Table_3_Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Panel for Imipenem, Meropenem, and Ertapenem Against Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant and Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales.docx
Purpose: The infection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) has become a major clinical and healthcare problem worldwide. The screening methods of CRE have been extensively developed but still need improving [e.g., tests with accurate and simple minimum inhibitory (MICs)]. In this study, the performance of the BD Phoenix NMIC-413 AST panel was evaluated against clinical CRE and carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE) in China. The panel was first evaluated in the Chinese clinical lab.
Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 303 clinical Enterobacterales isolates were conducted by broth microdilution (BMD), Phoenix NMIC-413 AST panel, and disk diffusion method for imipenem, ertapenem, and meropenem. Considering BMD is a gold standard, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor error (MIE), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. CA and EA > 90%, ME <3%, and VME <1.5% were considered as acceptable criteria. Polymerase chain reaction and sanger sequencing were performed to determine the β-lactamase genotypes of CRE isolates.
Results: Three hundred and three isolates included 195 CREs and 108 CSEs were enrolled according to the BMD-MIC values of three carbapenems. Tested CREs showing 100 blaKPC−2-positive organisms, 31 blaIMP-positive organisms, 28 blaNDM-positive organisms, 5 blaVIM-positive organisms, 2 both blaIMP and blaVIM-positive organisms, 2 blaOXA−48-positive organisms, and 27 isolates without carbapenemase genes. For the Phoenix NMIC-413 method, CA and EA rates >93%, MIE rates <5%, ME rates <1.75%, and VME rates were 0%, across the three drugs. For the disk diffusion method, the CA rates for three drugs were all >93%, while the MIE and ME rates were all <5 and <3%, respectively. VME rate was 3.28% for imipenem, exceeded the cut-off value specified by CLSI M52, 0 and 0.56% for ertapenem and meropenem, separately.
Conclusion: Based on the genomic data, the detection of CRE and CSE was more reliable using the BD Phoenix NMIC-413 panel compared to the BMD and disk approaches. Therefore, our study supports the use of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 panel as a suitable alternative to BMD for the detection of carbapenem resistant isolates in a clinical setting.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.2015.12480
- https://doi.org//10.1128/AAC.01882-17
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2018.03341
- https://doi.org//10.1128/AAC.01053-06
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cmi.2016.01.001
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11684-017-0529-4
- https://doi.org//10.1128/AAC.01730-17
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jac/dkx521
- https://doi.org//10.1128/CMR.00001-07
- https://doi.org//10.1128/CMR.05035-11
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jac/dkv213
- https://doi.org//10.1128/JCM.01043-18
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.mimet.2017.01.012
- https://doi.org//10.3343/alm.2019.39.5.470
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.mimet.2018.11.024
- https://doi.org//10.1128/AAC.45.4.1151-1161.2001
- https://doi.org//10.1128/AAC.47.3.1165-1168.2003
- https://doi.org//10.1128/JCM.01934-17
- https://doi.org//10.1089/mdr.2018.0370
- https://doi.org//10.1128/JCM.02636-05
- https://doi.org//10.2165/00003495-200767070-00006
- https://doi.org//10.1128/JCM.00075-08
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.05.002
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.01.001
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.114911
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.04.032
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cmi.2019.08.005
- https://doi.org//10.1128/JCM.00395-18
- https://doi.org//10.2147/IDR.S249570
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Radiology and Organ Imaging
- Foetal Development and Medicine
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Medical Genetics (excl. Cancer Genetics)
- Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
- Dermatology
- Emergency Medicine
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Intensive Care
- Primary Health Care
- Nephrology and Urology
- Nuclear Medicine
- Orthopaedics
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Pathology (excl. Oral Pathology)
- Family Care