cefiderocol MIC结果的多中心性能评价:ComASP与CLSI肉汤微量稀释的比较。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-02-19 Epub Date: 2024-12-31 DOI:10.1128/jcm.00926-24
L M Koeth, J M DiFranco-Fisher, E Palavecino, A Kilic, D Hardy, D Vicino, S Stracquadanio, S Stefani
{"title":"cefiderocol MIC结果的多中心性能评价:ComASP与CLSI肉汤微量稀释的比较。","authors":"L M Koeth, J M DiFranco-Fisher, E Palavecino, A Kilic, D Hardy, D Vicino, S Stracquadanio, S Stefani","doi":"10.1128/jcm.00926-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The performance of the Liofilchem Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol was evaluated in a multicenter study. Enterobacterales, <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>, and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> clinical isolates and challenge isolates were tested by three and one sites, respectively. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing was performed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution and ComASP, which included two reading endpoints (CLSI read; MIC is the first well in which reduction of growth is <1 mm or light haze/faint turbidity] and ComASP [ComASP read; MIC is the first well at which 100% inhibition of growth occurs]). Each site performed reproducibility and quality control (QC) by ComASP and broth microdilution (BMD). Reproducibility was excellent (97.4% within ±1 dilution of modal MIC). All QC results were within CLSI QC ranges by BMD and ComASP, except for two <i>E. coli</i> ATCC 25922 results from one site. Essential agreement for combined clinical and challenge Enterobacterales was 84.3% (CLSI read) and 95.7% (ComASP read), <i>P. aeruginosa</i> was 83.3% (CLSI read) and 93.7% (ComASP read), and <i>A. baumannii</i> was 78.3% (CLSI read) and 96.7% (ComASP read). Categorical agreement for Enterobacterales was 92.4% for both CLSI read and ComASP read, for <i>P. aeruginosa</i> was 89.7% (CLSI read) and 92.1% (ComASP read), and for <i>A. baumannii</i> was 72.8% (CLSI read) and 91.3% (ComASP read). There were no very major errors using the ComASP read. One very major error for <i>P. aeruginosa</i> occurred using the CLSI read method. Three very major errors for <i>A. baumannii</i> occurred using the CLSI read method. ComASP Cefiderocol was shown to be a reliable method for testing cefiderocol MIC against relevant clinical isolates when ComASP read is used.</p><p><strong>Importance: </strong>There are very limited commercial methods available to clinical laboratories for cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing. The Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol method includes iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth, which eliminates variability in cefiderocol MIC results based on iron levels. The lyophilized multi-well format of ComASP also provides for room temperature storage. In comparison to what an individual lab may do for method verification, this multi-site, multi-isolate study provides a robust evaluation and greater assurance to clinical microbiologists of the method's accurate and reproducible performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0092624"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837567/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution.\",\"authors\":\"L M Koeth, J M DiFranco-Fisher, E Palavecino, A Kilic, D Hardy, D Vicino, S Stracquadanio, S Stefani\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.00926-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The performance of the Liofilchem Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol was evaluated in a multicenter study. Enterobacterales, <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>, and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> clinical isolates and challenge isolates were tested by three and one sites, respectively. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing was performed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution and ComASP, which included two reading endpoints (CLSI read; MIC is the first well in which reduction of growth is <1 mm or light haze/faint turbidity] and ComASP [ComASP read; MIC is the first well at which 100% inhibition of growth occurs]). Each site performed reproducibility and quality control (QC) by ComASP and broth microdilution (BMD). Reproducibility was excellent (97.4% within ±1 dilution of modal MIC). All QC results were within CLSI QC ranges by BMD and ComASP, except for two <i>E. coli</i> ATCC 25922 results from one site. Essential agreement for combined clinical and challenge Enterobacterales was 84.3% (CLSI read) and 95.7% (ComASP read), <i>P. aeruginosa</i> was 83.3% (CLSI read) and 93.7% (ComASP read), and <i>A. baumannii</i> was 78.3% (CLSI read) and 96.7% (ComASP read). Categorical agreement for Enterobacterales was 92.4% for both CLSI read and ComASP read, for <i>P. aeruginosa</i> was 89.7% (CLSI read) and 92.1% (ComASP read), and for <i>A. baumannii</i> was 72.8% (CLSI read) and 91.3% (ComASP read). There were no very major errors using the ComASP read. One very major error for <i>P. aeruginosa</i> occurred using the CLSI read method. Three very major errors for <i>A. baumannii</i> occurred using the CLSI read method. ComASP Cefiderocol was shown to be a reliable method for testing cefiderocol MIC against relevant clinical isolates when ComASP read is used.</p><p><strong>Importance: </strong>There are very limited commercial methods available to clinical laboratories for cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing. The Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol method includes iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth, which eliminates variability in cefiderocol MIC results based on iron levels. The lyophilized multi-well format of ComASP also provides for room temperature storage. In comparison to what an individual lab may do for method verification, this multi-site, multi-isolate study provides a robust evaluation and greater assurance to clinical microbiologists of the method's accurate and reproducible performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0092624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837567/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00926-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00926-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一项多中心研究中,对Liofilchem Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol的性能进行了评估。肠杆菌、鲍曼不动杆菌和铜绿假单胞菌临床分离株和攻毒株分别在3个和1个站点进行检测。最低抑制浓度(MIC)测试采用临床与实验室标准协会(CLSI)肉汤微量稀释和ComASP进行,包括两个读取终点(CLSI读取;MIC是大肠杆菌ATCC 25922在一个位点上抑制生长的第一个孔。临床和挑战型肠杆菌的基本一致性分别为84.3% (CLSI read)和95.7% (ComASP read),铜绿假单胞菌的基本一致性分别为83.3% (CLSI read)和93.7% (ComASP read),鲍曼假单胞菌的基本一致性分别为78.3% (CLSI read)和96.7% (ComASP read)。Enterobacterales的CLSI read和ComASP read的分类一致性为92.4%,P. aeruginosa的分类一致性为89.7% (CLSI read)和92.1% (ComASP read),鲍曼不动杆菌的分类一致性为72.8% (CLSI read)和91.3% (ComASP read)。使用ComASP读取没有非常大的错误。在使用CLSI读取方法时,铜绿假单胞菌发生了一个非常大的错误。在使用CLSI读取方法时,鲍曼不动杆菌出现了三个非常严重的错误。ComASP Cefiderocol被证明是检测Cefiderocol MIC与相关临床分离株的可靠方法。重要性:临床实验室用于头孢地罗最低抑制浓度(MIC)检测的商业方法非常有限。紧凑型抗菌素敏感性测试(ComASP) Cefiderocol方法包括缺铁阳离子调整的Mueller-Hinton肉汤,消除了Cefiderocol MIC结果基于铁水平的可变性。ComASP的冻干多孔格式也提供室温储存。与单个实验室可能进行的方法验证相比,这种多位点、多分离物的研究为临床微生物学家提供了可靠的评估和更大的保证,证明了该方法的准确性和可重复性。
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
A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution.

