Evaluation of three broth microdilution systems to determine colistin susceptibility of Gram-negative bacilli.
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_3E645E66D324
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Evaluation of three broth microdilution systems to determine colistin susceptibility of Gram-negative bacilli.
Périodique
The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy
ISSN
1460-2091 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0305-7453
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
01/05/2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
73
Numéro
5
Pages
1272-1278
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Evaluation Studies ; Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
The broth microdilution (BMD) method is currently the recommended technique to determine susceptibility to colistin.
We evaluated the accuracy of three commercialized BMD panels [Sensititre (ThermoFisher Diagnostics), UMIC (Biocentric) and MicroScan (Beckman Coulter)] to determine colistin susceptibility.
A collection of 185 isolates of Gram-negative bacilli (133 colistin resistant and 52 colistin susceptible) was tested. Manual BMD according to EUCAST guidelines was used as the reference method, and EUCAST 2017 breakpoints were used for susceptibility categorization.
The UMIC system gave the highest rate of very major errors (11.3%) compared with the Sensititre and MicroScan systems (3% and 0.8%, respectively). A high rate of major errors (26.9%) was found with the MicroScan system due to an overestimation of the MICs for the non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, whereas no major errors were found with the Sensititre and UMIC systems.
The UMIC system was easy to use, but failed to detect >10% of colistin-resistant isolates. The MicroScan system showed excellent results for enterobacterial isolates, but non-susceptible results for non-fermenters should be confirmed by another method and the range of MICs tested was narrow. The Sensititre system was the most reliable marketed BMD panel with a categorical agreement of 97.8%.
We evaluated the accuracy of three commercialized BMD panels [Sensititre (ThermoFisher Diagnostics), UMIC (Biocentric) and MicroScan (Beckman Coulter)] to determine colistin susceptibility.
A collection of 185 isolates of Gram-negative bacilli (133 colistin resistant and 52 colistin susceptible) was tested. Manual BMD according to EUCAST guidelines was used as the reference method, and EUCAST 2017 breakpoints were used for susceptibility categorization.
The UMIC system gave the highest rate of very major errors (11.3%) compared with the Sensititre and MicroScan systems (3% and 0.8%, respectively). A high rate of major errors (26.9%) was found with the MicroScan system due to an overestimation of the MICs for the non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, whereas no major errors were found with the Sensititre and UMIC systems.
The UMIC system was easy to use, but failed to detect >10% of colistin-resistant isolates. The MicroScan system showed excellent results for enterobacterial isolates, but non-susceptible results for non-fermenters should be confirmed by another method and the range of MICs tested was narrow. The Sensititre system was the most reliable marketed BMD panel with a categorical agreement of 97.8%.
Mots-clé
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology, Colistin/pharmacology, Diagnostic Errors, Gram-Negative Bacteria/drug effects, Microbial Sensitivity Tests/methods, Sensitivity and Specificity
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
08/03/2018 17:24
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 13:35
Données d'usage
