Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024
Comparison of testing methods assessing the in vitro efficacy of the combination of aztreonam with avibactam on multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deckers Corentin, Bélik Florian, Denis Olivier, Bogaerts Pierre, Montesinos Isabel, Berhin Catherine, Bouchahrouf Warda, Hoebeke Martin, Evrard Stephanie, Gilliard Nicolas, Okur Merve, Huang Te-Din
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) combination shows promising effectiveness on most carbapenemase-producing Gram-negatives, yet standardized antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) methods for evaluating the combination in clinical laboratories is lacking. We aimed to evaluate different ATM-AVI AST approaches.
METHODS: 96 characterized carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates belonging to 9 Enterobacterales (EB; n = 80) and P. aeruginosa (PA; n = 16) species, including 90 carbapenemase producers and 72 strains resistant to both CAZ-AVI and ATM, were tested. Paper disk elution (DE; Bio-Rad) and E-test gradient strips stacking (SS; bioMérieux) were performed for the ATM + CAZ-AVI combination. MIC Test Strip (MTS; Liofilchem) was evaluated for ATM-AVI MIC determination. Results were interpreted applying ATM clinical breakpoints of the EUCAST guidelines and compared to the broth microdilution method (Sensititre, Thermofisher).
RESULTS: According to broth microdilution method, 93% of EB and 69% of PA were tested susceptible to ATM-AVI. The synergistic effect of ATM-AVI was of 95% for EB, but of only 17% for PA. The MTS method yielded higher categorical and essential agreement (CA/EA) rates for both EB (89%/91%) and PA (94%/94%) compared to SS, where the rates were 87%/83% for EB and 81%/81% for PA. MTS and SS yielded 2 and 3 major discrepancies, respectively, while 3 very major discrepancies each were observed for both methods. Concerning the DE method, CA reached 91% for EB and 81% for PA, but high number of very major discrepancies were observed for EB (n = 6; 8%) and for PA (n = 3; 19%).
CONCLUSIONS: The ATM-AVI association displayed excellent in vitro activity against highly resistant clinical Enterobacterales strains. MTS method offers accurate ATM-AVI AST results, while the SS method might serve as better alternative then DE method in assessing the efficacy of ATM + CAZ-AVI combination. However, further investigation is needed to confirm the methods' ability to detect ATM-AVI resistance.
METHODS: 96 characterized carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates belonging to 9 Enterobacterales (EB; n = 80) and P. aeruginosa (PA; n = 16) species, including 90 carbapenemase producers and 72 strains resistant to both CAZ-AVI and ATM, were tested. Paper disk elution (DE; Bio-Rad) and E-test gradient strips stacking (SS; bioMérieux) were performed for the ATM + CAZ-AVI combination. MIC Test Strip (MTS; Liofilchem) was evaluated for ATM-AVI MIC determination. Results were interpreted applying ATM clinical breakpoints of the EUCAST guidelines and compared to the broth microdilution method (Sensititre, Thermofisher).
RESULTS: According to broth microdilution method, 93% of EB and 69% of PA were tested susceptible to ATM-AVI. The synergistic effect of ATM-AVI was of 95% for EB, but of only 17% for PA. The MTS method yielded higher categorical and essential agreement (CA/EA) rates for both EB (89%/91%) and PA (94%/94%) compared to SS, where the rates were 87%/83% for EB and 81%/81% for PA. MTS and SS yielded 2 and 3 major discrepancies, respectively, while 3 very major discrepancies each were observed for both methods. Concerning the DE method, CA reached 91% for EB and 81% for PA, but high number of very major discrepancies were observed for EB (n = 6; 8%) and for PA (n = 3; 19%).
CONCLUSIONS: The ATM-AVI association displayed excellent in vitro activity against highly resistant clinical Enterobacterales strains. MTS method offers accurate ATM-AVI AST results, while the SS method might serve as better alternative then DE method in assessing the efficacy of ATM + CAZ-AVI combination. However, further investigation is needed to confirm the methods' ability to detect ATM-AVI resistance.