University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University; Department of Medical Microbiology, Utrecht, the Netherlands (currently Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands).
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 AB, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Nov;52(5):678-681. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.06.014. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
The increasing use of fosfomycin requires reliable susceptibility testing in clinical practice. The reference standard, agar dilution (AD), is rarely used in routine settings. The fosfomycin Etest (BioMérieux) is frequently used, although reading MICs can be hampered by the interpretation of the growth of macrocolonies in the inhibition zone. We investigated the interobserver (IO), interlaboratory (IL), and interobserver-interlaboratory (IOIL) agreement of the fosfomycin Etest and evaluated the agreement with AD.
Etests were performed for 57 extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae of four bacterial species (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca and Enterobacter cloacae) in two laboratories. Photographs of fosfomycin Etests were interpreted by four observers following manufacturer's instructions.
Essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) between Etest and AD were 57% and 89% (κ-value 0.68), respectively, with an underestimation of Etest interpretations compared with AD of 0.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.48) 2-fold dilutions. Between Etest observations, IO-EA and -CA were reached in 82% and 94% of comparisons; IL-EA and -CA in 38% and 85% of comparisons; and IOIL-EA and -CA in 40% and 85% of comparisons, respectively. Agreement of the Etest with AD and between Etests was better for E. coli than for other species. Ignoring all macrocolonies and haze during Etest interpretation improved the agreement with AD (CA κ-value 0.80) and between Etests (CA κ-value from 0.68 to 0.81).
In this study on 57 ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, IOIL agreement was low with an EA of 40% and a CA of 85%, affected most by IL agreement and to a lesser extent by IO agreement.
磷霉素的应用日益广泛,因此在临床实践中需要可靠的药敏检测。但琼脂稀释法(AD)作为参考标准,在常规检测中很少使用。磷霉素 E 试验(Etest,生物梅里埃)常被用于药敏检测,但其 MIC 判读可能会因抑制圈中出现大菌落而受到阻碍。本研究旨在评估磷霉素 Etest 的观察者间(IO)、实验室间(IL)和观察者-实验室间(IOIL)一致性,并与 AD 进行比较。
在两个实验室中,对 4 种细菌(大肠埃希菌、肺炎克雷伯菌、产酸克雷伯菌和阴沟肠杆菌)的 57 株产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)肠杆菌科细菌进行磷霉素 Etest。按照制造商的说明,4 位观察者对 Etest 的照片进行判读。
Etest 与 AD 的符合率(EA)和确证率(CA)分别为 57%和 89%(κ 值为 0.68),Etest 判读结果较 AD 平均低估 0.26 倍稀释度(95%置信区间为 0.03-0.48)。Etest 观察者间的 EA 和 CA 分别达到 82%和 94%,IL 的 EA 和 CA 分别达到 38%和 85%,IOIL 的 EA 和 CA 分别达到 40%和 85%。Etest 对大肠埃希菌的判读结果与 AD 和 Etest 之间的一致性优于其他细菌。在 Etest 判读时忽略所有大菌落和雾状晕环可提高与 AD 的一致性(CA κ 值为 0.80)和 Etest 之间的一致性(CA κ 值从 0.68 提高至 0.81)。
在这项关于 57 株产 ESBL 肠杆菌科细菌的研究中,IOIL 一致性较低,EA 为 40%,CA 为 85%,一致性受 IL 影响最大,受 IO 影响较小。