Very Major Errors Research Articles

Antimicrobial Resistance Laboratory Network's multisite evaluation of the ThermoFisher Sensititre GN7F broth microdilution panel for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Antimicrobial Resistance Laboratory Network to improve domestic detection of multidrug-resistant organisms. CDC and four laboratories evaluated a commercial broth microdilution panel. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using the Sensititre GN7F (ThermoFisher Scientific, Lenexa, KS) was evaluated by testing 100 CDC and Food and Drug Administration AR Isolate Bank isolates [40 Enterobacterales (ENT), 30 Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA), and 30 Acinetobacter baumannii (ACB)]. We assessed multiple amounts of transfer volume (TV) between the inoculum and tubed 11-mL cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth: 1 µL [tribe Proteeae (P-tribe) only] and 10, 30, and 50 µL, resulting in respective CFU per milliter of 1 × 104, 1 × 105, 3 × 105, and 5 × 105. Four TV combinations were analyzed: standard (STD) [1 µL (P-tribe) and 10 µL], enhanced standard (E-STD) [1 µL (P-tribe) and 30 µL], 30 µL, and 50 µL. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement, major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were analyzed by organism then TVs. For ENT, the average EA across laboratories was <90% for 7 of 15 β-lactams using STD and E-STD TVs. As TVs increased, EA increased (>90%), and VMEs decreased. For PSA, EA improved as TVs increased; however, MEs also increased. For ACB, increased TVs provided slight EA improvements; all TVs yielded multiple VMEs and MEs. For ENT and ACB, Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) trended downward using a 1 or 10 µL TV; there were no obvious MIC trends by TV for PSA. The public health and clinical consequences of missing resistance warrant increased TV of 30 µL for the GN7F, particularly for P-tribe, despite being considered "off-label" use.

In-vitro Susceptibility Testing Methods for Ceftazidime-avibactam against Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: Comparison with Reference Broth Microdilution Method.

β-lactam antibiotics, mainly cephalosporins, and carbapenems, have been the mainstay of treatment for infections caused by Enterobacterales. However, their role in treating clinical infections has become limited because of the increase in resistance. There is a need to have cost-effective and rapid methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for newer antibiotics like ceftazidime-avibactam against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), which can be applied in routine clinical microbiology laboratories. With this aim, the present study was conducted to compare the disk diffusion and gradient diffusion, i.e., the E-test method with the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method for in-vitro testing of ceftazidime-avibactam against CRE. A total of 111 CRE isolates from various clinical samples were included. Conventional PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was done for the detection of genes encoding carbapenemases and to see their expression, modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) along with EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) carbapenem inactivation method (eCIM) was done. 42.3% (47/111) isolates were resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam by the standard broth microdilution method; however, 45.9% (51/111) were resistant by both disk diffusion and E-test. In 5.4% of isolates (similar in both methods), microbroth dilution method results did not match with E-strip and disk diffusion. Very major errors (VME) by both disk diffusion and E-test were found in 2.1% (1/47), and major errors (ME) were found in 7.8% (5/64) isolates (similar isolates in both methods). The overall categorical agreement (CA) rate was 94.6% for both E-test and disk diffusion, and the essential agreement (EA) rate was 90.1% (100/111) for E-test. 98% (109/111) of CRE harbored carbapenemase genes either singly (30.3%) or in combination with others (69.7%). In conclusion, for CRE, E-test and the disk diffusion method for ceftazidimeavibactam depicted an acceptable performance as an alternative to the reference broth microdilution method.

