Cargando…
Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of five commonly used automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems in China (Vitek 2, Phoenix, Microscan, TDR, and DL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two “unknown” isolates, S1 (ESBL-producing Escherichia coli) and S2 (K...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30214255 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S166790 |
_version_ | 1783352748259934208 |
---|---|
author | Zhou, Menglan Wang, Yao Liu, Chang Kudinha, Timothy Liu, Xiaolin Luo, Yanping Yang, Qiwen Sun, Hongli Hu, Jihong Xu, Ying-Chun |
author_facet | Zhou, Menglan Wang, Yao Liu, Chang Kudinha, Timothy Liu, Xiaolin Luo, Yanping Yang, Qiwen Sun, Hongli Hu, Jihong Xu, Ying-Chun |
author_sort | Zhou, Menglan |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of five commonly used automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems in China (Vitek 2, Phoenix, Microscan, TDR, and DL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two “unknown” isolates, S1 (ESBL-producing Escherichia coli) and S2 (KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae), were sent to 886 hospitals in China for identification and AST. Using broth microdilution method (BMD) as gold standard, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined. RESULTS: Most hospitals (392, 46.1%) used Vitek 2, followed by 16% each for Phoenix, Microscan, and DL systems, and 5.9% (50) used TDR system. MICs of 22 antimicrobials were evaluated for two study isolates plus three ATCC strains. Individual susceptibility results for three ATCC strains (n=1581) were submitted by 780 (91.2%) hospitals. For each AST system, 8.7% (6/69) to 13.0% (33/253) reported MICs outside the expected range for several drugs. For the two study isolates, TDR and DL systems performed the worst in MIC determination and susceptibility categorization of cefazolin and cefepime, while the Microscan system had difficulties in susceptibility categorization for aztreonam and ertapenem. Categorical agreements were >90% for most antimicrobials tested for both the isolates, among which, using BMD, no essential agreements were noted for ampicillin, piperacillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. All AST systems except Vitek 2 showed unacceptable VMEs for cefazolin (S1 and S2) and major errors for ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam (isolate S1), while Vitek 2 showed a high VME rate for cefepime (10.0%) and meropenem (6.2%) for S2. CONCLUSION: None of the five automated systems met the criteria for acceptable AST performance, but Vitek 2 provided a relatively accurate and conservative performance for most of the antimicrobials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6122890 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61228902018-09-13 Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals Zhou, Menglan Wang, Yao Liu, Chang Kudinha, Timothy Liu, Xiaolin Luo, Yanping Yang, Qiwen Sun, Hongli Hu, Jihong Xu, Ying-Chun Infect Drug Resist Original Research OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of five commonly used automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems in China (Vitek 2, Phoenix, Microscan, TDR, and DL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two “unknown” isolates, S1 (ESBL-producing Escherichia coli) and S2 (KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae), were sent to 886 hospitals in China for identification and AST. Using broth microdilution method (BMD) as gold standard, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined. RESULTS: Most hospitals (392, 46.1%) used Vitek 2, followed by 16% each for Phoenix, Microscan, and DL systems, and 5.9% (50) used TDR system. MICs of 22 antimicrobials were evaluated for two study isolates plus three ATCC strains. Individual susceptibility results for three ATCC strains (n=1581) were submitted by 780 (91.2%) hospitals. For each AST system, 8.7% (6/69) to 13.0% (33/253) reported MICs outside the expected range for several drugs. For the two study isolates, TDR and DL systems performed the worst in MIC determination and susceptibility categorization of cefazolin and cefepime, while the Microscan system had difficulties in susceptibility categorization for aztreonam and ertapenem. Categorical agreements were >90% for most antimicrobials tested for both the isolates, among which, using BMD, no essential agreements were noted for ampicillin, piperacillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. All AST systems except Vitek 2 showed unacceptable VMEs for cefazolin (S1 and S2) and major errors for ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam (isolate S1), while Vitek 2 showed a high VME rate for cefepime (10.0%) and meropenem (6.2%) for S2. CONCLUSION: None of the five automated systems met the criteria for acceptable AST performance, but Vitek 2 provided a relatively accurate and conservative performance for most of the antimicrobials. Dove Medical Press 2018-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6122890/ /pubmed/30214255 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S166790 Text en © 2018 Zhou et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Zhou, Menglan Wang, Yao Liu, Chang Kudinha, Timothy Liu, Xiaolin Luo, Yanping Yang, Qiwen Sun, Hongli Hu, Jihong Xu, Ying-Chun Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title | Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title_full | Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title_fullStr | Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title_short | Comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) hospitals |
title_sort | comparison of five commonly used automated susceptibility testing methods for accuracy in the china antimicrobial resistance surveillance system (carss) hospitals |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30214255 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S166790 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhoumenglan comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT wangyao comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT liuchang comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT kudinhatimothy comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT liuxiaolin comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT luoyanping comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT yangqiwen comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT sunhongli comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT hujihong comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals AT xuyingchun comparisonoffivecommonlyusedautomatedsusceptibilitytestingmethodsforaccuracyinthechinaantimicrobialresistancesurveillancesystemcarsshospitals |