OBJECTIVES: Enterobacteriaceae with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) are now widespread and simple phenotypic tests are required to detect them in diagnostic laboratories. We investigated the performance of screening methods at 16 hospitals in South-East England. METHODS: Sixteen laboratories in South-East England submitted 1195 consecutive Enterobacteriaceae isolates found to be resistant, by their routine methods, to any or all of cefpodoxime, ceftazidime and cefotaxime. These isolates were re-tested centrally with various cephalosporin/clavulanate combinations and with multiplex PCR for bla(CTX-M) and bla(AmpC) alleles. RESULTS: Screening methods among the laboratories were the following: cefpodoxime discs alone (1 site); cefpodoxime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime discs (9 sites) or agar dilution (1 site); Phoenix (2 sites), Vitek 1 (1 site) and Vitek 2 (2 sites). A total of 8% of isolates submitted based on disc tests proved fully cephalosporin-susceptible, compared with 3% sent based on tests with automated systems and none of those sent based on agar dilution tests. Among isolates submitted solely on cefpodoxime resistance 256/372 (69%) proved cephalosporin-susceptible or had only borderline resistance with no clear mechanism demonstrable; this proportion decreased to 28/160 (18%) for those submitted on the basis of resistance to ceftazidime, 18/122 (15%) for those resistant to cefotaxime and 26/496 (5%) for those resistant to both cefotaxime and ceftazidime. The inference of ESBL production by Vitek 2 had the best agreement with reference laboratory results. CONCLUSIONS: Many isolates found resistant only to cefpodoxime at the source sites proved not to have ESBLs or AmpC; screening with cefotaxime and ceftazidime allowed better specificity for identification of mechanism-based resistance, as did the automated systems. Cefpodoxime disc tests nevertheless remain a useful primary screen for laboratories prepared only to test one agent.
OBJECTIVES: Enterobacteriaceae with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) are now widespread and simple phenotypic tests are required to detect them in diagnostic laboratories. We investigated the performance of screening methods at 16 hospitals in South-East England. METHODS: Sixteen laboratories in South-East England submitted 1195 consecutive Enterobacteriaceae isolates found to be resistant, by their routine methods, to any or all of cefpodoxime, ceftazidime and cefotaxime. These isolates were re-tested centrally with various cephalosporin/clavulanate combinations and with multiplex PCR for bla(CTX-M) and bla(AmpC) alleles. RESULTS: Screening methods among the laboratories were the following: cefpodoxime discs alone (1 site); cefpodoxime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime discs (9 sites) or agar dilution (1 site); Phoenix (2 sites), Vitek 1 (1 site) and Vitek 2 (2 sites). A total of 8% of isolates submitted based on disc tests proved fully cephalosporin-susceptible, compared with 3% sent based on tests with automated systems and none of those sent based on agar dilution tests. Among isolates submitted solely on cefpodoxime resistance 256/372 (69%) proved cephalosporin-susceptible or had only borderline resistance with no clear mechanism demonstrable; this proportion decreased to 28/160 (18%) for those submitted on the basis of resistance to ceftazidime, 18/122 (15%) for those resistant to cefotaxime and 26/496 (5%) for those resistant to both cefotaxime and ceftazidime. The inference of ESBL production by Vitek 2 had the best agreement with reference laboratory results. CONCLUSIONS: Many isolates found resistant only to cefpodoxime at the source sites proved not to have ESBLs or AmpC; screening with cefotaxime and ceftazidime allowed better specificity for identification of mechanism-based resistance, as did the automated systems. Cefpodoxime disc tests nevertheless remain a useful primary screen for laboratories prepared only to test one agent.
Authors: Christine Lascols; Meredith Hackel; Andrea M Hujer; Steven H Marshall; Sam K Bouchillon; Daryl J Hoban; Stephen P Hawser; Robert E Badal; Robert A Bonomo Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: N Al Naiemi; J L Murk; P H M Savelkoul; C M J Vandenbroucke-Grauls; Y J Debets-Ossenkopp Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 3.267