有无囊性纤维化患者的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合分离株的药敏试验方法评价。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-02-19 Epub Date: 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01480-24
Peter Jorth, Carmila Manuel, Tracey McLemore, Romney M Humphries, Nicolynn C Cole, Audrey N Schuetz, Dennis Garica, Maria Maldonado, Natasha Rivero, Anna Clara Milesi Galdino, Diana Celedonio, John J LiPuma, Daniel A Green, James E A Zlosnik, Maria Traczewski, Holly K Huse
{"title":"有无囊性纤维化患者的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合分离株的药敏试验方法评价。","authors":"Peter Jorth, Carmila Manuel, Tracey McLemore, Romney M Humphries, Nicolynn C Cole, Audrey N Schuetz, Dennis Garica, Maria Maldonado, Natasha Rivero, Anna Clara Milesi Galdino, Diana Celedonio, John J LiPuma, Daniel A Green, James E A Zlosnik, Maria Traczewski, Holly K Huse","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01480-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only.IMPORTANCEAntimicrobial susceptibility testing for the <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0148024"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Jorth, Carmila Manuel, Tracey McLemore, Romney M Humphries, Nicolynn C Cole, Audrey N Schuetz, Dennis Garica, Maria Maldonado, Natasha Rivero, Anna Clara Milesi Galdino, Diana Celedonio, John J LiPuma, Daniel A Green, James E A Zlosnik, Maria Traczewski, Holly K Huse\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01480-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only.IMPORTANCEAntimicrobial susceptibility testing for the <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0148024\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837569/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01480-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/22 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.01480-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合体(BCC)是一组革兰氏阴性菌,可引起机会性感染,最明显的是囊性纤维化(CF)患者,并与受污染的医疗产品引起的疫情有关。抗菌药物敏感性试验(AST)通常用于指导BCC感染的治疗,可能对正在考虑肺移植的CF患者最重要。然而,最近的研究强调了AST方法的问题。在这里,我们解决了先前研究的局限性,以进一步评估BCC AST方法。我们对205株BCC分离株的头孢他啶(CAZ)、左氧氟沙星(LVX)、美罗培南(MEM)、米诺环素(MIN)和甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑(mp - smx)进行了对照肉汤微量稀释(BMD)、米勒-辛顿琼脂(MHA)光盘扩散(DD)、琼脂稀释(AD)和梯度扩散(ETEST)评估。该分离株集包括100株来自CF患者的分离株和105株来自不同来源的非CF患者的分离株,这使我们能够系统地评估样本来源是否影响AST性能。对于所有BCC分离株,CAZ、LVX、MEM、MIN和TMP-SMX的BMD重现性分别为93%、98%、99%、98%和96%。使用BMD作为比较方法,我们发现DD、AD和ETEST表现不佳,MHA制造商和样本来源都没有显著影响方法的性能。根据我们的数据,我们建议不应对BCC分离株进行常规AST。如果提供者要求AST,临床微生物实验室应执行临床和实验室标准协会的BMD(储存冷冻)参考方法,并仅报告MIC。重要意义洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合体(BCC)的抗菌药敏试验通常用于确定囊性纤维化患者是否适合肺移植。然而,方法性能的问题已经被报道。在这里,我们系统地评估了参考肉汤微稀释、圆盘扩散、琼脂稀释和梯度扩散(ETEST)对从患有和不患有囊性纤维化的人身上分离的BCC生物的性能。结果表明,左氧氟沙星、美罗培南、米诺环素和甲氧苄啶磺胺甲恶唑的肉汤微量稀释重现性是可接受的,而头孢他啶刚好低于可接受的截止值。无论样品来源如何,圆盘扩散,琼脂稀释和ETEST的结果与肉汤微量稀释无关。基于这些发现,我们建议不应常规对BCC进行抗菌药敏试验,如果提供者要求,只应按照临床和实验室标准协会的指南使用肉汤微量稀释。提供者应该意识到BCC的抗菌药敏试验方法的显著局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for Burkholderia cepacia complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis.

The Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only.IMPORTANCEAntimicrobial susceptibility testing for the Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.

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