The performance of the Liofilchem Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol was evaluated in a multicenter study. Enterobacterales, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates and challenge isolates were tested by three and one sites, respectively. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing was performed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution and ComASP, which included two reading endpoints (CLSI read; MIC is the first well in which reduction of growth is <1 mm or light haze/faint turbidity] and ComASP [ComASP read; MIC is the first well at which 100% inhibition of growth occurs]). Each site performed reproducibility and quality control (QC) by ComASP and broth microdilution (BMD). Reproducibility was excellent (97.4% within ±1 dilution of modal MIC). All QC results were within CLSI QC ranges by BMD and ComASP, except for two E. coli ATCC 25922 results from one site. Essential agreement for combined clinical and challenge Enterobacterales was 84.3% (CLSI read) and 95.7% (ComASP read), P. aeruginosa was 83.3% (CLSI read) and 93.7% (ComASP read), and A. baumannii was 78.3% (CLSI read) and 96.7% (ComASP read). Categorical agreement for Enterobacterales was 92.4% for both CLSI read and ComASP read, for P. aeruginosa was 89.7% (CLSI read) and 92.1% (ComASP read), and for A. baumannii was 72.8% (CLSI read) and 91.3% (ComASP read). There were no very major errors using the ComASP read. One very major error for P. aeruginosa occurred using the CLSI read method. Three very major errors for A. baumannii occurred using the CLSI read method. ComASP Cefiderocol was shown to be a reliable method for testing cefiderocol MIC against relevant clinical isolates when ComASP read is used.

Importance: There are very limited commercial methods available to clinical laboratories for cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing. The Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol method includes iron-depleted cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth, which eliminates variability in cefiderocol MIC results based on iron levels. The lyophilized multi-well format of ComASP also provides for room temperature storage. In comparison to what an individual lab may do for method verification, this multi-site, multi-isolate study provides a robust evaluation and greater assurance to clinical microbiologists of the method's accurate and reproducible performance.

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
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Nanopore sequencing for precise detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance: a retrospective multicenter study in China. External quality assessment of molecular detection and variant typing of SARS-CoV-2 in European expert laboratories in 2023. Lipid fingerprinting by MALDI Biotyper Sirius instrument fails to differentiate the three subspecies of the Mycobacterium abscessus complex. The impact of FDA-cleared molecular solutions for BK polyomavirus quantitation. A rapid and simple MALDI-TOF MS lipid profiling method for differentiating Mycobacterium ulcerans from Mycobacterium marinum.
×
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