Suppr超能文献

耐碳青霉烯革兰氏阴性杆菌的多粘菌素、美罗培南-巴坦、亚胺培南-瑞巴坦和依拉环素检测:肉汤微量稀释法、梯度试验和VITEK 2的比较评估

Colistin, Meropenem-Vaborbactam, Imipenem-Relebactam, and Eravacycline Testing in Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Rods: A Comparative Evaluation of Broth Microdilution, Gradient Test, and VITEK 2.

作者信息

Forstner Patrick, Fuchs Lisa, Luxner Josefa, Grisold Andrea, Steinmetz Ivo, Dichtl Karl

机构信息

Diagnostic and Research Institute of Hygiene, Microbiology and Environmental Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.

出版信息

Antibiotics (Basel). 2024 Nov 8;13(11):1062. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13111062.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of different assays for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination for reserve antibiotics in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CREs), (CRPAs), and (CRABs).

METHODS

An analysis was conducted on 100 consecutive isolates: 50 CREs, 35 CRPAs, and 15 CRABs. Sensititre broth microdilution was used as a reference standard to evaluate the performance of VITEK 2 card AST-XN24 (bioMérieux), the respective gradient tests (bioMérieux), and UMIC colistin broth microdilution test strips (Bruker Daltonics). Errors, essential agreement (EA), and categorical agreement of MICs for colistin (COL), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (IRL), and eravacycline (ERV) were assessed.

RESULTS

The agreement between both of the COL broth microdilution (BMD) methods was perfect (100/100). The gradient test and VITEK 2 analysis yielded comparable EA rates (92/100 and 72/79, respectively), with the latter not registering any very major errors (VMEs). The MVB gradient test achieved EA in 66 of 85 isolates and VITEK 2 in 70/85. For IRL, EA was reached in 69 and 64 of 85 cases by gradient test and VITEK 2 analysis, respectively. The ERV gradient test yielded false results in nearly all (12/15) CRABs but achieved EA in 46 of 50 CREs. The VITEK system recorded EA for ERV in 60 of 65 isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed substantial variability in the measured MICs between BMD and the alternative methods. In only a few constellations, VITEK 2 or gradient tests could substitute the reference method. BMD is the method of choice for COL analysis, with VITEK 2 representing an alternative method for CRPA testing. Alternative methods for MVB did not provide reliable results, except for Enterobacterales, when tested with the gradient test. However, resistant results need to be confirmed by BMD. Only BMD can be used for IRL MIC determination. VITEK 2 was mostly accurate in measuring ERV MICs, while the corresponding gradient test yielded reliable results exclusively in CREs. It is essential that laboratories are aware of which testing method provides reliable results for each combination of microorganisms and reserve antibiotics.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估和比较不同检测方法对耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌科细菌(CRE)、产碳青霉烯酶肺炎克雷伯菌(CRPA)和产碳青霉烯酶鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)中储备抗生素的抗菌药物敏感性试验(AST)及最低抑菌浓度(MIC)测定的性能。

方法

对100株连续分离株进行分析:50株CRE、35株CRPA和15株CRAB。采用 Sensititre 肉汤微量稀释法作为参考标准,评估 VITEK 2 卡片 AST-XN24(生物梅里埃公司)、相应梯度试验(生物梅里埃公司)及 UMIC 多粘菌素肉汤微量稀释测试条(布鲁克道尔顿公司)的性能。评估了多粘菌素(COL)、美罗培南-巴坦(MVB)、亚胺培南-瑞巴坦(IRL)和依拉环素(ERV)的误差、基本一致率(EA)及 MIC 的分类一致率。

结果

两种COL肉汤微量稀释(BMD)方法之间的一致性极佳(100/100)。梯度试验和VITEK 2分析得出的EA率相当(分别为92/100和72/79),后者未出现任何非常重大误差(VME)。MVB梯度试验在85株分离株中的66株中实现了EA,VITEK 2在85株中的70株中实现了EA。对于IRL,梯度试验和VITEK 2分析分别在85例中的69例和64例中达到了EA。ERV梯度试验在几乎所有(1 of="">15)CRAB中产生了错误结果,但在50株CRE中的46株中实现了EA。VITEK系统在65株分离株中的60株中记录到了ERV的EA。

结论

我们观察到BMD与替代方法之间测得的MIC存在很大差异。仅在少数情况下,VITEK 2或梯度试验可替代参考方法。BMD是COL分析的首选方法,VITEK 2是CRPA检测的替代方法。除肠杆菌科细菌外,MVB的替代方法在用梯度试验检测时未提供可靠结果。然而,耐药结果需通过BMD进行确认。仅BMD可用于IRL的MIC测定。VITEK 2在测量ERV MIC方面大多准确,而相应的梯度试验仅在CRE中产生可靠结果。实验室必须清楚哪种检测方法能为每种微生物与储备抗生素的组合提供可靠结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57e8/11591322/a2277d0ca9b3/antibiotics-13-01062-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验