Public Health Efforts Can Impact Adoption of Current Susceptibility Breakpoints, but Closer Attention from Regulatory Bodies Is Needed

Heteroresistance to piperacillin/tazobactam in Klebsiella pneumoniae is mediated by increased copy number of multiple β-lactamase genes

Background

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of activity that is often used as empirical and/or targeted therapy among hospitalized patients. Heteroresistance (HR) is a form of antibiotic resistance in which a minority population of resistant cells coexists with a majority susceptible population that has been found to be a cause of antibiotic treatment failure in murine models.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of HR and mechanisms of HR to piperacillin/tazobactam among Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection (BSI) isolates.

Materials

From July 2018 to June 2021, K. pneumoniae piperacillin/tazobactam-susceptible BSI isolates were collected from two tertiary hospitals in Atlanta, GA, USA. Only first isolates from each patient per calendar year were included. Population analysis profiling (PAP) and WGS were performed to identify HR and its mechanisms.

Results

Among 423 K. pneumoniae BSI isolates collected during the study period, 6% (25/423) were found to be HR with a subpopulation surviving above the breakpoint. WGS of HR isolates grown in the presence of piperacillin/tazobactam at concentrations 8-fold that of the MIC revealed copy number changes of plasmid-located β-lactamase genes blaCTX-M-15, blaSHV33, blaOXA-1 and blaTEM-1 by tandem gene amplification or plasmid copy number increase.

Conclusions

Prevalence of HR to piperacillin/tazobactam among bloodstream isolates was substantial. The HR phenotype appears to be caused by tandem amplification of β-lactamase genes found on plasmids or plasmid copy number increase. This raises the possibility of dissemination of HR through horizontal gene transfer and requires further study.

A Multicenter Comparison of Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Rates in the US (2016 to 2020): Facility-Reported Rates versus Rates Based on Updated Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute Breakpoints

Adoption of revised antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints is often slow, potentially leading to underreporting of antimicrobial resistance. We compared facility-reported rates of carbapenem nonsusceptibility (NS; intermediate or resistant) with NS rates based on current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for Enterobacterales or Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in ambulatory and inpatient adults in the BD Insights Research Database (US) from 2016 to 2020. Overall, 77.4% (937,926/1,211,845) and 90.6% (2,157,785/2,381,824) of nonduplicate Enterobacterales isolates with facility-reported susceptibility results had MIC data for ertapenem (ETP) and imipenem/meropenem/doripenem (IPM/MEM/DOR), respectively; 86.9% (255,844/294,426) of P. aeruginosa isolates had MIC data for IPM/MEM/DOR. Facility-reported susceptibility and susceptibility based on CLSI criteria resulted in comparable carbapenem susceptibility rates (99.3% versus 99.1% for ETP-susceptible Enterobacterales, 98.9% versus 98.4% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible Enterobacterales, and 84.9% versus 83.3% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible P. aeruginosa). However, compared with CLSI criteria, facilities underreported Enterobacterales- and IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 18.8% and 26.5%, respectively, and P. aeruginosa IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 9.8%. Underreporting was observed for both intermediate and resistant isolates. Our data suggest that delayed adoption of revised breakpoints has a small but potentially important impact on reported rates of antimicrobial resistance. Facilities should be aware of local epidemiology, evaluate potential underreporting of resistance, and assess the related clinical impact. IMPORTANCE Clinicians often base antimicrobial therapeutic decisions on laboratory determinations of pathogen susceptibility to an antibiotic based on MIC breakpoints. MIC breakpoints evolve over time based on new information; between 2010 and 2012 the CLSI lowered carbapenem breakpoints for Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and these were subsequently adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Carbapenems are important therapeutic options for these difficult-to-treat pathogens, so understanding resistance rates is critically important. However, laboratories can be slow to adopt updated breakpoints. We used MIC data to evaluate whether reports received by hospitals for carbapenem susceptibility were consistent with updated CLSI breakpoints. Although overall susceptibility rates were similar between hospital reports and susceptibility based on updated CLSI criteria, the percentages of carbapenem-resistant isolates were significantly underreported by hospital reports. Delayed adoption of MIC breakpoints may impact epidemiological understanding of resistance and contribute to the spread of resistant pathogens.

Getting back to the basics of microbiology antimicrobial stewardship efforts

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

The Practical Problem With Carbapenem Testing and Reporting Accurate Bacterial Susceptibilities

Background: Antibiotic resistance is an evolving issue which requires constant review. Susceptibility breakpoints are revised in line with new microbiological and pharmacological data. Susceptibility breakpoints for carbapenems and Enterobacterales were revised in response to the rise in resistance and the potential for standard doses of carbapenems to provide the necessary antibiotic exposure and to accurately identify rates of carbapenem resistance.

Objectives: This review sought to identify real-world implications associated with lack of testing and reporting current carbapenem breakpoints and potential barriers that may impede implementation of these strategies.

Methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases.

Results: The failure to adopt revised breakpoints incurs negative clinical outcomes and carries increased cost implications. However, there were several impediments highlighted which are barriers for laboratories to implement breakpoint updates.

