Literature DB >> 29982660

Susceptibility of ESBL Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to fosfomycin in the Netherlands and comparison of several testing methods including Etest, MIC test strip, Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion.

Wouter van den Bijllaardt1,2, Maarten J Schijffelen3, Ron W Bosboom4, James Cohen Stuart5, Bram Diederen6, Greetje Kampinga7, Thuy-Nga Le8, Ilse Overdevest9, Frans Stals10, Paul Voorn11, Karola Waar12, Johan W Mouton2, Anouk E Muller2,13.   

Abstract

Objectives: Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is complicated and prone to error. Before using fosfomycin widely in patients with serious infections, acquisition of WT distribution data and reliable susceptibility testing methods are crucial. In this study, the performance of five methods for fosfomycin testing in the routine laboratory against the reference method was evaluated.
Methods: Ten laboratories collected up to 100 ESBL-producing isolates each (80 Escherichia coli and 20 Klebsiella pneumoniae). Isolates were tested using Etest, MIC test strip (MTS), Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion. Agar dilution was performed as the reference method in a central laboratory. Epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) were determined for each species and susceptibility and error rates were calculated.
Results: In total, 775 E. coli and 201 K. pneumoniae isolates were tested by agar dilution. The ECOFF was 2 mg/L for E. coli and 64 mg/L for K. pneumoniae. Susceptibility rates based on the EUCAST breakpoint of ≤32 mg/L were 95.9% for E. coli and 87.6% for K. pneumoniae. Despite high categorical agreement rates for all methods, notably in E. coli, none of the alternative antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods performed satisfactorily. Due to poor detection of resistant isolates, very high error rates of 23.3% (Etest), 18.5% (MTS), 18.8% (Vitek2), 12.5% (Phoenix) and 12.9% (disc diffusion) for E. coli and 22.7% (Etest and MTS), 16.0% (Vitek2) and 12% (Phoenix) for K. pneumoniae were found. None of the methods adequately differentiated between WT and non-WT populations. Conclusions: Overall, it was concluded that none of the test methods is suitable as an alternative to agar dilution in the routine laboratory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29982660     DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  15 in total

1.  Performance of Four Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods against an International Collection of Clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Smith; Hunter V Brigman; Jadyn C Anderson; Christopher L Emery; Tiffany E Bias; Phillip J Bergen; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Elizabeth B Hirsch
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Use of Fosfomycin Etest To Determine In Vitro Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales Other than Escherichia coli, Nonfermenting Gram-Negative Bacilli, and Gram-Positive Cocci.

Authors:  James A Karlowsky; Melanie R Baxter; Alyssa R Golden; Heather J Adam; Andrew Walkty; Philippe R S Lagacé-Wiens; George G Zhanel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Multicenter Evaluation of the Novel ETEST Fosfomycin for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus Species.

Authors:  A Goer; L S Blanchard; A Van Belkum; K J Loftus; T P Armstrong; S G Gatermann; D Shortridge; B J Olson; J K Meece; T R Fritsche; M Pompilio; D Halimi; C Franceschi
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 11.677

Review 4.  Differences in Fosfomycin Resistance Mechanisms between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales.

Authors:  Dina Zheng; Phillip J Bergen; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Elizabeth B Hirsch
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 5.938

5.  Population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo simulation for dosage optimization of fosfomycin in the treatment of osteoarticular infections in patients without renal dysfunction.

Authors:  Matteo Rinaldi; Pier Giorgio Cojutti; Eleonora Zamparini; Sara Tedeschi; Nicolò Rossi; Matteo Conti; Maddalena Giannella; Federico Pea; Pierluigi Viale
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates of Escherichia coli to Fosfomycin as Measured by Four In Vitro Testing Methods.

Authors:  James A Karlowsky; Philippe R S Lagacé-Wiens; Nancy M Laing; Melanie R Baxter; Heather J Adam; George G Zhanel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Oral Fosfomycin Efficacy with Variable Urinary Exposures following Single and Multiple Doses against Enterobacterales: the Importance of Heteroresistance for Growth Outcome.

Authors:  Iain J Abbott; Elke van Gorp; Rixt A Wijma; Joseph Meletiadis; Jason A Roberts; Johan W Mouton; Anton Y Peleg
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  In Vitro Susceptibility of Multi-Drug Resistant Klebsiellapneumoniae Strains Causing Nosocomial Infections to Fosfomycin. A Comparison of Determination Methods.

Authors:  Beata Mączyńska; Justyna Paleczny; Monika Oleksy-Wawrzyniak; Irena Choroszy-Król; Marzenna Bartoszewicz
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2021-04-23

9.  Oral fosfomycin versus ciprofloxacin in women with E.coli febrile urinary tract infection, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled non-inferiority trial (FORECAST).

Authors:  Thijs Ten Doesschate; Suzan P van Mens; Cees van Nieuwkoop; Suzanne E Geerlings; Andy I M Hoepelman; Marc J M Bonten
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.090

10.  The Role of fosA in Challenges with Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing of Multispecies Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates.

Authors:  Zachary S Elliott; Katie E Barry; Heather L Cox; Nicole Stoesser; Joanne Carroll; Kasi Vegesana; Shireen Kotay; Anna E Sheppard; Alex Wailan; Derrick W Crook; Hardik Parikh; Amy J Mathers
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.