Cargando…

2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates

BACKGROUND: Cefpodoxime is increasingly being explored as an option for intravenous-to-oral step-down therapy in Enterobacterales infections, but it is rarely included in routine susceptibility testing. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) states that cefpodoxime susceptibility amo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lambert, Kaitlyn, Demkowicz, Ryan, Slain, Douglas, Murray, Amanda, Howard, Catessa A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678582/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1884
_version_ 1785150396304457728
author Lambert, Kaitlyn
Demkowicz, Ryan
Slain, Douglas
Murray, Amanda
Howard, Catessa A
author_facet Lambert, Kaitlyn
Demkowicz, Ryan
Slain, Douglas
Murray, Amanda
Howard, Catessa A
author_sort Lambert, Kaitlyn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cefpodoxime is increasingly being explored as an option for intravenous-to-oral step-down therapy in Enterobacterales infections, but it is rarely included in routine susceptibility testing. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) states that cefpodoxime susceptibility among urinary isolates can be inferred from the result for cefazolin. However, cefazolin resistance may overcall resistance to cefpodoxime. Studies directly comparing ceftriaxone, cefazolin, and cefpodoxine susceptibilities are lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine correlation of ceftriaxone or cefazolin susceptibilities as a surrogate marker for cefpodoxime susceptibility in Enterobacterales. METHODS: The study was conducted on clinical isolates of E. coli, Klebsiella spp., and Proteus spp. from urine, blood, respiratory, surgical, or wound cultures. Susceptibility testing was conducted by manual Kirby Bauer disk diffusion for cefpodoxime, ceftriaxone, and cefazolin (in duplicate) following standard procedures. The VITEK 2 automated system was used to adjudicate discrepancies between duplicates. Breakpoints from the current CLSI M100 were used to assign categories (S, R, I) for the different methods of susceptibility testing. Categorical agreement, very major, major, and minor error rates between ceftriaxone or cefazolin and cefpodoxime were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 88 clinical isolates were evaluated. The categorical agreement rate was 64% for cefazolin and 97% for ceftriaxone (P =0.0001). The major error rate was 15% (11/74) for cefazolin and 0% for ceftriaxone. The very major error rate was 7% (1/14) for cefazolin and 21% (3/14) for ceftriaxone. The minor error rate was 22% (19/88) for cefazolin and 0% for ceftriaxone. Isolate Characteristics [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Ceftriaxone appears to be a better surrogate marker for predicting cefpodoxime susceptibility, when compared to cefazolin. In addition, ceftriaxone demonstrated lower major and minor error rates. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10678582
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106785822023-11-27 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates Lambert, Kaitlyn Demkowicz, Ryan Slain, Douglas Murray, Amanda Howard, Catessa A Open Forum Infect Dis Abstract BACKGROUND: Cefpodoxime is increasingly being explored as an option for intravenous-to-oral step-down therapy in Enterobacterales infections, but it is rarely included in routine susceptibility testing. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) states that cefpodoxime susceptibility among urinary isolates can be inferred from the result for cefazolin. However, cefazolin resistance may overcall resistance to cefpodoxime. Studies directly comparing ceftriaxone, cefazolin, and cefpodoxine susceptibilities are lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine correlation of ceftriaxone or cefazolin susceptibilities as a surrogate marker for cefpodoxime susceptibility in Enterobacterales. METHODS: The study was conducted on clinical isolates of E. coli, Klebsiella spp., and Proteus spp. from urine, blood, respiratory, surgical, or wound cultures. Susceptibility testing was conducted by manual Kirby Bauer disk diffusion for cefpodoxime, ceftriaxone, and cefazolin (in duplicate) following standard procedures. The VITEK 2 automated system was used to adjudicate discrepancies between duplicates. Breakpoints from the current CLSI M100 were used to assign categories (S, R, I) for the different methods of susceptibility testing. Categorical agreement, very major, major, and minor error rates between ceftriaxone or cefazolin and cefpodoxime were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 88 clinical isolates were evaluated. The categorical agreement rate was 64% for cefazolin and 97% for ceftriaxone (P =0.0001). The major error rate was 15% (11/74) for cefazolin and 0% for ceftriaxone. The very major error rate was 7% (1/14) for cefazolin and 21% (3/14) for ceftriaxone. The minor error rate was 22% (19/88) for cefazolin and 0% for ceftriaxone. Isolate Characteristics [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Ceftriaxone appears to be a better surrogate marker for predicting cefpodoxime susceptibility, when compared to cefazolin. In addition, ceftriaxone demonstrated lower major and minor error rates. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2023-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10678582/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1884 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstract
Lambert, Kaitlyn
Demkowicz, Ryan
Slain, Douglas
Murray, Amanda
Howard, Catessa A
2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title_full 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title_fullStr 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title_full_unstemmed 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title_short 2262. Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Versus Cefazolin as a Surrogate Marker for Cefpodoxime Susceptibility in Enterobacterales Isolates
title_sort 2262. evaluation of ceftriaxone versus cefazolin as a surrogate marker for cefpodoxime susceptibility in enterobacterales isolates
topic Abstract
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678582/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1884
work_keys_str_mv AT lambertkaitlyn 2262evaluationofceftriaxoneversuscefazolinasasurrogatemarkerforcefpodoximesusceptibilityinenterobacteralesisolates
AT demkowiczryan 2262evaluationofceftriaxoneversuscefazolinasasurrogatemarkerforcefpodoximesusceptibilityinenterobacteralesisolates
AT slaindouglas 2262evaluationofceftriaxoneversuscefazolinasasurrogatemarkerforcefpodoximesusceptibilityinenterobacteralesisolates
AT murrayamanda 2262evaluationofceftriaxoneversuscefazolinasasurrogatemarkerforcefpodoximesusceptibilityinenterobacteralesisolates
AT howardcatessaa 2262evaluationofceftriaxoneversuscefazolinasasurrogatemarkerforcefpodoximesusceptibilityinenterobacteralesisolates