Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Laboratory Medicine, Microbiology and Molecular Diagnostics, Deaconess Health System, Evansville, Indiana, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2023 Feb 22;61(2):e0161722. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01617-22. Epub 2023 Jan 31.
In 2022, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) updated piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) breakpoints for , 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 isolates. Phoenix ( = 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 ( = 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 ( = 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.
2022 年,临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)更新了哌拉西林-他唑巴坦(TZP)的折点,这主要基于大量数据表明,历史折点不能预测 TZP 的治疗结果。美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)尚未采用这些折点,这意味着抗菌药物敏感性测试设备的商业制造商无法为修订后的折点获得 FDA 批准。我们评估了 Phoenix(BD,Sparks,MD)、MicroScan(Beckman Coulter,Sacramento,CA)和 Vitek2(bioMérieux,Durham,NC)的 TZP MIC 与参考肉汤微量稀释法对 284 株分离株的比较。Phoenix( = 167 株)按照 CLSI 折点显示出 84.4%的分类符合率(CA),4.2%的非常大误差(VME)和 1.8%的主要误差(ME)。相比之下,Phoenix 采用 FDA 折点时 CA 为 85.0%,VME 为 4.3%,ME 为 0.8%。MicroScan( = 55 株)按照 CLSI 折点显示出 80.0%的 CA,36.4%的 VME 和 4.8%的 ME,采用 FDA 折点时显示出 81.8%的 CA,44.4%的 VME 和 0.0%的 ME。Vitek2( = 62 株)按照 CLSI 折点显示出 95.2%的 CA,6.3%的 VME 和 0.0%的 ME,采用 FDA 折点时显示出 96.8%的 CA,0.0%的 VME 和 2.2%的 ME。总的来说,使用 CLSI 折点而非标签上的 FDA 折点时,测试系统的性能没有明显差异。然而,所有三个系统的 VME 率都高于预期,而 MicroScan 和 Phoenix 的 CA 率都低于预期。实验室应考虑采用修订后的 CLSI 折点,但应注意,无论应用何种折点,在自动化系统上测试 TZP 都存在一些性能挑战。