Conceição-Neto O C, da Costa B S, Pontes L S, Santos I C O, Silveira M C, Cordeiro-Moura J R, Pereira N F, Tavares-Teixeira C B, Picão R C, Rocha-de-Souza C M, Carvalho-Assef A P D
Laboratório de Pesquisa em Infecção Hospitalar, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Laboratório de Investigação em Microbiologia Médica, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
New Microbes New Infect. 2020 Jun 25;36:100722. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100722. eCollection 2020 Jul.
Polymyxins are important therapeutic options for treating infections, mainly those caused by carbapenem-resistant . Specific chemical characteristics of polymyxins make it difficult to perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing, especially within the clinical laboratory. Here we aimed to evaluate the performance of three phenotypic methods: Rapid NP Polymyxin Test, ColiSpot test and the SuperPolymyxin medium. To accomplish this, 170 non-duplicate clinical isolates were analysed (123 colistin-resistant and 47 susceptible). The sensitivity and specificity obtained for Rapid Polymyxin NP Test, Colispot and SuperPolymyxin medium were, respectively, 90% and 94%, 74% and 100%, and 82% and 85%. Very major errors occurred more frequently in low-level colistin-resistant isolates (MICs 4 and 8 μg/mL). Rapid Polymyxin NP proved to be a method capable of identifying colistin-resistant strains in acceptable categorical agreement. However, major errors and very major errors of this method were considered unacceptable for colistin-resistance screening. Although the Colispot test is promising and easy to perform and interpret, the results did not reproduce well in the isolates tested. The colistin-containing selective medium (SuperPolymyxin) showed limitations, including quantification of mucoid colonies and poor stability. Nevertheless, Colispot and SuperPolymyxin medium methods did not present acceptable sensitivity, specificity and categorical agreement. It is essential to use analytical tools that faithfully reproduce bacterial resistance , especially in last-line drugs, such as polymyxins, when misinterpretation of a test can result in therapeutic ineffectiveness.
多粘菌素是治疗感染的重要治疗选择,主要用于治疗由耐碳青霉烯类细菌引起的感染。多粘菌素的特定化学特性使其难以进行抗菌药敏试验,尤其是在临床实验室中。在此,我们旨在评估三种表型方法的性能:快速NP多粘菌素试验、大肠杆菌斑点试验和超级多粘菌素培养基。为此,我们分析了170株非重复临床分离株(123株对粘菌素耐药,47株敏感)。快速多粘菌素NP试验、大肠杆菌斑点试验和超级多粘菌素培养基的敏感性和特异性分别为90%和94%、74%和100%、82%和85%。极低水平耐粘菌素分离株(最低抑菌浓度为4和8μg/mL)中非常主要错误的发生频率更高。快速多粘菌素NP试验被证明是一种能够以可接受的分类一致性鉴定耐粘菌素菌株的方法。然而,该方法的主要错误和非常主要错误被认为对于粘菌素耐药性筛查是不可接受的。尽管大肠杆菌斑点试验很有前景且易于操作和解读,但在测试的分离株中结果重现性不佳。含粘菌素的选择性培养基(超级多粘菌素)显示出局限性,包括粘液样菌落的定量和稳定性差。尽管如此,大肠杆菌斑点试验和超级多粘菌素培养基方法的敏感性、特异性和分类一致性均不可接受。使用能够如实重现细菌耐药性的分析工具至关重要,尤其是在使用如多粘菌素这类最后一线药物时,因为检测结果的错误解读可能导致治疗无效。