在确定耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌对头孢吡肟的敏感性时,比较 BD Phoenix 和磁盘扩散法与肉汤微量稀释法。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2024-06-12 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01520-23
Aliaa Fouad, Patricia J Simner, David P Nicolau, Tomefa E Asempa
{"title":"在确定耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌对头孢吡肟的敏感性时,比较 BD Phoenix 和磁盘扩散法与肉汤微量稀释法。","authors":"Aliaa Fouad, Patricia J Simner, David P Nicolau, Tomefa E Asempa","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01520-23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are increasing reports of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) that test as cefepime-susceptible (S) or susceptible-dose dependent (SDD). However, there are no data to compare the cefepime testing performance of BD Phoenix automated susceptibility system (BD Phoenix) and disk diffusion (DD) relative to reference broth microdilution (BMD) against carbapenemase-producing (CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE) and non-producing (non-CP CRE) isolates. Cefepime susceptibility results were interpreted according to CLSI M100Ed32. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor errors (miEs), major errors (MEs), and very major errors (VMEs) were calculated for BD Phoenix (NMIC-306 Gram-negative panel) and DD relative to BMD. Correlates were also analyzed by the error rate-bounded method. EA and CA for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE isolates (<i>n</i> = 64) were <90% with BD Phoenix while among non-CP CRE isolates (<i>n</i> = 58), EA and CA were 96.6%, and 79.3%, respectively. CA was <90% with DD for both cohorts. No ME or VME was observed for either isolate cohort; however, miEs were >10% for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix and DD tests. For error rate-bounded method, miEs were <40% for I<sub>High</sub> + 1 to I<sub>Low</sub> - 1 ranges for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix. Regarding disk diffusion, miEs were unacceptable for all MIC ranges among CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE. For non-CP CRE isolates, only I<sub>High</sub> + 1 to I<sub>Low</sub> - 1 range was acceptable at 37.2%. Using this challenge set of genotypic-phenotypic discordant CRE, the BD Phoenix MICs and DD susceptibility results trended higher (toward SDD and resistant phenotypes) relative to reference BMD results yielding lower CA. These results were more prominent among CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE than non-CP CRE.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of BD Phoenix and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for determining cefepime susceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.\",\"authors\":\"Aliaa Fouad, Patricia J Simner, David P Nicolau, Tomefa E Asempa\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01520-23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There are increasing reports of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) that test as cefepime-susceptible (S) or susceptible-dose dependent (SDD). However, there are no data to compare the cefepime testing performance of BD Phoenix automated susceptibility system (BD Phoenix) and disk diffusion (DD) relative to reference broth microdilution (BMD) against carbapenemase-producing (CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE) and non-producing (non-CP CRE) isolates. Cefepime susceptibility results were interpreted according to CLSI M100Ed32. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor errors (miEs), major errors (MEs), and very major errors (VMEs) were calculated for BD Phoenix (NMIC-306 Gram-negative panel) and DD relative to BMD. Correlates were also analyzed by the error rate-bounded method. EA and CA for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE isolates (<i>n</i> = 64) were <90% with BD Phoenix while among non-CP CRE isolates (<i>n</i> = 58), EA and CA were 96.6%, and 79.3%, respectively. CA was <90% with DD for both cohorts. No ME or VME was observed for either isolate cohort; however, miEs were >10% for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix and DD tests. For error rate-bounded method, miEs were <40% for I<sub>High</sub> + 1 to I<sub>Low</sub> - 1 ranges for CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix. Regarding disk diffusion, miEs were unacceptable for all MIC ranges among CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE. For non-CP CRE isolates, only I<sub>High</sub> + 1 to I<sub>Low</sub> - 1 range was acceptable at 37.2%. Using this challenge set of genotypic-phenotypic discordant CRE, the BD Phoenix MICs and DD susceptibility results trended higher (toward SDD and resistant phenotypes) relative to reference BMD results yielding lower CA. These results were more prominent among CP<i><sub>bla</sub></i><sub>KPC</sub>-CRE than non-CP CRE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01520-23\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01520-23","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的报告显示,耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌(CRE)的检测结果为头孢吡肟敏感(S)或易感剂量依赖(SDD)。然而,目前还没有数据比较 BD Phoenix 自动药敏系统(BD Phoenix)和磁盘扩散(DD)相对于肉汤微量稀释(BMD)对碳青霉烯酶产生型(CPblaKPC-CRE)和非产生型(非 CP CRE)分离物的头孢吡肟检测性能。头孢吡肟药敏结果根据 CLSI M100Ed32 进行解释。计算了 BD Phoenix(NMIC-306 革兰氏阴性菌检测板)和 DD 相对于 BMD 的基本一致度 (EA)、分类一致度 (CA)、微小误差 (miEs)、主要误差 (MEs) 和非常主要误差 (VMEs)。还用误差率限值法分析了相关系数。CPblaKPC-CRE 分离物(n = 64)的 EA 和 CA 分别为 96.6% 和 79.3%(n = 58)。在 BD Phoenix 和 DD 试验中,CPblaKPC-CRE 和非 CP CRE 的 CA 为 10%。在误差率限制法中,CPblaKPC-CRE 和使用 BD Phoenix 的非CP CRE 的 miE 为 High + 1 到 ILow - 1 范围。在盘扩散法中,CPblaKPC-CRE 的所有 MIC 范围的 miE 都是不可接受的。对于非 CP CRE 分离物,只有 IHigh + 1 到 ILow - 1 范围的 miE 为 37.2%。利用这组基因型-表型不一致的 CRE 挑战,BD Phoenix MICs 和 DD 药敏结果趋于更高(趋向 SDD 和耐药表型),而参考 BMD 结果的 CA 值较低。这些结果在 CPblaKPC-CRE 中比非 CP CRE 中更为突出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of BD Phoenix and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for determining cefepime susceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

There are increasing reports of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) that test as cefepime-susceptible (S) or susceptible-dose dependent (SDD). However, there are no data to compare the cefepime testing performance of BD Phoenix automated susceptibility system (BD Phoenix) and disk diffusion (DD) relative to reference broth microdilution (BMD) against carbapenemase-producing (CPblaKPC-CRE) and non-producing (non-CP CRE) isolates. Cefepime susceptibility results were interpreted according to CLSI M100Ed32. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor errors (miEs), major errors (MEs), and very major errors (VMEs) were calculated for BD Phoenix (NMIC-306 Gram-negative panel) and DD relative to BMD. Correlates were also analyzed by the error rate-bounded method. EA and CA for CPblaKPC-CRE isolates (n = 64) were <90% with BD Phoenix while among non-CP CRE isolates (n = 58), EA and CA were 96.6%, and 79.3%, respectively. CA was <90% with DD for both cohorts. No ME or VME was observed for either isolate cohort; however, miEs were >10% for CPblaKPC-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix and DD tests. For error rate-bounded method, miEs were <40% for IHigh + 1 to ILow - 1 ranges for CPblaKPC-CRE and non-CP CRE with BD Phoenix. Regarding disk diffusion, miEs were unacceptable for all MIC ranges among CPblaKPC-CRE. For non-CP CRE isolates, only IHigh + 1 to ILow - 1 range was acceptable at 37.2%. Using this challenge set of genotypic-phenotypic discordant CRE, the BD Phoenix MICs and DD susceptibility results trended higher (toward SDD and resistant phenotypes) relative to reference BMD results yielding lower CA. These results were more prominent among CPblaKPC-CRE than non-CP CRE.

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
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
×
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