株菌株(2株koseri Citrobacter koseri和1株Enterobacter spp)的MIC均高于BMD。结论:我们的研究具有重要意义,因为缺乏比较四种表型方法测定粘菌素MIC的数据;BMD是最可靠的黄金标准方法,但它是劳动密集型的,需要技术专长。在本研究中,CBDE和CAT方法与BMD具有良好的一致性,且易于在有限的物流条件下执行。因此,它们可以用作BMD的替代方案。我们发现,尽管Etest方法的准确性较低,但仍可谨慎使用,以排除粘菌素耐药的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative evaluation of colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration determination by reference broth microdilution with other commonly used phenotypic methods in Multidrug-Resistant Gram-negative bacilli
Background: over the past decade, the dependency on colistin as a last resort antibiotic has driven the global emergence of colistin resistance among many bacterial species. This study comparatively evaluated the colistin Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) by various phenotypic methods, including the reference method of Broth Microdilution (BMD), other approved methods of Colistin Broth Disk Elution (CBDE), and Colistin Agar Test (CAT) and widely available method of Epsilometer Test (E-test) among Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria. Methods: ninety Gram-negative bacterial isolates that were resistant to three or more classes of drugs (MDR) were included in the study. All the MDR isolates were subjected to colistin susceptibility determination by BMD, CBDE, CAT, and E-test. Results: amongst 1118 samples, 90 (8.05%) samples yielded MDR Gram-negative bacilli. All the MDR Gram-negative isolates were colistin intermediate by all four methods of phenotypic colistin susceptibility. Three Acinetobacter baumannii and two Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates that had MIC of 2 μg/mL by BMD, displayed MIC of <1 μg/mL by CBDE and CAT. Three isolates (2 Citrobacter koseri and 1 Enterobacter spp.) showed higher MIC by the E-strip method in comparison to BMD. Conclusions: our study holds significance, as there is a paucity of data comparing the four phenotypic methods for colistin MIC determination; BMD is the most reliable, gold standard method, but it is labor-intensive and requires technical expertise. In the present study, CBDE and CAT methods showed good concordance with BMD, and are easy to perform with limited logistics. Thus, they can be used as an alternative to BMD. We found that even though the Etest method was less accurate, it can still be used with caution to exclude the possibility of colistin resistance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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