Assessment of cefiderocol disk diffusion versus broth microdilution results when tested against Acinetobacter baumannii complex clinical isolates.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between inhibitory zones and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) when testing cefiderocol against Acinetobacter baumannii complex using disk diffusion and the broth microdilution (BMD) method according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) criteria. Four-hundred and sixty-eight non-duplicated A. baumannii complex clinical isolates were collected from 56 hospitals of the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network from 2019 to 2021. BMD using iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (ID-CAMHB) and standard disk diffusion methods were performed according to CLSI guidelines. Results were interpreted according to the CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. Categorical agreement (CA), minor error (mE), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were calculated for disk diffusion methods. The susceptibilities of all A. baumannii complex isolates by BMD were 98.7% (CLSI) and 97.6% (EUCAST). For all A. baumannii complex isolates, CA was 98.1% (CLSI) and 97.0% (EUCAST), with 0.9% (CLSI) and 1.9% (EUCAST) of VME, respectively. For the carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii complex, the CA was 100%, with no mE or VME using both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints. For carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii complex, CA was 97.5% (CLSI) and 96.2% (EUCAST), with 1.1% (CLSI) and 2.5% (EUCAST) of VME, respectively. Regarding the difficult-to-treat resistance A. baumannii complex isolates, CA was 97.6% (CLSI) and 95.7% (EUCAST), with 1.2% (CLSI) and 3.1% (EUCAST) of VME, respectively. Cefiderocol disk diffusion was difficult to assess in this study. Very few isolates were resistant to cefiderocol by BMD using CLSI breakpoint, and these were categorized as susceptible with the disk diffusion test. This study did, however, show that the main proportion of A. baumannii isolates were susceptible to cefiderocol by BMD, including carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii. IMPORTANCE Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii is a major global health concern due to its high prevalence and limited treatment options. Cefiderocol is the only novel Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved β-lactam agent for the salvage treatment of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii infection. Currently, a commercial automated susceptibility testing panel of cefiderocol is unavailable. Both the preparation of iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth and the performance of broth microdilution are cumbersome in routine microbiology laboratories. A disk diffusion method is convenient for cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing, but limited data are available specifically for A. baumannii clinical isolates. Moreover, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute published revisions to the A. baumannii cefiderocol disk diffusion breakpoints in 2022. Hence, we evaluated the performance of cefiderocol disk diffusion compared with the reference BMD against A. baumannii clinical isolates, especially those with cefiderocol zone diameters ≤ 14 mm.

Evaluation of different methods for in vitro susceptibility testing of colistin in carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacilli.

The increasing antibiotic resistance like the advent of carbapenem resistant Enterobactarales (CRE), Carbapenem Resistant Acinetobacter baumanii (CRAB), and Carbapenem Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) has led to to the use of toxic and older drugs like colistin for these organisms. But worldwide there is an increase in resistance even to colistin mediated both by chromosomes and plasmids. This necessitates accurate detection of resistance. This is impeded by the unavailability of a user-friendly phenotypic methods for use in routine clinical microbiology practice. The present study attempts to evaluate two different methods - colistin broth disc elution and MIC detection by Vitek two in comparison to CLSI approved broth microdilution (BMD) for colistin for Enterobactarales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Acinetobacter baumanii clinical isolates. Colistin susceptibility of 6013 carbapenem resistant isolates was determined by BMD, Colistin Broth Disc Elution (CBDE), and Vitek two methods and was interpreted as per CLSI guidelines. The MIC results of CBDE, Vitek two were compared with that of BMD and essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), sensitivity, specificity, very major error (VME), major error (ME) and Cohen's kappa (CK) was calculated. The presence of any plasmid-mediated colistin resistance (mcr-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) was evaluated in all colistin-resistant isolates by conventional polymerase chain reaction. Colistin resistance was found in 778 (12.9 %) strains among the carbapenem resistant isolates. Klebsiella pneumoniae had the highest (18.9 %) colistin resistance by the BMD method. MIC of Vitek two had sensitivity ranging from 78.2-84.8% and specificity of >92 %. There were 171 VMEs and 323 MEs by Vitek two method, much more than CLSI acceptable range. The highest percentage of errors was committed for Acinetobacter baumanii (27.8 % of VME and 7.9 % ME). On the other hand, the CBDE method performed well with EA, CA, VME and ME within acceptable range for all the organisms. The sensitivity of the CBDE method compared to gold standard BMD varied from 97.5-98.8 % for different strains with a specificity of more than 97.6 %. None of the isolated colistin resistant organisms harboured mcr plasmids. As BMD has many technical complexities, CBDE is the best viable alternative available for countries like India. A sensitive MIC reported by Vitek two needs to be carefully considered due high propensity for VMEs particularly for Klebsiella spp.

