用不同的 AST 方法比较产 NDM 肠杆菌的碳青霉烯 MIC。

IF 3.7 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance Pub Date : 2024-04-06 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlae028
Alfred Lok Hang Lee, Eddie Chi Man Leung, Viola Chi Ying Chow
{"title":"用不同的 AST 方法比较产 NDM 肠杆菌的碳青霉烯 MIC。","authors":"Alfred Lok Hang Lee, Eddie Chi Man Leung, Viola Chi Ying Chow","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlae028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study compared the performance of MIC test strip (ETEST), automated AST card (Vitek 2) and broth microdilution (BMD) in determining carbapenem susceptibility and MIC values of NDM-producing Enterobacterales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NDM-producing Enterobacterales recovered from clinical specimens were included. The presence of <i>bla</i><sub>NDM</sub> was confirmed by PCR. Identification of bacterial isolates was done by MALDI-TOF. Phenotypic susceptibility to three carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem and meropenem) was tested by BMD, ETEST and Vitek 2. MIC values were interpreted in accordance with CLSI M100 (2022 edition). Using BMD as the reference standard, the essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME) and major error (ME) rates were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven NDM-producing Enterobacterales isolates were included, 44 of which were <i>Escherichia coli</i>. The EA of Vitek 2 was 97.9% for ertapenem, 25.5% for meropenem and 42.6% for imipenem. Using Vitek 2, there were 0% VMEs across all three carbapenems tested. The EA of ETEST was 53.2% for ertapenem, 55.3% for imipenem and 36.2% for meropenem. The rates of VMEs for ETEST were high too (ertapenem 8.5%, meropenem 36.2%, imipenem 26.1%). The MIC values obtained from Vitek 2 were consistently higher than those from BMD, while MICs from ETEST were consistently lower than those from BMD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VME rate for ETEST was unacceptably high when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. Vitek 2 had acceptable EA and CA for ertapenem when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. For meropenem and imipenem, neither of the methods (ETEST, Vitek 2) showed acceptable EA and CA when compared with BMD.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of carbapenem MIC for NDM-producing Enterobacterales by different AST methods.\",\"authors\":\"Alfred Lok Hang Lee, Eddie Chi Man Leung, Viola Chi Ying Chow\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jacamr/dlae028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study compared the performance of MIC test strip (ETEST), automated AST card (Vitek 2) and broth microdilution (BMD) in determining carbapenem susceptibility and MIC values of NDM-producing Enterobacterales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NDM-producing Enterobacterales recovered from clinical specimens were included. The presence of <i>bla</i><sub>NDM</sub> was confirmed by PCR. Identification of bacterial isolates was done by MALDI-TOF. Phenotypic susceptibility to three carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem and meropenem) was tested by BMD, ETEST and Vitek 2. MIC values were interpreted in accordance with CLSI M100 (2022 edition). Using BMD as the reference standard, the essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME) and major error (ME) rates were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven NDM-producing Enterobacterales isolates were included, 44 of which were <i>Escherichia coli</i>. The EA of Vitek 2 was 97.9% for ertapenem, 25.5% for meropenem and 42.6% for imipenem. Using Vitek 2, there were 0% VMEs across all three carbapenems tested. The EA of ETEST was 53.2% for ertapenem, 55.3% for imipenem and 36.2% for meropenem. The rates of VMEs for ETEST were high too (ertapenem 8.5%, meropenem 36.2%, imipenem 26.1%). The MIC values obtained from Vitek 2 were consistently higher than those from BMD, while MICs from ETEST were consistently lower than those from BMD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VME rate for ETEST was unacceptably high when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. Vitek 2 had acceptable EA and CA for ertapenem when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. For meropenem and imipenem, neither of the methods (ETEST, Vitek 2) showed acceptable EA and CA when compared with BMD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057202/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究比较了 MIC 试纸(ETEST)、自动 AST 卡(Vitek 2)和肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)在确定产 NDM 肠杆菌的碳青霉烯类药物敏感性和 MIC 值方面的性能:方法:纳入从临床标本中回收的产NDM肠杆菌。通过 PCR 确认是否存在 blaNDM。细菌分离物的鉴定采用 MALDI-TOF。用 BMD、ETEST 和 Vitek 2 检测对三种碳青霉烯类(厄他培南、亚胺培南和美罗培南)的表型敏感性。MIC 值根据 CLSI M100(2022 年版)进行解释。以 BMD 为参考标准,评估了基本一致率(EA)、分类一致率(CA)、极重大误差率(VME)和重大误差率(ME):结果:47 株产 NDM 的肠杆菌属分离物被纳入其中,其中 44 株为大肠埃希菌。使用 Vitek 2,厄他培南的 EA 为 97.9%,美罗培南的 EA 为 25.5%,亚胺培南的 EA 为 42.6%。使用 Vitek 2 测试的所有三种碳青霉烯类药物的 VME 均为 0%。厄他培南的 ETEST EA 为 53.2%,亚胺培南为 55.3%,美罗培南为 36.2%。ETEST 的 VME 率也很高(厄他培南 8.5%、美罗培南 36.2%、亚胺培南 26.1%)。Vitek 2得出的MIC值始终高于BMD得出的MIC值,而ETEST得出的MIC值始终低于BMD得出的MIC值:结论:以 BMD 作为比较标准时,ETEST 的 VME 率高得令人无法接受。以 BMD 作为比较标准时,Vitek 2 对厄他培南的 EA 和 CA 均可接受。对于美罗培南和亚胺培南,与 BMD 相比,两种方法(ETEST 和 Vitek 2)都没有显示出可接受的 EA 和 CA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of carbapenem MIC for NDM-producing Enterobacterales by different AST methods.

