{"title":"用于确定头孢哌酮敏感性的市售检测试剂盒在 Achromobacter 菌属中显示出不同的性能。","authors":"Vincent Jean-Pierre, Pauline Sorlin, Katy Jeannot, Raphaël Chiron, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Alix Pantel, Hélène Marchandin","doi":"10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC<sup>®</sup>, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC<sup>®</sup> (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC<sup>®</sup> (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD<sub>50/90</sub>=33/30 mm). UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.</p>","PeriodicalId":8052,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","volume":"23 1","pages":"78"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.\",\"authors\":\"Vincent Jean-Pierre, Pauline Sorlin, Katy Jeannot, Raphaël Chiron, Jean-Philippe Lavigne, Alix Pantel, Hélène Marchandin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC<sup>®</sup>, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC<sub>50/90</sub> of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC<sup>®</sup> (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC<sup>®</sup> (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD<sub>50/90</sub>=33/30 mm). UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC<sup>®</sup> and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11342684/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00731-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.
Background: Cefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.
Objectives: We evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.
Methods: Diffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC®, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC50/90 of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.
Results: None of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC® (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC® (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD50/90=33/30 mm). UMIC® and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.
Conclusions: The use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC® and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials considers good quality, novel and international research of more than regional relevance. Research must include epidemiological and/or clinical information about isolates, and the journal covers the clinical microbiology of bacteria, viruses and fungi, as well as antimicrobial treatment of infectious diseases.
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials is an open access, peer-reviewed journal focusing on information concerning clinical microbiology, infectious diseases and antimicrobials. The management of infectious disease is dependent on correct diagnosis and appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and with this in mind, the journal aims to improve the communication between laboratory and clinical science in the field of clinical microbiology and antimicrobial treatment. Furthermore, the journal has no restrictions on space or access; this ensures that the journal can reach the widest possible audience.