Cargando…
COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII
SUMMARY – Tigecycline susceptibility testing (TST) presents a tremendous challenge for clinical microbiologists. Previous studies have shown that the Epsilometer test (E-test) and Vitek 2 automated system significantly overestimate the minimum inhibitory concentrations for tigecycline resistance com...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medical Research, Vinogradska cesta c. 29 Zagreb
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31168197 http://dx.doi.org/10.20471/acc.2018.57.04.02 |
_version_ | 1783423197888118784 |
---|---|
author | Bedenić, Branka Cavrić, Gordana Vranić-Ladavac, Mirna Barišić, Nada Karčić, Natalie Tot, Tatjana Presečki-Stanko, Aleksandra Lukić-Grlić, Amarela Frančula-Zaninović, Sonja Sreter, Katherina Bernadette |
author_facet | Bedenić, Branka Cavrić, Gordana Vranić-Ladavac, Mirna Barišić, Nada Karčić, Natalie Tot, Tatjana Presečki-Stanko, Aleksandra Lukić-Grlić, Amarela Frančula-Zaninović, Sonja Sreter, Katherina Bernadette |
author_sort | Bedenić, Branka |
collection | PubMed |
description | SUMMARY – Tigecycline susceptibility testing (TST) presents a tremendous challenge for clinical microbiologists. Previous studies have shown that the Epsilometer test (E-test) and Vitek 2 automated system significantly overestimate the minimum inhibitory concentrations for tigecycline resistance compared to the broth microdilution method (BMM). This leads to very major errors or false susceptibility (i.e. the isolate is called susceptible when it is actually resistant). The aim of this study was to compare E-test against BMM for TST in carbapenem-resistant and carbapenem-susceptible Acinetobacter (A.) baumannii and to analyze changes in tigecycline susceptibility between two time periods (2009-2012 and 2013-2014), with BMM as the gold standard. Using the EUCAST criteria, the rate of resistance to tigecycline for the OXA-23 MBL-positive, OXA-23 MBL-negative and carbapenemase-negative strains for BMM was 54.5% (6/11), 29.4% (5/17) and 2.7% (1/37), respectively; the OXA-24/40 and OXA-58 producing organisms did not exhibit any resistance. With E-test, all OXA-23 MBL-positive organisms (11/11), 23.5% (4/17) of OXA-23 MBL-negative, and 4.1% of OXA-24/40 (3/74) strains displayed tigecycline resistance; there were no resistant strains among the OXA-58 and carbapenemase-negative isolates. Resistance emerged in the bacterial isolates from 2013 to 2014. Although tigecycline does not display cross-resistance, the highest rates of resistant A. baumannii isolates were observed among those producing VIM MBL, regardless of the testing method. These findings suggest that the commercial E-test does not provide reliable results for TST of A. baumannii. Further confirmation with the dilution method should be recommended, particularly in cases of serious infections. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6544113 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medical Research, Vinogradska cesta c. 29 Zagreb |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65441132019-06-04 COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII Bedenić, Branka Cavrić, Gordana Vranić-Ladavac, Mirna Barišić, Nada Karčić, Natalie Tot, Tatjana Presečki-Stanko, Aleksandra Lukić-Grlić, Amarela Frančula-Zaninović, Sonja Sreter, Katherina Bernadette Acta Clin Croat Original Scientific Papers SUMMARY – Tigecycline susceptibility testing (TST) presents a tremendous challenge for clinical microbiologists. Previous studies have shown that the Epsilometer test (E-test) and Vitek 2 automated system significantly overestimate the minimum inhibitory concentrations for tigecycline resistance compared to the broth microdilution method (BMM). This leads to very major errors or false susceptibility (i.e. the isolate is called susceptible when it is actually resistant). The aim of this study was to compare E-test against BMM for TST in carbapenem-resistant and carbapenem-susceptible Acinetobacter (A.) baumannii and to analyze changes in tigecycline susceptibility between two time periods (2009-2012 and 2013-2014), with BMM as the gold standard. Using the EUCAST criteria, the rate of resistance to tigecycline for the OXA-23 MBL-positive, OXA-23 MBL-negative and carbapenemase-negative strains for BMM was 54.5% (6/11), 29.4% (5/17) and 2.7% (1/37), respectively; the OXA-24/40 and OXA-58 producing organisms did not exhibit any resistance. With E-test, all OXA-23 MBL-positive organisms (11/11), 23.5% (4/17) of OXA-23 MBL-negative, and 4.1% of OXA-24/40 (3/74) strains displayed tigecycline resistance; there were no resistant strains among the OXA-58 and carbapenemase-negative isolates. Resistance emerged in the bacterial isolates from 2013 to 2014. Although tigecycline does not display cross-resistance, the highest rates of resistant A. baumannii isolates were observed among those producing VIM MBL, regardless of the testing method. These findings suggest that the commercial E-test does not provide reliable results for TST of A. baumannii. Further confirmation with the dilution method should be recommended, particularly in cases of serious infections. Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medical Research, Vinogradska cesta c. 29 Zagreb 2018-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6544113/ /pubmed/31168197 http://dx.doi.org/10.20471/acc.2018.57.04.02 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Original Scientific Papers Bedenić, Branka Cavrić, Gordana Vranić-Ladavac, Mirna Barišić, Nada Karčić, Natalie Tot, Tatjana Presečki-Stanko, Aleksandra Lukić-Grlić, Amarela Frančula-Zaninović, Sonja Sreter, Katherina Bernadette COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title | COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title_full | COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title_fullStr | COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title_full_unstemmed | COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title_short | COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII |
title_sort | comparison of two different methods for tigecycline susceptibility testing in acinetobacter baumannii |
topic | Original Scientific Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31168197 http://dx.doi.org/10.20471/acc.2018.57.04.02 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bedenicbranka comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT cavricgordana comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT vranicladavacmirna comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT barisicnada comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT karcicnatalie comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT tottatjana comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT preseckistankoaleksandra comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT lukicgrlicamarela comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT franculazaninovicsonja comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii AT sreterkatherinabernadette comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfortigecyclinesusceptibilitytestinginacinetobacterbaumannii |