Introduction: This study compared the performance of MIC test strip (ETEST), automated AST card (Vitek 2) and broth microdilution (BMD) in determining carbapenem susceptibility and MIC values of NDM-producing Enterobacterales.

Methods: NDM-producing Enterobacterales recovered from clinical specimens were included. The presence of blaNDM was confirmed by PCR. Identification of bacterial isolates was done by MALDI-TOF. Phenotypic susceptibility to three carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem and meropenem) was tested by BMD, ETEST and Vitek 2. MIC values were interpreted in accordance with CLSI M100 (2022 edition). Using BMD as the reference standard, the essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME) and major error (ME) rates were evaluated.

Results: Forty-seven NDM-producing Enterobacterales isolates were included, 44 of which were Escherichia coli. The EA of Vitek 2 was 97.9% for ertapenem, 25.5% for meropenem and 42.6% for imipenem. Using Vitek 2, there were 0% VMEs across all three carbapenems tested. The EA of ETEST was 53.2% for ertapenem, 55.3% for imipenem and 36.2% for meropenem. The rates of VMEs for ETEST were high too (ertapenem 8.5%, meropenem 36.2%, imipenem 26.1%). The MIC values obtained from Vitek 2 were consistently higher than those from BMD, while MICs from ETEST were consistently lower than those from BMD.

Conclusions: The VME rate for ETEST was unacceptably high when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. Vitek 2 had acceptable EA and CA for ertapenem when BMD was used as the standard for comparison. For meropenem and imipenem, neither of the methods (ETEST, Vitek 2) showed acceptable EA and CA when compared with BMD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcomes of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis according to MIC of amoxicillin: a multicentric study. Experience with expanded use of oritavancin in a tertiary hospital: indications, tolerability and outcomes. Antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients: a point prevalence survey across four tertiary hospitals in Niger. Aetiology, susceptibility and outcomes of fever in patients receiving chemotherapy in Malawi: a prospective study. Community pharmacists' knowledge and practices towards antimicrobial stewardship: findings and implications.
×
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