Abstract
Objectives: To compare the concordance of ceftaroline MIC values 24 by reference broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest (BioMérieux, France) for MSSA and MRSA isolates, respectively, in isolates from PREMIUM (D372SL00001), a European multi-centre study.
Methods: Ceftaroline MICs were determined by reference BMD and by Etest for 1,242 MSSA and MRSA from adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections collected between February and May 2012; tests were performed across six European laboratories. Selected isolates with ceftaroline resistance in broth (MIC >1 mg/L) were retested in three central laboratories to confirm their behaviour.
Results: Overall concordance between BMD and Etest was good, with >97% essential agreement and >95% categorical agreement. Nevertheless, 12 of the 26 MRSA isolates found resistant by BMD scored as susceptible by Etest, with MICs ≤1 mg/L, thus counting as very major errors, whereas only five of 380 MRSA found ceftaroline susceptible in BMD were mis-categorised as resistant by Etest. Twenty-one of the 26 isolates with MICs of 2 mg/L by BMD were then re-tested twice by each of three central laboratories: BMD MICs of 2 mg/L were consistently found for 19 of the 21 isolates. Among 147 Etest results for these 21 isolates (original plus six repeats per isolate) 112 were >1 mg/L.
Conclusions: BMD and Etest have good overall agreement for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus; nevertheless, reliable Etest-based discrimination of the minority of ceftaroline-resistant (MIC 2 mg/L) MRSA is extremely challenging, requiring careful reading of strips, ideally with duplicate testing.
Methods: Ceftaroline MICs were determined by reference BMD and by Etest for 1,242 MSSA and MRSA from adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections collected between February and May 2012; tests were performed across six European laboratories. Selected isolates with ceftaroline resistance in broth (MIC >1 mg/L) were retested in three central laboratories to confirm their behaviour.
Results: Overall concordance between BMD and Etest was good, with >97% essential agreement and >95% categorical agreement. Nevertheless, 12 of the 26 MRSA isolates found resistant by BMD scored as susceptible by Etest, with MICs ≤1 mg/L, thus counting as very major errors, whereas only five of 380 MRSA found ceftaroline susceptible in BMD were mis-categorised as resistant by Etest. Twenty-one of the 26 isolates with MICs of 2 mg/L by BMD were then re-tested twice by each of three central laboratories: BMD MICs of 2 mg/L were consistently found for 19 of the 21 isolates. Among 147 Etest results for these 21 isolates (original plus six repeats per isolate) 112 were >1 mg/L.
Conclusions: BMD and Etest have good overall agreement for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus; nevertheless, reliable Etest-based discrimination of the minority of ceftaroline-resistant (MIC 2 mg/L) MRSA is extremely challenging, requiring careful reading of strips, ideally with duplicate testing.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 431-436 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 20 Oct 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2017 |
Keywords
- MRSA
- ceftaroline
- etest
- broth microdilution