Comparison of VITEK® 2, three different gradient strip tests and broth microdilution for detecting vanB-positive Enterococcus faecium isolates with low vancomycin MICs.
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ pharmacology
Bacterial Proteins
/ genetics
Drug Resistance, Bacterial
Enterococcus faecium
/ genetics
Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections
/ microbiology
Humans
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
/ methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
Vancomycin
/ pharmacology
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci
/ genetics
Journal
The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy
ISSN: 1460-2091
Titre abrégé: J Antimicrob Chemother
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513617
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2019
01 10 2019
Historique:
received:
25
04
2019
revised:
12
06
2019
accepted:
21
06
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
16
7
2020
entrez:
24
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In 2018, EUCAST issued a warning regarding unreliable results of gradient strip tests for confirming vancomycin resistance in enterococci. We compared the performance of various diagnostic standard and confirmatory tests to identify and determine vanB-type vancomycin resistance. We analysed a collection of vanB-positive Enterococcus faecium isolates (n = 68) with low vancomycin MICs and compared the performance of VITEK® 2 (bioMérieux), broth microdilution and three gradient strip tests from different providers (Oxoid, Liofilchem and bioMérieux). For the latter we compared the standard procedure with a protocol with increased inoculum, a rich agar medium and a longer incubation time ('macromethod'). The sensitivity of VITEK® 2 was 81% compared with 72% for broth microdilution and 61%-63% for the three gradient strip tests using standard conditions. The macromethod substantially improved the performance of all strip tests resulting in a sensitivity of 89%-96% after 48 h of incubation. We recommend that EUCAST changes the present warning against the general use of MIC strips. When MIC strips are used to either exclude or confirm suspected vancomycin resistance in E. faecium, and a PCR is not available, the macromethod should be employed. For clinically relevant enterococci, where a rapid therapeutic decision is needed, a molecular test (e.g. PCR) should be favoured in order to save time and to further increase sensitivity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31335935
pii: 5537362
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkz310
pmc: PMC6753474
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Bacterial Proteins
0
VanB protein, Enterococcus
0
Vancomycin
6Q205EH1VU
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2926-2929Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jun;46(6):1961-4
pubmed: 18434564
J Med Microbiol. 2011 Jul;60(Pt 7):945-9
pubmed: 21459908
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;70(4):512-21
pubmed: 21767707
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012 May 30;1(1):21
pubmed: 22958440
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 May;52(5):1582-9
pubmed: 24599985
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Aug;52(8):2829-33
pubmed: 24871216
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018 Apr 24;7:54
pubmed: 29760912
BMC Microbiol. 2018 Dec 13;18(1):213
pubmed: 30545294
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019 Apr 25;63(5):
pubmed: 30782988