Detection of polymyxins resistance among Enterobacterales: evaluation of available methods and proposal of a new rapid and feasible methodology

BackgroundFast and accurate detection of polymyxins resistance is necessary as they remain the last resources to treat infections caused by Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in many regions. We evaluated the rapid colorimetric polymyxin B elution (RCPE) and developed its miniaturized version, RCPE microelution (RCPEm), aiming to detect polymyxins resistance among Enterobacterales.MethodsThe methodologies consist of exposing the bacterial population in a solution (NP solution) where polymyxin B disks were previously eluted to obtain a concentration of 2 µg/mL for RCPE and 3 µg/mL for RCPEm.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-seven Enterobacterales were evaluated, 90 (33.7%) resistant to polymyxin B by broth microdilution. It was observed 0.6% of major error (ME) by RCPE, with a specificity of 99.4%. The miniaturized version (RCPEm) presented the same ME and specificity values, but slightly higher sensitivity (97.8% vs. 95.6%) with 2.2% of very major error (VME).ConclusionsRCPE and RCPEm proved to be useful alternatives to determine polymyxin B susceptibility in clinical microbiology laboratories, presenting low cost, being easy to perform, and demanding short incubation time.

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales.

Fosfomycin is an old bactericidal drug that has gained increasing interest in the last decade for its potential use in multi-drug resistant gram-negative infections. However, evidence on fosfomycin susceptibility testing reports a poor correlation between commercial methods vs. reference agar dilution (AD) for Enterobacterales (EB). The study aimed at assessing the performance of two automated systems for the determination of fosfomycin susceptibility in EB clinical isolates. Fosfomycin susceptibility testing results of two collections of 100 non-duplicate clinical EB strains obtained using two different platforms (BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus) were compared with those obtained by AD. Categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME) and very major error (VME) rates were calculated. BD Phoenix exhibited a 6.9% rate of false-resistant results and achieved a CA of 69%, whereas MicroScan WalkAway Plus achieved 3.7% of false-resistant results and 72% of CA. Both automated systems showed poor detection of resistant isolates, with 49.1% and 56.2% of false-susceptible results for BD Phoenix and Microscan WalkAway Plus, respectively. Overall, agar dilution remains the most suitable method for routine laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing of fosfomycin on Enterobacterales strains, given the poor performance of automated systems. The application of both automated systems, in the clinical laboratories reporting of fosfomycin, should be reviewed in light of the accuracy results falling below the acceptable threshold.

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Performance of DL 96 System for Enterobacterales.

DL96 Microbial Identification/Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (ID/AST) System (Zhuhai DL, Guangdong, China) is one of the most commonly used commercial ID/AST System in China. This study aims to evaluate the performance of DL 96E for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) of 270 Enterobacterales isolates from Hainan general hospital using the broth microdilution method (BMD) as reference method. CLSI M52 criteria was followed when analyzing the evaluation results. Twenty antimicrobial agents were evaluated, and categorical agreement (CA) ranged from 62.8% to 96.5%. Imipenem had the lowest CA (63.9%) and highest very major errors (VME) (52.8%). A total of 103 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales were evaluated; DL 96E miss identified 22 isolates, including six carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. DL 96E must adjust the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) ranges of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and piperacillin-tazobactam to cover Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints, adjust the formulation of some antimicrobial, such as imipenem, and increase the MIC detection range to cover the Quality control (QC) strains' MIC range.

Evaluation of the Liquid Colony™ Produced by the FAST System for Shortening the Time of Bacterial Identification and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Detection of Resistance Mechanisms from Positive Blood Cultures.

