Cargando…

Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study

Objectives: Ceftazidime–avibactam is a novel synthetic beta-lactam + beta-lactamase inhibitor combination. We evaluated the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method and the disk diffusion method for the determination of ceftazidime–avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aerugin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jingjia, Li, Gang, Zhang, Ge, Kang, Wei, Duan, Simeng, Wang, Tong, Li, Jin, Huangfu, Zhiru, Yang, Qiwen, Xu, Yingchun, Jia, Wei, Sun, Hongli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34603236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.710526
_version_ 1784576752443457536
author Zhang, Jingjia
Li, Gang
Zhang, Ge
Kang, Wei
Duan, Simeng
Wang, Tong
Li, Jin
Huangfu, Zhiru
Yang, Qiwen
Xu, Yingchun
Jia, Wei
Sun, Hongli
author_facet Zhang, Jingjia
Li, Gang
Zhang, Ge
Kang, Wei
Duan, Simeng
Wang, Tong
Li, Jin
Huangfu, Zhiru
Yang, Qiwen
Xu, Yingchun
Jia, Wei
Sun, Hongli
author_sort Zhang, Jingjia
collection PubMed
description Objectives: Ceftazidime–avibactam is a novel synthetic beta-lactam + beta-lactamase inhibitor combination. We evaluated the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method and the disk diffusion method for the determination of ceftazidime–avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 302 clinical Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from two centers were conducted by broth microdilution (BMD), gradient diffusion strip method, and disk diffusion method for ceftazidime–avibactam. Using BMD as a gold standard, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. CA and EA rate > 90%, ME rate < 3%, and VME rate < 1.5% were considered as acceptable criteria. Polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing were performed to determine the carbapenem resistance genes of all 302 isolates. Results: A total of 302 strains were enrolled, among which 182 strains were from center 1 and 120 strains were from center 2. A percentage of 18.21% (55/302) of the enrolled isolates were resistant to ceftazidime–avibactam. The CA rates of the gradient diffusion strip method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 98.65% (73/74), respectively, and the EA rates were 97.37% (222/228) and 98.65% (73/74), respectively. The CA rates of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 95.95% (71/74), respectively. No VMEs were found by using the gradient diffusion strip method, while the ME rate was 0.40% (1/247). No MEs were found by using the disk diffusion method, but the VME rate was 5.45% (3/55). Therefore, all the parameters of the gradient diffusion strip method were in line with acceptable criteria. For 31 bla(KPC), 33 bla(NDM), 7 bla(IMP), and 2 bla(VIM) positive isolates, both CA and EA rates were 100%; no MEs or VMEs were detected by either method. For 15 carbapenemase-non-producing resistant isolates, the CA and EA rates of the gradient diffusion strips method were 100%. Whereas the CA rate of the disk diffusion method was 80.00% (12/15), the VME rate was 20.00% (3/15). Conclusion: The gradient diffusion strip method can meet the needs of clinical microbiological laboratories for testing the susceptibility of ceftazidime–avibactam drugs. However, the VME rate > 1.5% (5.45%) by the disk diffusion method. By comparison, the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method was better than that of the disk diffusion method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8481768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84817682021-10-01 Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study Zhang, Jingjia Li, Gang Zhang, Ge Kang, Wei Duan, Simeng Wang, Tong Li, Jin Huangfu, Zhiru Yang, Qiwen Xu, Yingchun Jia, Wei Sun, Hongli Front Microbiol Microbiology Objectives: Ceftazidime–avibactam is a novel synthetic beta-lactam + beta-lactamase inhibitor combination. We evaluated the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method and the disk diffusion method for the determination of ceftazidime–avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 302 clinical Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from two centers were conducted by broth microdilution (BMD), gradient diffusion strip method, and disk diffusion method for ceftazidime–avibactam. Using BMD as a gold standard, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. CA and EA rate > 90%, ME rate < 3%, and VME rate < 1.5% were considered as acceptable criteria. Polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing were performed to determine the carbapenem resistance genes of all 302 isolates. Results: A total of 302 strains were enrolled, among which 182 strains were from center 1 and 120 strains were from center 2. A percentage of 18.21% (55/302) of the enrolled isolates were resistant to ceftazidime–avibactam. The CA rates of the gradient diffusion strip method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 98.65% (73/74), respectively, and the EA rates were 97.37% (222/228) and 98.65% (73/74), respectively. The CA rates of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 100% and 95.95% (71/74), respectively. No VMEs were found by using the gradient diffusion strip method, while the ME rate was 0.40% (1/247). No MEs were found by using the disk diffusion method, but the VME rate was 5.45% (3/55). Therefore, all the parameters of the gradient diffusion strip method were in line with acceptable criteria. For 31 bla(KPC), 33 bla(NDM), 7 bla(IMP), and 2 bla(VIM) positive isolates, both CA and EA rates were 100%; no MEs or VMEs were detected by either method. For 15 carbapenemase-non-producing resistant isolates, the CA and EA rates of the gradient diffusion strips method were 100%. Whereas the CA rate of the disk diffusion method was 80.00% (12/15), the VME rate was 20.00% (3/15). Conclusion: The gradient diffusion strip method can meet the needs of clinical microbiological laboratories for testing the susceptibility of ceftazidime–avibactam drugs. However, the VME rate > 1.5% (5.45%) by the disk diffusion method. By comparison, the performance of the gradient diffusion strip method was better than that of the disk diffusion method. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8481768/ /pubmed/34603236 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.710526 Text en Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Li, Zhang, Kang, Duan, Wang, Li, Huangfu, Yang, Xu, Jia and Sun. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Zhang, Jingjia
Li, Gang
Zhang, Ge
Kang, Wei
Duan, Simeng
Wang, Tong
Li, Jin
Huangfu, Zhiru
Yang, Qiwen
Xu, Yingchun
Jia, Wei
Sun, Hongli
Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title_full Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title_fullStr Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title_full_unstemmed Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title_short Performance Evaluation of the Gradient Diffusion Strip Method and Disk Diffusion Method for Ceftazidime–Avibactam Against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A Dual-Center Study
title_sort performance evaluation of the gradient diffusion strip method and disk diffusion method for ceftazidime–avibactam against enterobacterales and pseudomonas aeruginosa: a dual-center study
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34603236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.710526
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjingjia performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT ligang performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT zhangge performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT kangwei performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT duansimeng performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT wangtong performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT lijin performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT huangfuzhiru performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT yangqiwen performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT xuyingchun performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT jiawei performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy
AT sunhongli performanceevaluationofthegradientdiffusionstripmethodanddiskdiffusionmethodforceftazidimeavibactamagainstenterobacteralesandpseudomonasaeruginosaadualcenterstudy