Assessment of version 2.5 of QMAC-dRAST for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing with reduced sample-to-answer turnaround time and an integrated expert system

Evaluation of the QMAC-dRAST System Version 2.5 for Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Gram-Negative Bacteria From Positive Blood Culture Broth and Subcultured Colony Isolates

BACKGROUND

Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for bloodstream infections (BSIs) facilitates the optimization of antimicrobial therapy, preventing antimicrobial resistance and improving patient outcomes. QMAC-dRAST (QuantaMatrix Inc., Korea) is a rapid AST platform based on microfluidic chip technology that performs AST directly using positive blood culture broth (PBCB). This study evaluated the performance of QMAC-dRAST for Gram-negative bacteria using PBCB and subcultured colony isolates, comparing it with that of VITEK 2 (bioMérieux, France) using broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference method.

METHODS

We included 141 Gram-negative blood culture isolates from patients with BSI and 12 carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales spiked into blood culture bottles. QMAC-dRAST performance was evaluated using PBCB and colony isolates, whereas VITEK 2 and BMD were tested only on colony isolates.

RESULTS

For PBCB, QMAC-dRAST achieved 92.1% categorical agreement (CA), 95.3% essential agreement (EA), with 1.8% very major errors (VMEs), 3.5% major errors (MEs), and 5.2% minor errors (mEs). With colony isolates, it exhibited 92.5% CA and 95.1% EA, with 2.0% VMEs, 3.2% MEs, and 4.8% mEs. VITEK 2 showed 94.1% CA and 96.0% EA, with 4.3% VMEs, 0.4% MEs, and 4.3% mEs. QMAC-dRAST yielded elevated error rates for specific antimicrobial agents, with high VMEs for carbapenems and aminoglycosides. The median time to result for QMAC-dRAST was 5.9 h for PBCB samples and 6.1 h for subcultured colony isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

The QMAC-dRAST system demonstrated considerable strengths and comparable performance to the VITEK 2 system; however, challenges were discerned with specific antimicrobial agents, underlining a necessity for improvement.

Rapid antimicrobial resistance detection methods for bloodstream infection in solid organ transplantation: Proposed clinical guidance, unmet needs, and future directions

Recent advances in antimicrobial resistance detection have spurred the development of multiple assays that can accurately detect the presence of bacterial resistance from positive blood cultures, resulting in faster institution of effective antimicrobial therapy. Despite these advances, there are limited data regarding the use of these assays in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and there is little guidance on how to select, implement, and interpret them in clinical practice. We describe a practical approach to the implementation and interpretation of these assays in SOT recipients using the best available data and expert opinion. These findings were part of a consensus conference sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation held on December 7, 2021 and represent the collaboration between experts in transplant infectious diseases, pharmacy, antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship, and clinical microbiology. Areas of unmet need and recommendations for future investigation are also presented.

QMAC-dRAST for the direct testing of antibiotic susceptibility for Enterobacterales in positive blood-culture broth: a comparison of the performances with the MicroScan system and direct disc diffusion testing methods

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performances of the QMAC-dRAST GN (Gram-negative) kit for rapid antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST) and two other methods, directly on positive blood-culture broth (PBCB), by comparison with a reference method: the MicroScan method based on broth microdilution on colonies isolated on PBCB subculture.

METHODS

In total, 156 samples were collected prospectively from blood cultures positive for a Gram-negative rod. Each sample was tested with four AST techniques: (i) the QMAC dRAST GN kit, (ii) the disc diffusion (DD) method, (iii) the MicroScan method applied directly to PBCB; and (iv) MicroScan with isolates from PBCB subculture, as a reference.

RESULTS

For 124 PBCB containing Enterobacterales, overall essential agreement (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) between the QMAC-dRAST on PBCB and the reference reached 95.7% and 93.5%, respectively. There were 3.0% very major errors (VME), 4.0% major errors (ME) and 2.8% minor errors (mE). A comparison of MicroScan on PBCB and the reference yielded 98.8% EA, 98.5% CA, and rates of 0.6% VME, 0.9% ME and 0.7% mE. The DD method on PBCB gave a CA of 95.8% and rates of 1.7% for VME, 2.0% for ME and 1.9% for mE. Results were obtained more rapidly for QMAC-dRAST (median of 6 h 37 min versus 18 h for the MicroScan and DD methods on PBCB).

CONCLUSIONS

The QMAC-dRAST system provided rapid results well correlated with the reference method on PBCB containing Enterobacterales. Given the shorter time-to-results, the QMAC-dRAST system constitutes a fast and reliable alternative to conventional AST methods.