the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Liquid Colony™ (LC) generated directly from positive blood cultures (PBCs) by the FAST System (Qvella, Richmond Hill, ON, Canada) for rapid identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) compared with the standard of care (SOC) workflow. Anonymized PBCs were processed in parallel by the FAST System and FAST PBC Prep cartridge (35 min runtime) and SOC. ID was performed by MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA). AST was performed by reference broth microdilution (Merlin Diagnostika, Bornheim, Germany). Carbapenemase detection was carried out with the lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) RESIST-5 O.O.K.N.V. (Coris, Gembloux, Belgium). Polymicrobial PBCs and samples containing yeast were excluded. 241 PBCs were evaluated. ID results showed 100% genus-level concordance and 97.8% species-level concordance between LC and SOC. The AST results for Gram-negative bacteria showed a categorical agreement (CA) of 99.1% (1578/1593), with minor error (mE), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) rates of 0.6% (10/1593), 0.3% (3/1122), and 0.4% (2/471), respectively. The results from Gram-positive bacteria showed a CA of 99.6% (1655/1662), with mE, ME, and VME rates of 0.3% (5/1662), 0.2% (2/1279), and 0.0% (0/378), respectively. Bias evaluation revealed acceptable results for both Gram-negatives and Gram-positives (-12.4% and -6.5%, respectively). The LC yielded the detection of 14/18 carbapenemase producers by LFIA. In terms of turnaround time, the ID, AST, and carbapenemase detection results were generally obtained one day earlier with the FAST System compared with the SOC workflow. The ID, AST, and carbapenemase detection results generated with the FAST System LC were highly concordant with the conventional workflow. The LC allowed species ID and carbapenemase detection within around 1 h after blood culture positivity and AST results within approximately 24 h, which is a significant reduction in the turnaround time of the PBC workflow.

Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin-Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method.

The tests were performed on 860 strains. To evaluate susceptibility to IV FOS, BioMerieux E-tests (bioMerieux, Warsaw, Poland), BD Phoenix panels (BD Phoenix, Sparks, MD, USA), and the ADM were used. Clinical interpretation was performed in accordance with EUCAST Guidance (v12.0, 2021). The significance of the E-test and the Phoenix was analyzed in relation to the ADM by defining categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME). Essential agreement (EA) has also been defined for the E-test. A method was considered reliable, in accordance with ISO 20776-2:2007, when CA and EA were above 89.9% and VME was <3%. A categorical agreement of >98.9% was demonstrated between the E-test and the ADM for overall strains and for Echerichia coli, ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, and Staphylococcus aureus, while between the Phoenix and the ADM, a CA of >98.9% was shown only for Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Proteus spp. A very major error rate of <3% was obtained only for Staphylococcus aureus and MBL-producing Pseudomonas evaluated by both the E-test and the Phoenix. An essential agreement of >98.9% between the E-test and the ADM has not been demonstrated for any of the tested groups of strains. The Phoenix yielded more VMEs than the E-test (50 and 46, respectively). The highest VME rate was demonstrated using the Phoenix method for Enterobacter spp. (53.83%). Both the E-test and the Phoenix have turned out to be reliable in assessing IV FOS susceptibility only for Staphylococcus aureus (CA > 89.9% and VME < 3%). For the remaining tested groups of strains and genera, the simultaneous high CA rate and low VME rate required by ISO were not achieved. Both methods fared particularly badly in detecting strains resistant to IV.

Tick-tock, beat the clock: comparative analysis of disc diffusion testing with 6-, 10-, and 24-h growth for accelerated antimicrobial susceptibility testing and antimicrobial stewardship.

Disc diffusion testing by Kirby-Bauer technique is the most used method for determining antimicrobial susceptibility in microbiological laboratories. The current guidelines by The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2022 specify using an 18- to 24-h growth for testing by disc diffusion. We aim to determine if using an early growth (6h and 10h) would produce comparable results, thus ultimately leading to reduced turnaround time. Six-hour, 10-h, and 24-h growths of 20 quality control strains and 6-h and 24-h growths of 48 clinical samples were used to perform disc diffusion testing using a panel of appropriate antimicrobial agents. Disc diffusion zone sizes were interpreted for all and comparative analyses were performed to determine categorical agreement, minor errors (mE), major errors (ME), and very major errors (VME) according to CLSI guidelines. On comparing with the standard 24h of incubation, disc diffusion from 6-h and 10-h growths of quality control strains showed 94.38% categorical agreement, 5.10% mE, 0.69% MEs, and no VMEs. Disc diffusion testing for the additional 40 clinical samples yielded a similarly high level of categorical agreement (98.15%) and mE, ME, and VME of 1.29%, 1.22%, and 0% respectively. Disc diffusion testing using early growth is a simple and accurate method for susceptibility testing that can reduce turnaround time and may prove to be critical for timely patient management.

A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus.

