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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Menglan, Wang, Yao, Liu, Chang, Kudinha, Timothy, Liu, Xiaolin, Luo, Yanping, Yang, Qiwen, Sun, Hongli, Hu, Jihong, Xu, Ying-Chun
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