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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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