There is clinical uncertainty over the optimal treatment for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) infections. Furthermore, there is concern that phenotypic penicillin susceptibility testing methods are not reliably able to detect some blaZ-positive S. aureus. Nine S. aureus isolates, including six genetically diverse strains harbouring blaZ, were sent in triplicate to 34 participating laboratories from Australia (n = 14), New Zealand (n = 6), Canada (n = 12), Singapore (n = 1) and Israel (n = 1). We used blaZ PCR as the gold standard to assess susceptibility testing performance of CLSI (P10 disc) and EUCAST (P1 disc) methods. Very major errors (VMEs), major error (MEs) and categorical agreement were calculated. Twenty-two laboratories reported 593 results according to CLSI methodology (P10 disc). Nineteen laboratories reported 513 results according to the EUCAST (P1 disc) method. For CLSI laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 85% (508/593), 21% (84/396) and 1.5% (3/198), respectively. For EUCAST laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 93% (475/513), 11% (84/396) and 1% (3/198), respectively. Seven laboratories reported results for both methods, with VME rates of 24% for CLSI and 12% for EUCAST. The EUCAST method with a P1 disc resulted in a lower VME rate compared with the CLSI methods with a P10 disc. These results should be considered in the context that among collections of PSSA isolates, as determined by automated MIC testing, less than 10% harbour blaZ. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of phenotypically susceptible, but blaZ-positive S. aureus, remains unclear.

Comparison of Broth Microdilution, Disk Diffusion and Strip Test Methods for Cefiderocol Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae

The aim of this study was to compare the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method with the Disk Diffusion (DD) test and strip test against a collection of 75 well-characterized Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) clinical strains to assess cefiderocol (CFD) antimicrobial activity. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on KPC-Kp strains by Illumina iSeq100 platform. The Categorical Agreement (CA) between the BMD method and DD test was 92% (69/75) with a Major Error (ME) of 16.7% (6/36). Additionally, the CA between the BMD method and test strip was 90.7% (68/75) with a Very Major Error (VME) of 17.9% (7/39) and 82.7% (62/75) between the strip test and DD with a ME of 30.2%. KPC-Kp strains showing resistance to CFD were 27 out of 75 (36%) by three methods. Specifically, 51.9% (14/27) of KPC-Kp resistant to CFD harbored blaKPC-3, while 48.1% (13/27) harbored mutated blaKPC-3. Moreover, KPC-Kp strains carrying a mutated blaKPC-3 gene exhibited high MIC values (p value < 0.001) compared to wild-type blaKPC-3. In conclusion, the DD test resulted as a valid alternative to the BMD method to determine the in vitro susceptibility to CFD, while the strip test exhibited major limitations.

Comparison of in vitro fosfomycin susceptibility testing methods with agar dilution for carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichiacoli.

The emergence of Extensively drug resistant (XDR) pathogens like Carbapenem Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR Kpn) and Carbapenem Resistant Escherichia coli (CR Eco) has limited therapeutic options for treating them. Fosfomycin a broad-spectrum antibiotic, has emerged as a potential treatment option in combination with other agents. It is therefore important that accurate drug susceptibility testing (DST) results of fosfomycin should be available to all clinical microbiology laboratories. Agar dilution which is the recommended method for fosfomycin DST is not convenient to adopt in a routine set-up. This study aimed to determine the susceptibility pattern of CR Kpn and CR Eco to fosfomycin and to evaluate the discrepancies of the available manual MIC based alternative methods. Agar dilution (AD), broth microdilution (BMD), E-test and Ezy MIC test were performed on 235 CR-Kpn and Eco isolates respectively. Of 177 CR Kpn, 31.63% (n​=​56/177) of the isolates were susceptible by AD. Categorical Agreement (CA) by BMD, E-test and Ezy MIC were lower than the acceptable limit while Very Major Errors (VMEs) and Major Errors (MEs) were beyond the acceptable limits. In the case of CR Eco, 96.55% (n​=​56/58) were susceptible by AD. CA of 100% (n​=​58/58) was shown by both BMD and Ezy MIC while 86.20% (n​=​50/58) was shown by E-test, with no VME observed for CR Eco. ME was only observed for E-test method. The alternative methods were in poor agreement with AD method for CR Kpn and for CR Eco, BMD and Ezy MIC have shown reliable results.

