Service de Microbiologie et Hygiène hospitalière, HydroSciences Montpellier, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, CHU de Nîmes, Montpellier, 34093, France.
CPias Loire Atlantique, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, 44093, France.
Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2024 Aug 22;23(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1.
Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.
We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.
Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.
None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD=33/30 mm). UMIC and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.
The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.
头孢他啶-多利培南是一种新型的头孢菌素类药物,用于治疗不动杆菌感染。由于不动杆菌属菌种繁多,不同菌种的药敏试验方法也不尽相同,因此头孢他啶-多利培南药敏试验的检测极具挑战性。
评估商品化检测方法检测头孢他啶-多利培南药敏的性能,并对相关文献进行综述。
按照欧盟药敏试验委员会的标准,使用纸片扩散法(药敏纸片、MIC 梯度测试条[MTS]、Liofilchem)和肉汤微量稀释法(ComASP™,Liofilchem;UMIC,Bruker)对来自 14 个种的 143 株 MIC 值≤0.015/0.5 mg/L 的不动杆菌属菌株进行检测,与肉汤微量稀释法参考方法进行比较。无论方法或菌种如何,均进行文献检索。
没有一种方法能够达到可接受的基本符合率(EA)。MTS 的 EA 最低(30.8%),其次是 UMIC(49%)和 ComASP™(76.9%)。所有方法的偏差均在可接受范围内,MTS(-1.3%)和 ComASP™(-14.2%)的 MIC 结果偏低,UMIC(+9.1%)的 MIC 结果偏高。抑菌圈直径为 6-38 mm(IZD=33/30 mm)。UMIC 和 ComASP™无法将本研究中两种头孢他啶-多利培南耐药株中的一种或两种归类为耐药株,而基于扩散的方法则可以。文献综述强调了不同的检测方法在不同的病原体和检测条件下具有不同的性能。
不建议使用 MTS 检测不动杆菌属。纸片扩散法可通过设定 30 mm 的临界直径来筛选敏感菌株。UMIC 和 ComASP™不能单独作为唯一的方法,必须与药敏纸片联合使用,以检测目前仍较少描述的头孢他啶-多利培南耐药不动杆菌属菌株。