Comparison of Available Methods for Investigating The in vitro Activity of Colistin Against Different Gram-Negative Bacilli

Noora Shams, Hanin N. AlHiraky, Nabila Moulana, Maissa Riahihi, Kaltham Alsowaidi, Khawlah Albukhati, Susu M. Zughair, Nahla O. Eltai
{"title":"Comparison of Available Methods for Investigating The in vitro Activity of Colistin Against Different Gram-Negative Bacilli","authors":"Noora Shams, Hanin N. AlHiraky, Nabila Moulana, Maissa Riahihi, Kaltham Alsowaidi, Khawlah Albukhati, Susu M. Zughair, Nahla O. Eltai","doi":"10.29117/quarfe.2021.0121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The surge in the prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacterial infections with limited treatment options and the decrease in the development of new antibiotics are challenges that lead to the reuse of colistin to treat infections caused by MDR pathogens. This study aimed to determine economical, simple, and reliable colistin susceptibility testing methods as an alternative to the time and effort-consuming microdilution technique and identify the colistin resistance's genetic determinants to find if it affects the testing method. Material and Methods: Seven colistin susceptibility testing methods, namely, Disk diffusion, E-test, ComASPTM SensiTest, broth disk elution, colistin agar test, CHROMagarTM COL-APSE, and BD Phoenix ID/AST, were compared to the gold standard broth microdilution. Data of the 63 studied isolates were analyzed using very major error (VME), major error (ME), categorical agreement (CA), sensitivity, specificity, Kappa, positive and negative predictive values. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on all isolates to determine if the genetic resistant factors affect the accuracy of the specific colistin susceptibility testing method. Results: Our results revealed that disk diffusion is still an ineffective method for measuring colistin susceptibility with the highest ME (31.75%), the lowest Kappa 0 (0%), and CA (68.25%) values. In contrast, the highest sensitivity, specificity, CA, kappa value, positive and negative predictive values were reported on Phoenix, ComASPTM sensitest, and E-test methods compared with the microbroth dilution reference method. Our study did not ensure any relation between the type of colistin resistance genetic determinant (chromosomal/plasmid-mediated) and the performance of the specific colistin susceptibility test Conclusions: Phoenix, E-test, and CompASPT SensiTest methods have remained superior in reproducibility, sturdiness, simplicity of use with a performance similar to the current recommended BMD procedure. These methods can be an alternative to the current laborious, impractical broth microdilution technique, especially in microbiology laboratories with a large workload.","PeriodicalId":9295,"journal":{"name":"Building Resilience at Universities: Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Building Resilience at Universities: Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29117/quarfe.2021.0121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The surge in the prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacterial infections with limited treatment options and the decrease in the development of new antibiotics are challenges that lead to the reuse of colistin to treat infections caused by MDR pathogens. This study aimed to determine economical, simple, and reliable colistin susceptibility testing methods as an alternative to the time and effort-consuming microdilution technique and identify the colistin resistance's genetic determinants to find if it affects the testing method. Material and Methods: Seven colistin susceptibility testing methods, namely, Disk diffusion, E-test, ComASPTM SensiTest, broth disk elution, colistin agar test, CHROMagarTM COL-APSE, and BD Phoenix ID/AST, were compared to the gold standard broth microdilution. Data of the 63 studied isolates were analyzed using very major error (VME), major error (ME), categorical agreement (CA), sensitivity, specificity, Kappa, positive and negative predictive values. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on all isolates to determine if the genetic resistant factors affect the accuracy of the specific colistin susceptibility testing method. Results: Our results revealed that disk diffusion is still an ineffective method for measuring colistin susceptibility with the highest ME (31.75%), the lowest Kappa 0 (0%), and CA (68.25%) values. In contrast, the highest sensitivity, specificity, CA, kappa value, positive and negative predictive values were reported on Phoenix, ComASPTM sensitest, and E-test methods compared with the microbroth dilution reference method. Our study did not ensure any relation between the type of colistin resistance genetic determinant (chromosomal/plasmid-mediated) and the performance of the specific colistin susceptibility test Conclusions: Phoenix, E-test, and CompASPT SensiTest methods have remained superior in reproducibility, sturdiness, simplicity of use with a performance similar to the current recommended BMD procedure. These methods can be an alternative to the current laborious, impractical broth microdilution technique, especially in microbiology laboratories with a large workload.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多粘菌素体外抗不同革兰氏阴性杆菌活性研究方法的比较
背景:多药耐药(MDR)革兰氏阴性细菌感染的流行率激增,治疗选择有限,新抗生素的开发减少,这是导致重复使用粘菌素来治疗多药耐药病原体引起的感染的挑战。本研究旨在确定经济、简单、可靠的粘菌素药敏检测方法,替代耗时费力的微稀释法,并确定粘菌素耐药的遗传决定因素,以确定其是否影响检测方法。材料与方法:采用纸片扩散法、E-test法、ComASPTM SensiTest法、肉汤纸片洗脱法、粘菌素琼脂法、CHROMagarTM coll - apse法、BD Phoenix ID/AST法与金标准肉汤微量稀释法进行比较。采用非常严重误差(VME)、严重误差(ME)、分类一致性(CA)、敏感性、特异性、Kappa、阳性预测值和阴性预测值对63株分离株的数据进行分析。对所有分离株进行全基因组测序,以确定遗传耐药因素是否影响特异性粘菌素药敏试验方法的准确性。结果:纸片扩散法仍然是测定粘菌素敏感性的无效方法,其ME值最高(31.75%),Kappa值最低(0%),CA值最低(68.25%)。与微肉汤稀释参比法相比,Phoenix法灵敏度最高,特异度最高,CA值、kappa值、阳性预测值和阴性预测值最高,ComASPTM法灵敏度最高,E-test法预测值最高。我们的研究没有确定粘菌素耐药性遗传决定因素(染色体/质粒介导)的类型与特异性粘菌素敏感性试验的性能之间的任何关系。结论:Phoenix、E-test和CompASPT SensiTest方法在重复性、可靠性、使用简单性方面仍然具有优势,其性能与目前推荐的BMD程序相似。这些方法可以替代目前费力,不切实际的肉汤微量稀释技术,特别是在工作量大的微生物实验室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Concomitant Removal of Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals by highly adapted Bacillus and Pseudomonas strains Exploring QU Health Students' Experiences of Burnout, Anxiety, and Empathy during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Method Study Dietary Patterns and Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Findings from a Case-Control Study Understanding COVID-19-related Burnout in Qatar’s Community Pharmacists using the Job Demands-Resources Theory Experimental Investigations of Gas Kick for Single and Two-Phase Gas-liquid Flow in near Horizontal Wells
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1