Performance of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg and 10/4-μg Disks for Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a new β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combination, is active against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and has became available for clinical use in China in the latter half of 2019. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the disk diffusion test with ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg and 30/20-μg disks, compared with the reference broth microdilution method, with a collection of 467 Enterobacterales and 182 P. aeruginosa nonduplicate clinical isolates. The results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing indicated that the categorical agreement (CA) of ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing for all tested Enterobacterales isolates was 99.8%, with 0.5% very major errors (VMEs) and no major error (ME). The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing for all tested P. aeruginosa isolates was 87.9%, with 15.5% MEs and no VME. The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 30/20-μg disk testing for all tested Enterobacterales isolates was 99.4%, with 1.5% VMEs and no ME. The CA of ceftazidime-avibactam 30/20-μg disk testing for all tested P. aeruginosa isolates was 91.8%, with 2.5% VMEs and 9.9% MEs. Overall, ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg disk testing showed superior performance and was more suitable for assessment of the susceptibility of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates. IMPORTANCE Multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa strains have become a global public threat, with the emergence and prevalence of plasmid-mediated extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC cephalosporinases, and carbapenemases disseminated worldwide. Ceftazidime-avibactam, which is commercially available, has shown excellent in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates. Moreover, ceftazidime-avibactam has shown promise in treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant and carbapenem-resistant isolates. The disk diffusion test for ceftazidime-avibactam is the most common antimicrobial susceptibility testing method in most laboratories in China. The accurate detection of ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility is of great significance for the rational clinical application of drugs. Here, we evaluated the performance of the ceftazidime-avibactam 10/4-μg and 30/20-μg disk diffusion tests, compared with the reference broth microdilution method, with clinical Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa isolates.

Evaluation of the Reveal® rapid AST system to assess the susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from blood cultures

This study was set up to assess the performance of the Reveal® rapid AST system to determine the drug susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains directly from blood cultures. Two hundred fully sequenced clinical P. aeruginosa strains were selected for the evaluation, of which 26.5% (n = 53) produced transferable β-lactamases, and 2.0 to 33.0% had susceptibility levels close to the EUCAST 2021 breakpoints of 11 commonly used antipseudomonal antibiotics. The Reveal® AST system was run with a commercial MIC microplate designed for fast-growing Gram-negative bacilli (Microscan Neg MDR MIC 1), and was compared to the manually operated GN6F MIC microdilution panel from Thermo Fisher, as a comparator method. The Reveal® AST system provided MIC results for the 11 antipseudomonal antibiotics tested within a mean time to result of 6h 22min. By comparison with the GN6F panel, the overall rates of categorical agreement (CA), very major errors (VME), major errors (ME), and minor errors (mE for meropenem only) were 96.1%, 1.6%, 4.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. The Specific Reveal® AST system appears to be a reliable and fast technology to determine the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to antibiotics, including those with resistance levels near categorical breakpoints, directly from blood cultures.

Evaluation of Commercial Products for Colistin and Polymyxin B Susceptibility Testing for mcr-Positive and Negative Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in China.

