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. 1. Microvida Laboratory for Microbiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Laboratory for Medical Microbiology and Public Health, Hengelo, The Netherlands. 4. Laboratory for Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Microbiology, Medisch Centrum Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 6. Microvida Laboratory for Microbiology, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Microbiology, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands. 9. Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, Stichting PAMM, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Medical Microbiology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 12. Centre for Infectious Diseases Friesland, Izore, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. 13. Department of Medical Microbiology, Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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