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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00064165:_____/24:10489074

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30303 - Infectious Diseases

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL

ISSN

2079-6382

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

13

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

11

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

13

Strana od-do

-

Kód UT WoS článku

001363637000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—