Cardoso Alexander Machado, Flores Vinicius Ribeiro, do Rosario Gabriel Gomes, Succar Juliana Barbosa, Berbert Lidiane Coelho, Oliveira Maria Clara de Freitas, Canellas Anna Luiza Bauer, Laport Marinella Silva, Souza Cláudia Rezende Vieira Mendonça, Chagas Thiago Pavoni Gomes, Dias Rubens Clayton da Silva, Fortes Fabio da Silva de Azevedo, Pellegrino Flávia Lúcia Piffano Costa
Laboratory of Environmental Biotechnology, Faculty of Biological and Health Sciences (FCBS), Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro 23070-200, Brazil.
National Institute of Technology (INT), Rio de Janeiro 20081-312, Brazil.
Microorganisms. 2025 Jan 22;13(2):231. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13020231.
Due to bacterial resistance to antimicrobials, antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs) has become a major challenge for clinicians. The present work aimed to compare the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of 53 uropathogenic (UPEC) isolates, assessed using the disk diffusion method and two automated systems (PHOENIX BD™ and VITEK2), with interpretations based on CLSI and BrCAST guidelines. Twenty-five antibiotics were tested to assess differences in susceptibility profiles. Statistical tools, including Kappa coefficient analysis and chi-square tests, were applied to assess concordance and significance between methods. Among the main discrepancies found, BrCAST has classified a greater number of UPEC isolates as resistant to more than half of the antibiotics tested by the disk diffusion method, when compared to CLSI. Although faster, the PHOENIX BD and VITEK2 automated systems exhibited significant discrepancies, with divergences observed for half of the antimicrobials tested. Both automated methods showed discrepancies compared to the disk diffusion method under CLSI and BrCAST guidelines. PHOENIX BD classified some isolates resistant by DD/CLSI as susceptible, while VITEK2 misclassified 25% to 50% of the antimicrobials tested. Conversely, VITEK2 also classified some isolates susceptible to DD/CLSI as resistant to 25% of the antimicrobials tested. Regarding DD/BrCAST, PHOENIX BD classified resistant isolates as susceptible (to 50% of the antimicrobials tested). In comparison, VITEK2 classified resistant isolates as susceptible and susceptible isolates as resistant (25% of the antimicrobials for both). These findings highlight the need for careful selection of susceptibility testing methods, as variations in interpretive criteria between CLSI and BrCAST could impact clinical decision-making. This study underscores the importance of methodological consistency in accurately informing antibiotic therapy in UTI management, especially in the face of rising resistance.
由于细菌对抗菌药物产生耐药性,尿路感染(UTIs)的抗生素治疗已成为临床医生面临的一项重大挑战。本研究旨在比较53株尿路致病性大肠杆菌(UPEC)分离株的抗菌药物敏感性谱,采用纸片扩散法和两种自动化系统(PHOENIX BD™和VITEK2)进行评估,并根据CLSI和BrCAST指南进行解读。测试了25种抗生素以评估敏感性谱的差异。应用包括Kappa系数分析和卡方检验在内的统计工具来评估不同方法之间的一致性和显著性。在发现的主要差异中,与CLSI相比,BrCAST将更多的UPEC分离株归类为对纸片扩散法测试的一半以上抗生素耐药。尽管PHOENIX BD和VITEK2自动化系统速度更快,但仍存在显著差异,在所测试的一半抗菌药物中观察到了分歧。在CLSI和BrCAST指南下,与纸片扩散法相比,两种自动化方法均显示出差异。PHOENIX BD将一些经纸片扩散法/CLSI判定为耐药的分离株归类为敏感,而VITEK2将25%至50%的测试抗菌药物误分类。相反,VITEK2也将一些对纸片扩散法/CLSI敏感的分离株归类为对25%的测试抗菌药物耐药。关于纸片扩散法/BrCAST,PHOENIX BD将耐药分离株归类为敏感(对50%的测试抗菌药物)。相比之下,VITEK2将耐药分离株归类为敏感,将敏感分离株归类为耐药(两者均为25%的抗菌药物)。这些发现凸显了谨慎选择药敏试验方法的必要性,因为CLSI和BrCAST之间解释标准的差异可能会影响临床决策。本研究强调了方法一致性在准确指导UTI治疗中抗生素治疗方面的重要性,尤其是在面对耐药性上升的情况下。