Poster (Scientific congresses and symposiums)
Temocillin susceptibility testing with Vitek2® system and E-test® Are these methods reliable to determine temocillin MIC ?
DESCY, Julie; VISEE, Clotilde; FRIPPIAT, Frédéric et al.
2018ECCMID 2018
 

Files


Full Text
poster_temo_eccmid_2018_final_2.pdf
Publisher postprint (412.72 kB)
Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Temocillin; Vitek; Etest
Abstract :
[en] Background: The use of temocillin (TEM) is increasing in serious infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL), as an alternative to carbapenems. Accuracy of in vitro minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values is of high importance in an era of antibiotic stewardship based on PK/PD. We performed a method comparison between Vitek2®, E-test® and the standard method, broth microdilution (BMD), in order to evaluate which method is reliable to determine TEM MIC. Materials/methods: One hundred Enterobacteriaceae were collected from respiratory samples isolated from ICU patients. MIC of temocillin was determined in parallel by 3 methods: Vitek2® (Biomérieux), E-test® (Biomérieux) and BMD, the latter following CLSI recommendations. Susceptibility to temocillin was determined according to breakpoints provided by BSAC (British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy) - S: MIC ≤ 8 mg/L; R: MIC > 8 mg/L.- in order to evaluate categorical agreement (CA), essential agreement (EA), very major errors (VME) and major errors (ME), as defined in Cumitech 31A. Results: Isolates (N=100) included: Klebsiella pneumoniae (34%), Escherichia coli (23%), Serratia sp. (18%), others (25 %). Thirty-five strains were ESBL-producers; 13% were carbapenemase-producers. 41/100 (41%) isolates were resistant to TEM according to BMD. EA of 96 % was calculated for E-test® and 95% for Vitek2® versus BMD, while CA was of 82% (E-test®) and 84% (Vitek2®). Both VME (12.2% for E-test®; 24.4% for Vitek2®) and ME (22.0% for E-test®; 10.2% for Vitek2®) exceeded the 3% threshold. As a part of errors can be explained by BSAC breakpoints (no “intermediate” category), VME and ME with MIC > ± 1 twofold dilution were calculated, for E-test® (VME:0%; ME: 6.8%) and for Vitek2® (VME: 7.3%; ME: 3.4%). Overestimation of TEM resistance (E-test®) or TEM susceptibility (Vitek2®) was observed. Conclusions: Compared to BMD, E-test® seems to be more reliable than Vitek2® to predict MIC of TEM. Contrary to E-test®, even when taking the adapted definition of VME and ME with MIC > ± 1 twofold dilution, VME rate for Vitek2® is still unacceptable. When the use of TEM is considered by the clinician, we would recommend to control systematically TEM MIC by E-test®, or, even better, by BMD.
Disciplines :
Laboratory medicine & medical technology
Author, co-author :
DESCY, Julie ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Service de microbiologie clinique
VISEE, Clotilde
FRIPPIAT, Frédéric  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Service des maladies infectieuses - médecine interne
MEEX, Cécile  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Service de microbiologie clinique
LAYIOS, Nathalie  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Service des soins intensifs généraux
VAN BAMBEKE, Françoise
MELIN, Pierrette  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Service de microbiologie clinique
Language :
English
Title :
Temocillin susceptibility testing with Vitek2® system and E-test® Are these methods reliable to determine temocillin MIC ?
Publication date :
21 April 2018
Event name :
ECCMID 2018
Event date :
du 21 avril 2018 au 24 avril 2018
Audience :
International
Available on ORBi :
since 11 June 2018

Statistics


Number of views
155 (22 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
108 (8 by ULiège)

Bibliography


Similar publications



Sorry the service is unavailable at the moment. Please try again later.
Contact ORBi