Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoints for beta-Lactams in Enterobacteriaceae Producing Extended-Spectrum beta-Lactamases and/or Plasmid-Mediated AmpC beta-Lacta
W. Song, Min-Jeong Park, H. Kim, Jae Seok Kim, H. S. Kim, K. Lee
{"title":"Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoints for beta-Lactams in Enterobacteriaceae Producing Extended-Spectrum beta-Lactamases and/or Plasmid-Mediated AmpC beta-Lacta","authors":"W. Song, Min-Jeong Park, H. Kim, Jae Seok Kim, H. S. Kim, K. Lee","doi":"10.5145/KJCM.2011.14.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results: Among the 94 isolates containing ESBL and/ or PABL, the number of isolates that were susceptible to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, aztreonam, cefepime, and imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 vs. the EUCAST breakpoints were 4 (4.3%) vs. 4 (4.3%); 26 (27.7%) vs. 8 (8.5%); 37 (39.4%) vs. 14 (14.9%); 71 (75.5%) vs. 31 (33.0%); and 76 (80.9%) vs. 90 (95.7%), respectively. Of the 18 isolates that were not susceptible to imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 breakpoints, 13 isolates (72.2%) were P. mirabilis. Conclusion: The CLSI 2010 MIC breakpoints without tests to detect ESBL and/or PABL for Enterobacteriaceae could be unreliable. Thus, special tests for ESBLs and AmpC β-lactamases are required to detect the resistance mechanisms involved. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2011;14:24-29)","PeriodicalId":143093,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2011.14.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Results: Among the 94 isolates containing ESBL and/ or PABL, the number of isolates that were susceptible to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, aztreonam, cefepime, and imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 vs. the EUCAST breakpoints were 4 (4.3%) vs. 4 (4.3%); 26 (27.7%) vs. 8 (8.5%); 37 (39.4%) vs. 14 (14.9%); 71 (75.5%) vs. 31 (33.0%); and 76 (80.9%) vs. 90 (95.7%), respectively. Of the 18 isolates that were not susceptible to imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 breakpoints, 13 isolates (72.2%) were P. mirabilis. Conclusion: The CLSI 2010 MIC breakpoints without tests to detect ESBL and/or PABL for Enterobacteriaceae could be unreliable. Thus, special tests for ESBLs and AmpC β-lactamases are required to detect the resistance mechanisms involved. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2011;14:24-29)