Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates
ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to evaluate the correlation between inhibitory zones and MIC when testing ceftazidime-avibactam using disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution method established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Four-hundred and 58 isolates...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Society for Microbiology
2022-02-01
|
| Series: | Microbiology Spectrum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01092-21 |
| _version_ | 1818323349360607232 |
|---|---|
| author | Renru Han Xuelin Yang Yang Yang Yan Guo Dandan Yin Li Ding Shi Wu Demei Zhu Fupin Hu |
| author_facet | Renru Han Xuelin Yang Yang Yang Yan Guo Dandan Yin Li Ding Shi Wu Demei Zhu Fupin Hu |
| author_sort | Renru Han |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to evaluate the correlation between inhibitory zones and MIC when testing ceftazidime-avibactam using disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution method established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Four-hundred and 58 isolates of Enterobacterales isolated from 54 medical centers from the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 2016 to 2020 were collected. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using broth microdilution, Etest, and disk diffusion were performed according to the CLSI. Of the 458 Enterobacterales, 17.2% (79/458) and 82.8%(379/458) were resistant or susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam by broth microdilution, respectively. Compared with the broth microdilution method, the categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) of the Etest were 99.6% (456/458) and 94.8% (434/458), respectively; the major error (ME) and very major error (VME) were both 0.2% (1/458). For disk diffusion, the CA and VME were 99.8% (457/458) and 0.2% (1/458), respectively. For Escherichia coli, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 97.1% (135/139), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. For Klebsiella pneumoniae, the CA and EA of the Etest were 99.3% (288/290) and 93.4% (271/290), respectively, the ME and VME were both 0.3% (1/290). The CA and VME of disk diffusion were 99.7% (289/290) and 0.3% (1/290), respectively. For other Enterobacterales, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 96.6% (28/29), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. Ceftazidime-avibactam disk diffusion (30/20-μg disks) and Etest demonstrated good performance for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing against Enterobacterales clinical isolates. IMPORTANCE Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, especially for extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, are disseminating rapidly around the world. Treatment options for these infections are limited, which prompt the development of novel or combinational therapies to combat the infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. The newly available β-lactam combination agent ceftazidime-avibactam has been demonstrated good in vitro and in vivo activity against ESBL, AmpC, KPC-2, or OXA-48-like-producing isolates and has shown promise in treating carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections. Concerningly, there are few available automated systems for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing, and the broth microdilution method is hard to perform in most routine laboratories. Therefore, we urgently need an economical and practical method for the accurate detection of ceftazidime-avibactam activity against Gram-negative bacilli. Here, we evaluate the performance of the disk diffusion and Etest compared with the reference broth microdilution method against Enterobacterales clinical strains. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T11:11:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5a72ac1b281142f0a93c3bb71c1bdb04 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2165-0497 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T11:11:17Z |
| publishDate | 2022-02-01 |
| publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microbiology Spectrum |
| spelling | doaj.art-5a72ac1b281142f0a93c3bb71c1bdb042022-12-21T23:48:45ZengAmerican Society for MicrobiologyMicrobiology Spectrum2165-04972022-02-0110110.1128/spectrum.01092-21Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical IsolatesRenru Han0Xuelin Yang1Yang Yang2Yan Guo3Dandan Yin4Li Ding5Shi Wu6Demei Zhu7Fupin Hu8Institute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaInstitute of Antibiotics, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaABSTRACT The objective of this research was to evaluate the correlation between inhibitory zones and MIC when testing ceftazidime-avibactam using disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution method established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Four-hundred and 58 isolates of Enterobacterales isolated from 54 medical centers from the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 2016 to 2020 were collected. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using broth microdilution, Etest, and disk diffusion were performed according to the CLSI. Of the 458 Enterobacterales, 17.2% (79/458) and 82.8%(379/458) were resistant or susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam by broth microdilution, respectively. Compared with the broth microdilution method, the categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) of the Etest were 99.6% (456/458) and 94.8% (434/458), respectively; the major error (ME) and very major error (VME) were both 0.2% (1/458). For disk diffusion, the CA and VME were 99.8% (457/458) and 0.2% (1/458), respectively. For Escherichia coli, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 97.1% (135/139), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. For Klebsiella pneumoniae, the CA and EA of the Etest were 99.3% (288/290) and 93.4% (271/290), respectively, the ME and VME were both 0.3% (1/290). The CA and VME of disk diffusion were 99.7% (289/290) and 0.3% (1/290), respectively. For other Enterobacterales, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 96.6% (28/29), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. Ceftazidime-avibactam disk diffusion (30/20-μg disks) and Etest demonstrated good performance for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing against Enterobacterales clinical isolates. IMPORTANCE Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, especially for extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, are disseminating rapidly around the world. Treatment options for these infections are limited, which prompt the development of novel or combinational therapies to combat the infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. The newly available β-lactam combination agent ceftazidime-avibactam has been demonstrated good in vitro and in vivo activity against ESBL, AmpC, KPC-2, or OXA-48-like-producing isolates and has shown promise in treating carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections. Concerningly, there are few available automated systems for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing, and the broth microdilution method is hard to perform in most routine laboratories. Therefore, we urgently need an economical and practical method for the accurate detection of ceftazidime-avibactam activity against Gram-negative bacilli. Here, we evaluate the performance of the disk diffusion and Etest compared with the reference broth microdilution method against Enterobacterales clinical strains.https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01092-21Enterobacteralesceftazidime-avibactambroth microdilutionEtestdisk diffusion |
| spellingShingle | Renru Han Xuelin Yang Yang Yang Yan Guo Dandan Yin Li Ding Shi Wu Demei Zhu Fupin Hu Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates Microbiology Spectrum Enterobacterales ceftazidime-avibactam broth microdilution Etest disk diffusion |
| title | Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates |
| title_full | Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates |
| title_fullStr | Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates |
| title_short | Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates |
| title_sort | assessment of ceftazidime avibactam 30 20 μg disk etest versus broth microdilution results when tested against enterobacterales clinical isolates |
| topic | Enterobacterales ceftazidime-avibactam broth microdilution Etest disk diffusion |
| url | https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01092-21 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT renruhan assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT xuelinyang assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT yangyang assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT yanguo assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT dandanyin assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT liding assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT shiwu assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT demeizhu assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates AT fupinhu assessmentofceftazidimeavibactam3020mgdisketestversusbrothmicrodilutionresultswhentestedagainstenterobacteralesclinicalisolates |