| Literature DB >> 35154029 |
Eva Gato1, Ahalieyah Anantharajah2, Manuel J Arroyo3, María José Artacho4, Juan de Dios Caballero5, Ana Candela6, Kateřina Chudějová7, Ignacio Pedro Constanso8, Cristina Elías4,9, Javier Fernández10, Jesús Jiménez3, Pilar Lumbreras10, Gema Méndez3, Xavier Mulet11, Patricia Pérez-Palacios12, Belén Rodríguez-Sánchez6, Rafael Cantón5, Jaroslav Hrabák7, Luis Mancera3, Luis Martínez-Martínez4,9,13, Antonio Oliver11, Álvaro Pascual12, Alexia Verroken2, Germán Bou1, Marina Oviaño1.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluate the performance of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) for rapid detection of carbapenemase activity in Enterobacterales in clinical microbiology laboratories during a multicenter networking validation study. The study was divided into three different stages: "software design," "intercenter evaluation," and "clinical validation." First, a standardized procedure with an online software for data analysis was designed. Carbapenem resistance was detected by measuring imipenem hydrolysis and the results were automatically interpreted using the Clover MS data analysis software (Clover BioSoft, Spain). Second, a series of 74 genotypically characterized Enterobacterales (46 carbapenemase-producers and 28 non carbapenemase-producers) were analyzed in 8 international centers to ensure the reproducibility of the method. Finally, the methodology was evaluated independently in all centers during a 2-month period and results were compared with the reference standard for carbapenemase detection used in each center. The overall agreement rate relative to the reference method for carbapenemase resistance detection in clinical samples was 92.5%. The sensitivity was 93.9% and the specificity, 100%. Results were obtained within 60 min and accuracy ranged from 83.3 to 100% among the different centers. Further, our results demonstrate that MALDI-TOF MS is an outstanding tool for rapid detection of carbapenemase activity in Enterobacterales in clinical microbiology laboratories. The use of a simple in-house procedure with online software allows routine screening of carbapenemases in diagnostics, thereby facilitating early and appropriate antimicrobial therapy.Entities:
Keywords: MALDI-TOF MS; carbapenemases enzymes; clinical microbiology; imipenem; resistance detection
Year: 2022 PMID: 35154029 PMCID: PMC8834885 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.789731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
MALDI-TOF MS calibration parameters.
| Name | m/z | Resolution | Intensity |
| [HCCA+H]+ | 190.050 | >300 | >3000 |
| [2 | 379.092 | >500 | >3000 |
| [ | 573.314 | >700 | >2000 |
| [ | 607.680 | >800 | >3000 |
| [ | 757.400 | >1000 | >3000 |
The mass peaks considered for calibration, including the exact masses, resolutions and intensities.
FIGURE 1Imipenem spectra. The hydrolyzed imipenem spectrum, in the first picture, represents no visible mass peaks for imipenem and only the internal standard, reserpine, is observed at 607 m/z. The later spectrum corresponds to imipenem, with the mass peaks at 300 and 489 m/z and the internal standard at 607 m/z.
Agreement rates for each center in the intercenter evaluation.
| Center | Agreement rate | Minor errors | Very major errors |
| GM | 98.6% | 1.4% | 0% |
| RC | 95.8% | 1.4% | 2.8% |
| RS | 94.4% | 4.2% | 1.4% |
| VM | 90.3% | 8.3% | 1.4% |
| SE | 90.3% | 8.3% | 1.4% |
| CA | 88.9% | 8.3% | 2.8% |
| AC | 93.1% | 6.9% | 0% |
| PZ | 98.6% | 1.4% | 0% |
| SL | 91.7% | 2.8% | 5.6% |
| Total | 94.9% | 3.5% | 1.5% |
Agreement rates for different species in the intercenter evaluation for all centers participating in the study.
| Species | Diagnosis |
| % | CI 95% |
|
| Agreement rate | 329 | 96.2% | 93.6–97.8% |
| Minor errors | 9 | 2.6% | 1.4–4.9% | |
| Very major errors | 4 | 1.2% | 0.5–3.0% | |
|
| Agreement rate | 206 | 91.6% | 87.2–94.5% |
| Minor errors | 13 | 5.8% | 3.4–9.6% | |
| Very major errors | 6 | 2.7% | 1.2–5.7% | |
|
| Agreement rate | 71 | 98.6% | 92.5–99.8% |
| Minor errors | 1 | 1.4% | 0.2–7.5% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0–5.1% | |
|
| Agreement rate | 9 | 100.0% | 70.1–100.0% |
| Minor errors | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0–29.9% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0–29.9% |
Agreement rates regarding the resistance mechanism obtained in the intercenter evaluation for all centers participating in the study.
| Resistance mechanism | Diagnosis |
| % |
| Susceptible | Agreement rate | 51 | 94.40% |
| Minor errors | 3 | 5.60% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| CIT | Agreement rate | 8 | 88.90% |
| Minor errors | 1 | 11.10% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| SHV | Agreement rate | 8 | 88.90% |
| Minor errors | 1 | 11.10% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| CMY-2 | Agreement rate | 17 | 94.40% |
| Minor errors | 1 | 5.60% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| FOX | Agreement rate | 24 | 88.90% |
| Minor errors | 3 | 11.10% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| K-1 | Agreement rate | 9 | 100.00% |
| Minor errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| CTX-M | Agreement rate | 120 | 95.20% |
| Minor errors | 6 | 4.80% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| KPC | Agreement rate | 89 | 98.90% |
| Minor errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| Very major errors | 1 | 1.10% | |
| IMP | Agreement rate | 26 | 96.30% |
| Minor errors | 1 | 3.70% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| NDM | Agreement rate | 43 | 95.60% |
| Minor errors | 0 | 0.00% | |
| Very major errors | 2 | 4.40% | |
| VIM | Agreement rate | 79 | 87.80% |
| Minor errors | 4 | 4.40% | |
| Very major errors | 7 | 7.80% | |
| OXA-48-like | Agreement rate | 141 | 97.90% |
| Minor errors | 3 | 2.10% | |
| Very major errors | 0 | 0.00% |
Distribution of resistance mechanism in relation to the centers in the clinical validation.
| Center | Resistance mechanism | |||||
| OXA | VIM | KPC | NDM | IMP | Non-carbapenem producers | |
| GM (20) | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RC (20) | 9 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RS (20) | 6 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| VM (10) | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| SE (18) | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| CA (19) | 16 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| PZ (20) | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| SL (20) | 7 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 1 |
| Total (147) | 69 | 31 | 21 | 12 | 5 | 9 |
greement rates for the different centers obtained in the clinical validation stage.
| Center ( | Number of CPE | Reference method | Diagnosis | ||
| Agreement rate | Minor error | Very major error | |||
| GM (20) | 19 | IC | 85.0% | 5.0% | 10.0% |
| RC (20) | 20 | PCR | 95.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| RS (20) | 20 | PCR | 90.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| VM (10) | 10 | WGS | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| SE (18) | 11 | PCR | 83.3% | 5.6% | 10.0% |
| CA (19) | 19 | IC | 94.7% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| PZ (20) | 20 | PCR | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| SL (20) | 19 | IC | 95.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% |
| Total (147) | 138 | 92.5% | 4.1% | 3.4% | |