Fosfomycin-Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064211%3A_____%2F24%3AW0000044" target="_blank" >RIV/00064211:_____/24:W0000044 - isvavai.cz</a>

Alternative codes found

RIV/00064165:_____/24:10489074

Result on the web

<a href="https://oadoi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13111049" target="_blank" >https://oadoi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13111049</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13111049" target="_blank" >10.3390/antibiotics13111049</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Fosfomycin-Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods

Original language description

Background: Fosfomycin (FOS) is an older antimicrobial agent newly rediscovered as a possible treatment for infections with limited therapeutic options (e.g., Gram-negative bacteria with difficult-to-treat resistance, DTR), especially in intravenous form. However, for correct usage of FOS, it is necessary to have a reliable susceptibility testing method suitable for routine practice and robust interpretation criteria. Results: The results were interpreted according to 2023 interpretation criteria provided by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). DTR Gram-negatives were more likely to be resistant to FOS (45% in Enterobacterales and 20% in P. aeruginosa) than non-DTR (10% and 6.7%, resp.). All isolates of S. aureus were susceptible to FOS. In Gram-negatives, all agreement values were unacceptable. Etest (R) performed better in the DTR cohort (categorical agreement, CA, 80%) than in the non-DTR cohort (CA 45.7%). There were no very major errors (VREs) observed in P. aeruginosa. S. aureus had surprisingly low essential agreement (EA) rates (53% for MRSA and 47% for MSSA) for Etest (R), but categorical agreement was 100%. Methods: A total of 130 bacterial isolates were tested and compared using the disc diffusion method (DD) and gradient strip method (Etest (R)) with the reference method (agar dilution, AD). The spectrum of isolates tested was as follows: 40 Enterobacterales (20 DTR vs. 20 non-DTR), 30 Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15 DTR vs. 15 non-DTR), and 60 Staphylococcus aureus (30 methicillin-susceptible, MSSA, vs. 30 methicillin-resistant, MRSA). Conclusions: Neither one of the tested methods was identified as a suitable alternative to AD. It would be beneficial to define more interpretation criteria, at least in some instances.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

30303 - Infectious Diseases

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2024

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL

ISSN

2079-6382

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

13

Issue of the periodical within the volume

11

Country of publishing house

CH - SWITZERLAND

Number of pages

13

Pages from-to

-

UT code for WoS article

001363637000001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

—