To evaluate the performance of five widespread commercial products for colistin and polymyxin B susceptibility testing in China for mcr-positive and -negative Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. A total of 132 E. coli and 83 K. pneumoniae strains (including 68 mcr-1-positive E. coli and 28 mcr-8-positive K. pneumoniae) were collected. We analysed the performance of colistin susceptibility (with Vitek 2 and Phoenix M50) and the performance of polymyxin B susceptibility (with DL-96II, MA120, and a Polymyxin B Susceptibility Test strip; POL E-strip). Broth microdilution was used as the gold standard. Categorical agreement (CA), essential agreement (EA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were calculated for comparisons. For E. coli, the total CA, EA, ME, and VME to colistin were as follows: Vitek 2, 98.5%/98.5%/0%/2.9%; and Phoenix M50, 98.5%/97.7%/0%/2.9%. The total CA, EA, ME, and VME to polymyxin B were as follows: POL E-strip, 99.2%/63.6%/1.6%/0%; MA120, 70.0%/-/0%/58.8%; and DL-96II, 80.2%/-/1.6%/36.8%. Only Vitek 2 and Phoenix M50 presented satisfactory performances for mcr-1-positive E. coli. For K. pneumoniae, the total CA, EA, ME, and VME to colistin were as follows: Vitek 2, 73.2%/72.0%/0%/61.6%; and Phoenix M50, 74.7%/74.7%/0%/58.3%. The total CA, EA, ME, and VME to polymyxin B were as follows: POL E-strip, 91.6%/74.7%/2.1%/16.7%; MA120, 92.8%/-/2.1%/13.9%; and DL-96II, 92.2%/-/2.1%/8.3%. All systems were unsatisfactory for mcr-8-positive K. pneumoniae. When the susceptibility of mcr-negative strains was tested, all systems presented excellent performance. Vitek 2 and Phoenix M50 with colistin for E. coli showed acceptable performance regardless of mcr-1 expression, while DL-96II, MA120, and the POL E-strip performed worse for mcr-1-positive strains. Furthermore, mcr-8 greatly affected the performance of all systems with both colistin and polymyxin B for K. pneumoniae isolates.

Evaluation of Piperacillin-Tazobactam Testing against Enterobacterales by the Phoenix, MicroScan, and Vitek2 Tests Using Updated Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Breakpoints.

In 2022, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) updated piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) breakpoints for Enterobacterales, based on substantial data suggesting that historical breakpoints did not predict treatment outcomes for TZP. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet adopted these breakpoints, meaning commercial manufacturers of antimicrobial susceptibility testing devices cannot obtain FDA clearance for the revised breakpoints. We evaluated the Phoenix (BD, Sparks, MD), MicroScan (Beckman Coulter, Sacramento, CA), and Vitek2 (bioMérieux, Durham, NC) TZP MICs compared to reference broth microdilution for a collection of 284 Enterobacterales isolates. Phoenix (n = 167 isolates) demonstrated 84.4% categorical agreement (CA), with 4.2% very major errors (VMEs) and 1.8% major errors (MEs) by CLSI breakpoints. In contrast, CA was 85.0% with 4.3% VMEs and 0.8% MEs for the Phoenix with FDA breakpoints. MicroScan (n = 55 isolates) demonstrated 80.0% CA, 36.4% VMEs, and 4.8% MEs by CLSI breakpoints and 81.8% CA, 44.4% VMEs, and 0.0% MEs by FDA breakpoints. Vitek2 (n = 62 isolates) demonstrated 95.2% CA, 6.3% VMEs, and 0.0% MEs by CLSI and 96.8% CA, 0.0% VMEs, and 2.2% MEs by FDA breakpoints. Overall, the performance of the test systems was not substantially different using CLSI breakpoints off-label than using on-label FDA breakpoints. However, limitations were noted with higher-than-desired VME rates (all three systems) and lower-than-desired CA (MicroScan and Phoenix). Laboratories should consider adoption of the revised CLSI breakpoints with automated test systems but be aware that some performance challenges exist for testing TZP on automated systems, regardless of breakpoints applied.

QMAC-dRAST for the direct testing of antibiotic susceptibility for Enterobacterales in positive blood-culture broth: a comparison of the performances with the MicroScan system and direct disc diffusion testing methods.

To evaluate the performances of the QMAC-dRAST GN (Gram-negative) kit for rapid antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST) and two other methods, directly on positive blood-culture broth (PBCB), by comparison with a reference method: the MicroScan method based on broth microdilution on colonies isolated on PBCB subculture. In total, 156 samples were collected prospectively from blood cultures positive for a Gram-negative rod. Each sample was tested with four AST techniques: (i) the QMAC dRAST GN kit, (ii) the disc diffusion (DD) method, (iii) the MicroScan method applied directly to PBCB; and (iv) MicroScan with isolates from PBCB subculture, as a reference. For 124 PBCB containing Enterobacterales, overall essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) between the QMAC-dRAST on PBCB and the reference reached 95.7% and 93.5%, respectively. There were 3.0% very major errors (VME), 4.0% major errors (ME) and 2.8% minor errors (mE). A comparison of MicroScan on PBCB and the reference yielded 98.8% EA, 98.5% CA, and rates of 0.6% VME, 0.9% ME and 0.7% mE. The DD method on PBCB gave a CA of 95.8% and rates of 1.7% for VME, 2.0% for ME and 1.9% for mE. Results were obtained more rapidly for QMAC-dRAST (median of 6 h 37 min versus 18 h for the MicroScan and DD methods on PBCB). The QMAC-dRAST system provided rapid results well correlated with the reference method on PBCB containing Enterobacterales. Given the shorter time-to-results, the QMAC-dRAST system constitutes a fast and reliable alternative to conventional AST methods.