Conclusion: Possible practical steps to implement revised breakpoints which apply to carbapenems and Enterobacterales are proposed. The challenge for laboratories is to be aware and implement these changes to provide accurate and relevant susceptibility results for clinicians.

CON: Testing for ESBL production is unnecessary for ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales

Phenotypic testing for Enterobacterales that harbour ESBLs is not additive to accurate in vitro β-lactam MICs for clinical decision-making. ESBL testing is an outdated practice established in an era of higher cephalosporin breakpoints to prevent resistant Enterobacterales carrying Ambler class A β-lactamases with affinity for later-generation β-lactams from being reported as susceptible to later-generation cephalosporins, leading to clinical failures. ESBL testing is problematic because of inaccuracies when multiple classes of β-lactamases are produced by the same organism, thus limiting the testing application to specific species and resistance types. Clinical laboratories should instead focus finite resources on accurate susceptibility testing using contemporary interpretative criteria to help guide therapeutic decisions. With continued emergence of antimicrobial resistance and in the setting of accurate susceptibility testing and current breakpoints the use of ESBL phenotypic testing is not helpful in clinical decision-making.

Should ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales be tested for ESBLs? A PRO/CON debate

ESBLs are a group of plasmid-mediated, diverse, complex and rapidly evolving enzymes that pose a therapeutic challenge today in hospital- and community-acquired infections. Thirty-six years after the first report, diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for ESBLs are still the subject of controversy. Detection of these enzymes is recommended for epidemiological purposes and facilitates targeted therapy, necessary for antimicrobial stewardship. On the other hand, ESBLs are not confined to specific species, phenotypic detection methods have pitfalls, and concerns exist about the accuracy of antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems to rely on MIC values for cephalosporins and β-lactam combination agents. In this issue, we present a PRO/CON debate on ESBL testing for ceftriaxone-non-susceptible Enterobacterales.

Breakpoint beware: reliance on historical breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae leads to discrepancies in interpretation of susceptibility testing for carbapenems and cephalosporins and gaps in detection of carbapenem-resistant organisms

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are an important public health and infection prevention threat. CRE are typically detected via phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), for which interpretive standards were modified in recent years. Our objective was to measure the impact of breakpoint changes on AST interpretation for CRE. Zone sizes from disk diffusion AST for Enterobacteriaceae isolates recovered from clinical cultures over a 1-year period (n = 10,183) and CRE from clinical and environmental sources from the USA and Pakistan (n = 342) were evaluated. Results were interpreted according to historical (CLSI M100-S19) and current (CLSI M100-S29) breakpoints. Interpretive errors were calculated according to the FDA definitions. Using current breakpoints as the reference standard, 56 (17%) very major (false susceptibility) errors occurred for cefepime and 13 (45%) very major errors for meropenem interpretation using historical breakpoints in clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, corresponding to 12 carbapenemase-producing CRE that would have been missed during the 1-year period. For confirmed bla_KPC CP-CRE clinical and environmental isolates (n = 149), the very major error rate for historic breakpoints was 8%, 30%, 63%, and 0% for cefepime, meropenem, imipenem, and ertapenem, respectively. For bla_KPC isolates, the use of historical breakpoints would have led to 42 (28%) reports of false susceptibility to meropenem. Failure to adopt updated AST breakpoints may lead to reports of false susceptibility for antimicrobials commonly used to treat Gram-negative infections and preclude recognition of CRE. Such errors could negatively impact patient care and hamper infection control and public health efforts.

Antibiotic Breakpoints: How Redefining Susceptibility Preserves Efficacy and Improves Patient Care

Carbapenems are a primary treatment for infections from multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens. To maintain their efficacy and control the emergence of further resistance, breakpoints that correspond to recommended doses with appropriate PK/PD target attainment are paramount.

CIM City: the Game Continues for a Better Carbapenemase Test

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing agree that carbapenemase testing is not necessary for clinical care, provided that the laboratory is up to date with current breakpoints. Nonetheless, publication on the development and modification of carbapenemase tests continues, as is the case in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (R. W. Beresford and M. Maley, J Clin Microbiol 57:e01852-18, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01852-18). This commentary explores modifications to the carbapenem inactivation method-but is this the right focus for clinical laboratories?

Understanding and Addressing CLSI Breakpoint Revisions: a Primer for Clinical Laboratories

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has revised several breakpoints since 2010 for bacteria that grow aerobically. In 2019, these revisions include changes to the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin breakpoints for the Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, daptomycin breakpoints for Enterococcus spp., and ceftaroline breakpoints for Staphylococcus aureus Implementation of the revisions is a challenge for all laboratories, as not all systems have FDA clearance for the revised (current) breakpoints, compounded by the need for laboratories to perform validation studies and to make updates to laboratory information system/electronic medical record builds in the setting of limited information technology infrastructure. This minireview describes the breakpoint revisions in the M100 supplement since 2010 and strategies for the laboratory on how to best adopt these in clinical testing.