用于确定头孢哌酮敏感性的市售检测试剂盒在 Achromobacter 菌属中显示出不同的性能。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Vincent Jean-Pierre, Pauline Sorlin, Katy Jeannot, Raphaël Chiron, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Alix Pantel, Hélène Marchandin
{"title":"用于确定头孢哌酮敏感性的市售检测试剂盒在 Achromobacter 菌属中显示出不同的性能。","authors":"Vincent Jean-Pierre, Pauline Sorlin, Katy Jeannot, Raphaël Chiron, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Alix Pantel, Hélène Marchandin","doi":"10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC<sup>®</sup>, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC<sup>®</sup> (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC<sup>®</sup> (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD<sub>50/90</sub>=33/30 mm). UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.</p>","PeriodicalId":8052,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.\",\"authors\":\"Vincent Jean-Pierre, Pauline Sorlin, Katy Jeannot, Raphaël Chiron, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Alix Pantel, Hélène Marchandin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC<sup>®</sup>, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC<sup>®</sup> (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC<sup>®</sup> (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD<sub>50/90</sub>=33/30 mm). UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342684/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1","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

摘要

背景:头孢羟氨苄是一种苷元结合型头孢菌素,越来越多地用于治疗 Achromobacter 感染。头孢羟氨苄敏感性检测具有挑战性,不同病原体有不同的建议:目的:我们评估了用于检测阿奇霉素属头孢菌素敏感性的商业检测方法的性能,并回顾了相关文献:方法:根据欧盟微生物菌种委员会(EUCAST)指南,我们对 MIC50/90 ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L 的 14 个物种的 143 株 Achromobacter 菌株用扩散法(盘、MIC 梯度测试条 [MTS],Liofilchem)和肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)(ComASP™,Liofilchem;UMIC®,Bruker)与 BMD 参考法进行了比较。无论采用何种方法或物种,均进行了文献检索:结果:所有测试方法均未达到可接受的基本协议(EA)。MTS 的 EA 最低(30.8%),仅次于 UMIC®(49%)和 ComASP™(76.9%)。所有方法都达到了可接受的偏差,MIC 要么被 MTS(-1.3%)和 ComASP™ (-14.2%)低估,要么被 UMIC® (+ 9.1%)高估。抑制区直径在 6 至 38 毫米之间(IZD50/90=33/30 毫米)。与基于扩散的方法不同,UMIC® 和 ComASP™ 未能将本研究中一株或两株头孢球蛋白耐药菌株归类为耐药菌株。文献综述强调了不同病原体和测试条件下现有方法的不同性能:不建议对 Achromobacter 菌属使用 MTS。UMIC® 和 ComASP™ 不应作为唯一的方法使用,而应系统地与磁盘扩散法结合使用,以检测很少见的耐头孢球蛋白的阿奇霉素菌株。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.

Background: Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.

Objectives: We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.

Methods: Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC®, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC50/90 of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.

Results: None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC® (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC® (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD50/90=33/30 mm). UMIC® and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.

Conclusions: The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC® and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信