Skippen I, Shemko M, Palmer C, Shetty N
Department of Clinical Microbiology and HPA Collaborating Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, 1st Floor Windeyer Institute of Medical Sciences, 46 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4JF, UK.
Br J Biomed Sci. 2006;63(1):1-4. doi: 10.1080/09674845.2006.11732711.
Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms are resistant to the third-generation cephalosporins commonly used as empirical therapy for a wide range of serious infections. It is therefore important for laboratories to offer reliable ESBL detection methods. This study compares two combination disc methods (Oxoid and Mast Diagnostics) containing cepodoxime with and without clavulanate with Vitek 2 for routine detection of ESBLs in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolated from blood cultures. From December 2003 to April 2005, a total of 58 potential ESBL-producing isolates (resistant to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime) by BSAC disc susceptibility were tested by the combination discs and Vitek 2. The Advanced Expert System, a feature of Vitek 2 reports possible mechanisms of resistance, based on interpretive reading of MICs. This study detected 7.4% more ESBL-producing isolates by Vitek 2 than by Oxoid disc testing (95% CI: 0.15-14.7%; P < 0.2) and 31.6% more ESBL-producing isolates were detected by Vitek 2 than by Mast disc testing, (95% CI: 16.2-46.96%; P < 0.001). Batch-to-batch variation was evident in disc performance for both disc types. Thus, use of appropriate controls is recommended when testing by the combination disc methods. Although no phenotypic test is 100% sensitive and specific, the Vitek 2 was a reliable system for ESBL detection; however, it is expensive and interpretation of results can be confusing to inexperienced users. Further studies to compare Vitek 2 with cefotaxime and ceftazidime combination discs may reveal disc methodology for ESBL detection to be a more reliable alternative than using cefpodoxime combination discs alone.
产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)的微生物对常用于多种严重感染经验性治疗的第三代头孢菌素耐药。因此,实验室提供可靠的ESBL检测方法很重要。本研究比较了两种含头孢泊肟(有或无克拉维酸)的联合纸片法(奥克索德和玛斯特诊断公司)与Vitek 2系统用于从血培养中分离出的大肠埃希菌和克雷伯菌属中ESBLs的常规检测。2003年12月至2005年4月,共有58株经英国抗菌化疗协会(BSAC)纸片药敏试验可能产ESBL的菌株(对头孢噻肟和/或头孢他啶耐药)通过联合纸片法和Vitek 2系统进行检测。Vitek 2系统的高级专家系统根据对最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的解释性读取报告可能的耐药机制。本研究发现,Vitek 2系统检测出产ESBL的菌株比奥克索德纸片法多7.4%(95%可信区间:0.15 - 14.7%;P < 0.2),比玛斯特纸片法多31.6%(95%可信区间:16.2 - 46.96%;P < 0.001)。两种纸片类型的纸片性能均存在明显的批次间差异。因此,采用联合纸片法检测时建议使用适当的对照。虽然没有任何表型试验是100%敏感和特异的,但Vitek 2系统是一种可靠的ESBL检测系统;然而,它价格昂贵,且结果解释可能会让缺乏经验的用户感到困惑。进一步比较Vitek 2系统与头孢噻肟和头孢他啶联合纸片法的研究可能会发现,ESBL检测的纸片法可能是比单独使用头孢泊肟联合纸片法更可靠的替代方法。