Performance evaluation of the FAST™ System and the FAST-PBC Prep™ cartridges for speeded-up positive blood culture testing

Objectives

As time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy is major to reduce sepsis mortality, there is great interest in the development of tools for direct identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of positive blood cultures (PBC). Very recently, the FAST™ System (Qvella) has been developed to isolate and concentrate microorganisms directly from PBCs, resulting in the recovery of a Liquid Colony™ (LC) within 30 min. The LC can be used as equivalent of an overnight subcultured colony for downstream testing. We aimed to evaluate the performances of the FAST™ System and FAST-PBC Prep™ cartridges by testing the resulting LC for direct ID, AST and rapid resistance detection.

Materials and methods

Prospectively, FAST™ System testing was carried out on each patient’s first PBC with a monomicrobial Gram-stain result. In the second arm of the study, FAST™ System testing was carried out on blood cultures spiked with multidrug-resistant bacteria. Downstream testing using the LC included MALDI-TOF MS ID with the Bruker Biotyper^® smart system, rapid resistance detection testing including the Abbott Diagnostics Clearview™ PBP2a SA Culture Colony Test (PBP2a) and the Bio-Rad βLACTA™ Test (βLT). AST was performed using the Becton Dickinson Phoenix™ System or by Bio-Rad disk diffusion using filter paper disk following EUCAST 2020 breakpoint criteria.

Results

FAST™ System testing was completed on 198 prospective PBCs and 80 spiked blood cultures. After exclusion of polymicrobial blood cultures, performance evaluation compared with standard of care results was carried out on 266 PBCs. Concordant, erroneous and no ID results included 238/266 (89.5%), 1/266 (0.4%), 27/266 (10.2%) PBCs, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for PBP2a were 100% (10/10) and 75% (15/20), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for βLT were 95.8% (23/24) and 100% (42/42), respectively. Categorical agreement for all 160 tested strains was 98% (2299/2346) with 1.2% (8/657) very major errors and 0.7% (10/1347) major errors.

Conclusion

FAST™ System testing is a reliable approach for direct downstream testing of PBCs including MALDI-TOF MS ID, BD Phoenix™ and Bio-Rad disk diffusion AST as well as rapid resistance testing assays. Next steps include optimal integration of the FAST™ System in the PBC workflow with a view toward clinical studies.

Performance of dRAST on Prospective Clinical Blood Culture Samples in a Simulated Clinical Setting and on Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria

There is an utmost need for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bacteria causing bloodstream infections (BSI). The dRAST (QuantaMatrix Inc., Seoul) is a commercial method that can be performed directly from positive blood cultures. The present study aims to evaluate the performance of the dRAST on prospective clinical blood culture samples. A sample prescreening algorithm based on clinical routine was used to choose relevant clinical positive blood culture samples for testing on the dRAST. Rapid identification via short-term culture followed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) was used during the test run, and dRAST results were compared to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) disk diffusion as the reference method. The performance of the dRAST was also evaluated on selected multidrug resistant (MDR) isolates in simulated blood cultures. Using the sample pre-screening algorithm, 242 clinical blood culture samples were selected and tested on the dRAST, of which 200 (82.6%) gave valid AST tests results comprising 76 Gram-positive and 124 Gram-negative samples. AST measurements from the dRAST and disk diffusion from clinical samples had an overall agreement rate of 95.5%. When using simulated blood culture samples of 31 selected MDR isolates, the agreement between dRAST and disk diffusion was 87.2%. While the agreement rates were high, it was noted that the dRAST was not reliable for AST of certain antibiotic–bacteria combinations. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that dRAST delivers rapid AST results from blood cultures and using a prescreening algorithm for sample selection is important in implementation of modern AST methods such as dRAST.

IMPORTANCE There is an utmost need for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bacteria causing bloodstream infections (BSI). The dRAST (QuantaMatrix Inc., Seoul) is a rapid AST method that can be performed directly from positive blood cultures. The dRAST gives results in 6 h compared to conventional AST methods that needs 18-20 h of incubation. The present study aims to evaluate the performance of the dRAST in a clinical setting with the use of a sample selection algorithm to reduce incompatible sample numbers. The study found that while the agreement rates between dRAST and reference AST methods were high, it was noted that the dRAST was not reliable for AST of certain antibiotic–bacteria combinations. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that dRAST delivers rapid AST results from blood cultures and using a prescreening algorithm for sample selection is important in implementation of modern AST methods such as dRAST.