Reporting antimicrobial susceptibilities and phenotypes of resistance to vancomycin in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. clinical isolates: A nationwide proficiency study

IntroductionThe ability of Spanish microbiology laboratories to (a) determine antimicrobial susceptibility (AS), and (b) correctly detect the vancomycin resistance (VR) phenotype in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE) was evaluated. MethodsThree VRE isolates representing the VanA (E. faecium), VanB (E. faecium) and VanC (E. gallinarum) VR phenotypes were sent to 52 laboratories, which were asked for: (a) AS method used; (b) MICs of ampicillin, imipenem, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, daptomycin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and quinupristin–dalfopristin, and high-level resistance to gentamicin and streptomycin; (c) VR phenotype. Results(a) The most frequently used system was MicroScan; (b) according to the system, the highest percentage of discrepant MICs was found with gradient strips (21.3%). By antimicrobial, the highest rates of discrepant MICs ranged 16.7% (imipenem) to 0.7% (linezolid). No discrepant MICs were obtained with daptomycin or levofloxacin. Mayor errors (MEs) occurred with linezolid (1.1%/EUCAST) and ciprofloxacin (5.0%/CLSI), and very major errors (VMEs) with vancomycin (27.1%/EUCAST and 33.3%/CLSI) and teicoplanin (5.7%/EUCAST and 2.3%/CLSI). For linezolid, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin, discrepant MICs were responsible for these errors, while for teicoplanin, errors were due to a misassignment of the clinical category. An unacceptable high percentage of VMEs was obtained using gradient strips (14.8%), especially with vancomycin, teicoplanin and daptomycin; (c) 86.4% of the centers identified VanA and VanB phenotypes correctly, and 95.0% the VanC phenotype. ConclusionMost Spanish microbiology laboratories can reliably determine AS in VRE, but there is a significant percentage of inadequate interpretations (warning of false susceptibility) for teicoplanin in isolates with the VanB phenotype.

Evaluation of in-vitro colistin susceptibility and clinical profile of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae related invasive infections

PurposeTo determine the colistin susceptibility. To compare E-test vs broth-microdilution (BMD) method for invasive carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. To study treatment options for the CRE. To analyze the clinical profile and outcome of CRE infections. MethodsAntimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for 100 invasive CRE isolates. Gradient diffusion and BMD methods were performed to determine colistin MICs. Essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME), and major error (ME) were worked out between BMD method and E-test. The clinical profile of patients was analyzed. ResultsThe majority of the patients suffered from bacteremia [47(47%)]. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism isolated overall as well as among bacteremic isolates. 9(9%) CRE isolates were colistin resistant by BMD of which six were Klebsiella pneumoniae. There was 97% CA between E-test and BMD. EA was 68%. VME was found in three out of nine colistin resistant isolates. No ME was found. Among the other antibiotics tested for CRE isolates, the highest susceptibility was seen to tigecycline [43(43%)] followed by amikacin [19 (19%)]. The most common underlying condition was post solid organ transplantation [36(36%)]. A higher survival rate was seen among non-bacteremic CRE infections (58.49%) than bacteremic CRE infections (42.6%). Four out of nine patients with colistin resistant CRE infections survived and had a satisfactory outcome. ConclusionKlebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism causing invasive infection. Survival rates were higher in non-bacteremic CRE infections than bacteremic infections. Good CA was seen between E-test and BMD for colistin susceptibility, but the EA was poor. VME was more common than ME when E-tests were used for colistin susceptibility testing resulting in false susceptibility. Tigecycline and aminoglycosides are possible adjunct drugs for the treatment of invasive CRE infections.