Fernando Pasteran , Olivia Wong , Vyanka Mezcord , Christina Lopez , Nardin Georgeos , Venjaminne Fua , Alonzo Ozuna , Dema Ramlaoui , Cristian Sánchez , Paulina Marchetti , Alejandra Corso , Marcelo E. Tolmasky , Robert A. Bonomo , María Soledad Ramirez
{"title":"Comparison of available methods to evaluate cefiderocol susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp","authors":"Fernando Pasteran , Olivia Wong , Vyanka Mezcord , Christina Lopez , Nardin Georgeos , Venjaminne Fua , Alonzo Ozuna , Dema Ramlaoui , Cristian Sánchez , Paulina Marchetti , Alejandra Corso , Marcelo E. Tolmasky , Robert A. Bonomo , María Soledad Ramirez","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-<em>Acinetobacter</em> strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of <em>Acinetobacter</em> spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"223 ","pages":"Article 106972"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848/pdfft?md5=e6dbec05291796b917b5e740df07c133&pid=1-s2.0-S0167701224000848-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000848","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to Acinetobacter spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-Acinetobacter strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach.
All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.