评估醋酸杆菌对头孢哌酮敏感性的现有方法比较

IF 1.7 4区 生物学 Q4 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Fernando Pasteran , Olivia Wong , Vyanka Mezcord , Christina Lopez , Nardin Georgeos , Venjaminne Fua , Alonzo Ozuna , Dema Ramlaoui , Cristian Sánchez , Paulina Marchetti , Alejandra Corso , Marcelo E. Tolmasky , Robert A. Bonomo , María Soledad Ramirez
{"title":"评估醋酸杆菌对头孢哌酮敏感性的现有方法比较","authors":"Fernando Pasteran ,&nbsp;Olivia Wong ,&nbsp;Vyanka Mezcord ,&nbsp;Christina Lopez ,&nbsp;Nardin Georgeos ,&nbsp;Venjaminne Fua ,&nbsp;Alonzo Ozuna ,&nbsp;Dema Ramlaoui ,&nbsp;Cristian Sánchez ,&nbsp;Paulina Marchetti ,&nbsp;Alejandra Corso ,&nbsp;Marcelo E. Tolmasky ,&nbsp;Robert A. Bonomo ,&nbsp;María Soledad Ramirez","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-<em>Acinetobacter</em> strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"223 ","pages":"Article 106972"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848/pdfft?md5=e6dbec05291796b917b5e740df07c133&pid=1-s2.0-S0167701224000848-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of available methods to evaluate cefiderocol susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp\",\"authors\":\"Fernando Pasteran ,&nbsp;Olivia Wong ,&nbsp;Vyanka Mezcord ,&nbsp;Christina Lopez ,&nbsp;Nardin Georgeos ,&nbsp;Venjaminne Fua ,&nbsp;Alonzo Ozuna ,&nbsp;Dema Ramlaoui ,&nbsp;Cristian Sánchez ,&nbsp;Paulina Marchetti ,&nbsp;Alejandra Corso ,&nbsp;Marcelo E. Tolmasky ,&nbsp;Robert A. Bonomo ,&nbsp;María Soledad Ramirez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106972\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-<em>Acinetobacter</em> strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"volume\":\"223 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106972\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848/pdfft?md5=e6dbec05291796b917b5e740df07c133&pid=1-s2.0-S0167701224000848-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,关于头孢德醇在革兰氏阴性杆菌中的适当药敏试验出现了相当大的不确定性,尤其是在头孢德醇应用于醋氨梭菌属的情况下。 评估醋氨梭菌属对头孢德醇的药敏水平的最佳方法仍然是一个争论的主题,因为通过各种试验程序获得的数值存在很大差异。本研究采用了四种最小抑菌浓度 (MIC) 方法和磁盘扩散法来评估 27 种对碳青霉烯类耐药 (CR) 的阿奇霉素菌株对头孢克肟的敏感性。我们的研究结果表明,不同方法得出的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)值以及不同 MIC 方法和磁盘扩散试验在解释类别方面的一致程度存在显著差异。在 MIC 方法中,报告解释类别的一致性相对较高。就欧洲抗菌药物敏感性检测委员会(EUCAST)的断点而言,MIC 方法的分类一致性(CA)介于 66.7% 与 81.5% 之间。另一方面,基本一致(EA)值低至 18.5-29.6%。MIC 方法与磁盘扩散法的 CA 值为 81.5%。这些结果表明,需要一种可靠、准确且经过临床验证的方法来有效评估醋酸杆菌属对头孢哌酮的敏感性。我们的研究中观察到的差异很大,这凸显了头孢球蛋白药敏试验过程标准化的重要性,以确保为临床决策提供一致、可靠的结果。
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 available methods to evaluate cefiderocol susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp

Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to Acinetobacter spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-Acinetobacter strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.

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 microbiological methods
Journal of microbiological methods 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
151
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach. All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.
×
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