German National Reference Centre for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria, Department of Medical Microbiology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
German National Reference Centre for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria, Department of Medical Microbiology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Nov;25(11):1385-1389. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.017. Epub 2019 Mar 28.
The recommended technique for colistin susceptibility testing by both EUCAST and CLSI is broth microdilution (BMD). However, many routine laboratories still use other methods such as gradient strips or semi-automated systems. The objective of this study was to compare six of the most widespread commercial products for colistin susceptibility testing in Europe with in-house prepared BMD.
A collection of 325 carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales was tested for colistin susceptibility with three semi-automated systems (Vitek 2, BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway), one gradient-strip test (Etest®) and two commercial BMD products (MICRONAUT-S, TREK Sensititre). BMD, in-house prepared according to ISO standard 20776-1, served as reference.
The MICRONAUT-S BMD performed best with only one false-resistant (major error, ME) and four false-susceptible (very major error, VME) results while the TREK BMD performed poorer with 16 ME and seven VME. The semi-automated systems Vitek 2 and Phoenix performed poorly with 31 and 26 VME, respectively. The WalkAway semi-automated system showed 16 and 13 false results, depending on the inoculation method. The Etest® showed six ME and 10 VME.
This study shows that colistin susceptibility testing remains a challenging task for laboratories. It emphasizes the need for selecting the most reliable test method to advocate proper treatment and shows that critical evaluation and precautious usage of colistin susceptibility testing results is constantly required.
欧盟药敏委员会(EUCAST)和临床实验室标准化协会(CLSI)均推荐肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)用于检测黏菌素敏感性。然而,许多常规实验室仍在使用其他方法,如梯度条或半自动系统。本研究的目的是比较欧洲六种最广泛使用的商业黏菌素药敏产品与自制 BMD 的性能。
使用三种半自动系统(Vitek 2、BD Phoenix、MicroScan WalkAway)、一种梯度条测试(Etest®)和两种商业 BMD 产品(MICRONAUT-S、TREK Sensititre)对 325 株碳青霉烯酶产生的肠杆菌科进行了黏菌素敏感性检测。BMD 按照 ISO 标准 20776-1 自制,作为参考。
MICRONAUT-S BMD 表现最佳,仅有 1 个假耐药(主要错误,ME)和 4 个假敏感(非常大的错误,VME)结果,而 TREK BMD 表现较差,有 16 个 ME 和 7 个 VME。半自动系统 Vitek 2 和 Phoenix 分别有 31 个和 26 个 VME,表现不佳。WalkAway 半自动系统根据接种方法,分别显示 16 和 13 个假结果。Etest®显示 6 个 ME 和 10 个 VME。
本研究表明,黏菌素敏感性检测对实验室来说仍然是一项具有挑战性的任务。它强调了选择最可靠的测试方法来倡导正确治疗的必要性,并表明需要不断对黏菌素敏感性检测结果进行严格评估和谨慎使用。