Cargando…

Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method

The agar dilution method (ADM) recommended for IV fosfomycin (IV FOS) is complex and labor-intensive. Keeping in mind the reality of everyday laboratory work, we have evaluated the agreement of IV FOS susceptibility results obtained using the E-test and the Phoenix system with the results obtained u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata, Mączyńska, Beata, Smutnicka, Danuta, Secewicz, Anna, Krochmal, Grzegorz, Laufer, Klaudyna, Dudek-Wicher, Ruth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10223098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37242370
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050700
_version_ 1785049859638689792
author Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata
Mączyńska, Beata
Smutnicka, Danuta
Secewicz, Anna
Krochmal, Grzegorz
Laufer, Klaudyna
Dudek-Wicher, Ruth
author_facet Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata
Mączyńska, Beata
Smutnicka, Danuta
Secewicz, Anna
Krochmal, Grzegorz
Laufer, Klaudyna
Dudek-Wicher, Ruth
author_sort Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata
collection PubMed
description The agar dilution method (ADM) recommended for IV fosfomycin (IV FOS) is complex and labor-intensive. Keeping in mind the reality of everyday laboratory work, we have evaluated the agreement of IV FOS susceptibility results obtained using the E-test and the Phoenix system with the results obtained using the ADM. Materials and methods: The tests were performed on 860 strains. To evaluate susceptibility to IV FOS, BioMerieux E-tests (bioMerieux, Warsaw, Poland), BD Phoenix panels (BD Phoenix, Sparks, MD, USA), and the ADM were used. Clinical interpretation was performed in accordance with EUCAST Guidance (v12.0, 2021). The significance of the E-test and the Phoenix was analyzed in relation to the ADM by defining categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME). Essential agreement (EA) has also been defined for the E-test. A method was considered reliable, in accordance with ISO 20776-2:2007, when CA and EA were above 89.9% and VME was <3%. Results: A categorical agreement of >98.9% was demonstrated between the E-test and the ADM for overall strains and for Echerichia coli, ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, and Staphylococcus aureus, while between the Phoenix and the ADM, a CA of >98.9% was shown only for Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Proteus spp. A very major error rate of <3% was obtained only for Staphylococcus aureus and MBL-producing Pseudomonas evaluated by both the E-test and the Phoenix. An essential agreement of >98.9% between the E-test and the ADM has not been demonstrated for any of the tested groups of strains. The Phoenix yielded more VMEs than the E-test (50 and 46, respectively). The highest VME rate was demonstrated using the Phoenix method for Enterobacter spp. (53.83%). Conclusions: Both the E-test and the Phoenix have turned out to be reliable in assessing IV FOS susceptibility only for Staphylococcus aureus (CA > 89.9% and VME < 3%). For the remaining tested groups of strains and genera, the simultaneous high CA rate and low VME rate required by ISO were not achieved. Both methods fared particularly badly in detecting strains resistant to IV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10223098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102230982023-05-28 Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata Mączyńska, Beata Smutnicka, Danuta Secewicz, Anna Krochmal, Grzegorz Laufer, Klaudyna Dudek-Wicher, Ruth Pathogens Article The agar dilution method (ADM) recommended for IV fosfomycin (IV FOS) is complex and labor-intensive. Keeping in mind the reality of everyday laboratory work, we have evaluated the agreement of IV FOS susceptibility results obtained using the E-test and the Phoenix system with the results obtained using the ADM. Materials and methods: The tests were performed on 860 strains. To evaluate susceptibility to IV FOS, BioMerieux E-tests (bioMerieux, Warsaw, Poland), BD Phoenix panels (BD Phoenix, Sparks, MD, USA), and the ADM were used. Clinical interpretation was performed in accordance with EUCAST Guidance (v12.0, 2021). The significance of the E-test and the Phoenix was analyzed in relation to the ADM by defining categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME). Essential agreement (EA) has also been defined for the E-test. A method was considered reliable, in accordance with ISO 20776-2:2007, when CA and EA were above 89.9% and VME was <3%. Results: A categorical agreement of >98.9% was demonstrated between the E-test and the ADM for overall strains and for Echerichia coli, ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, and Staphylococcus aureus, while between the Phoenix and the ADM, a CA of >98.9% was shown only for Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Proteus spp. A very major error rate of <3% was obtained only for Staphylococcus aureus and MBL-producing Pseudomonas evaluated by both the E-test and the Phoenix. An essential agreement of >98.9% between the E-test and the ADM has not been demonstrated for any of the tested groups of strains. The Phoenix yielded more VMEs than the E-test (50 and 46, respectively). The highest VME rate was demonstrated using the Phoenix method for Enterobacter spp. (53.83%). Conclusions: Both the E-test and the Phoenix have turned out to be reliable in assessing IV FOS susceptibility only for Staphylococcus aureus (CA > 89.9% and VME < 3%). For the remaining tested groups of strains and genera, the simultaneous high CA rate and low VME rate required by ISO were not achieved. Both methods fared particularly badly in detecting strains resistant to IV. MDPI 2023-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10223098/ /pubmed/37242370 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050700 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kowalska-Krochmal, Beata
Mączyńska, Beata
Smutnicka, Danuta
Secewicz, Anna
Krochmal, Grzegorz
Laufer, Klaudyna
Dudek-Wicher, Ruth
Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title_full Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title_fullStr Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title_short Reliability of E-Tests and the Phoenix Automated Method in Assessing Susceptibility to IV Fosfomycin—Comparative Studies Relative to the Reference Method
title_sort reliability of e-tests and the phoenix automated method in assessing susceptibility to iv fosfomycin—comparative studies relative to the reference method
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10223098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37242370
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050700
work_keys_str_mv AT kowalskakrochmalbeata reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT maczynskabeata reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT smutnickadanuta reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT secewiczanna reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT krochmalgrzegorz reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT lauferklaudyna reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod
AT dudekwicherruth reliabilityofetestsandthephoenixautomatedmethodinassessingsusceptibilitytoivfosfomycincomparativestudiesrelativetothereferencemethod