Correlation between Broth Microdilution and Disk Diffusion Results when Testing Ceftazidime-Avibactam against a Challenge Collection of Enterobacterales Isolates: Results from a Multilaboratory Study

Assessment of Ceftazidime-Avibactam 30/20-μg Disk, Etest versus Broth Microdilution Results When Tested against Enterobacterales Clinical Isolates

The objective of this research was to evaluate the correlation between inhibitory zones and MIC when testing ceftazidime-avibactam using disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution method established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Four-hundred and 58 isolates of Enterobacterales isolated from 54 medical centers from the China Antimicrobial Surveillance Network (CHINET) in 2016 to 2020 were collected. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using broth microdilution, Etest, and disk diffusion were performed according to the CLSI. Of the 458 Enterobacterales, 17.2% (79/458) and 82.8%(379/458) were resistant or susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam by broth microdilution, respectively. Compared with the broth microdilution method, the categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) of the Etest were 99.6% (456/458) and 94.8% (434/458), respectively; the major error (ME) and very major error (VME) were both 0.2% (1/458). For disk diffusion, the CA and VME were 99.8% (457/458) and 0.2% (1/458), respectively. For Escherichia coli, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 97.1% (135/139), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. For Klebsiella pneumoniae, the CA and EA of the Etest were 99.3% (288/290) and 93.4% (271/290), respectively, the ME and VME were both 0.3% (1/290). The CA and VME of disk diffusion were 99.7% (289/290) and 0.3% (1/290), respectively. For other Enterobacterales, the CA and EA of the Etest were 100% and 96.6% (28/29), respectively. The CA of the disk diffusion was 100%. Ceftazidime-avibactam disk diffusion (30/20-μg disks) and Etest demonstrated good performance for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing against Enterobacterales clinical isolates. IMPORTANCE Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, especially for extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, are disseminating rapidly around the world. Treatment options for these infections are limited, which prompt the development of novel or combinational therapies to combat the infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens. The newly available β-lactam combination agent ceftazidime-avibactam has been demonstrated good in vitro and in vivo activity against ESBL, AmpC, KPC-2, or OXA-48-like-producing isolates and has shown promise in treating carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections. Concerningly, there are few available automated systems for ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility testing, and the broth microdilution method is hard to perform in most routine laboratories. Therefore, we urgently need an economical and practical method for the accurate detection of ceftazidime-avibactam activity against Gram-negative bacilli. Here, we evaluate the performance of the disk diffusion and Etest compared with the reference broth microdilution method against Enterobacterales clinical strains.

The Potential Use of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Against Carbapenem Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Isolates Harboring Different Carbapenemase Types in a Thai University Hospital

Purpose

MBL and OXA-48 genes in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have emerged as a major public health problem worldwide, including Thailand. Due to the lack of susceptibility data and dosing regimens of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) against CRE in Thailand, especially in colistin-resistant era, we aimed to demonstrate in vitro susceptibility data of CZA and optimal dose based on Monte Carlo simulation of CZA to expand the treatment options.

Patients and Methods

We collected 49 carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) clinical isolates from unique patients at Phramongkutklao Hospital (June–October 2020). CZA disk diffusion and E-test testing were performed to obtain minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Each drug regimen was simulated using the Monte Carlo technique to calculate the probability of target attainment (PTA) and the cumulative fraction of response (CFR).

Results

The most common genotypes of CRKP were bla_OXA-48 (53.1%) and bla_OXA-48 +bla_NDM (42.8%). CZA showed 47.7% and 90.5% susceptible rate against all genotypes of carbapenemases and OXA-48 type CRKP isolates. The MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ of CZA against CRKP were 2 and >256 µg/mL. The categorical agreement (CA) between disk diffusion and E-test testing of CZA against CRKP was 95.4%. The CZA dosing regimens of 2.5 g infused 2–3 h every 8 h achieved ≥90% of the target of free ceftazidime plasma concentration over MIC (%fTime >MIC) ≥50% and 100% against isolates MICs of ≤8 and ≤8 µg/mL, respectively. The avibactam regimens also provided 100%fTime at 0.5 µg/mL. Based on CFR ≥90%, no CZA regimens were effective against all of the studied CRKP isolates except CRKP carrying OXA-48.

Conclusion

CZA exhibited a fairly susceptible rate among the OXA-48-positive isolates in Thailand. The current suggested dose of CZA with prolonged infusion appears appropriate to achieve the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets of ceftazidime and avibactam against CRKP carrying bla_OXA-48.

Imipenem-Relebactam Susceptibility Testing of Gram-Negative Bacilli by Agar Dilution, Disk Diffusion, and Gradient Strip Methods Compared with Broth Microdilution

This study aimed to determine whether agar dilution, research-use-only disk diffusion (Mast Group Ltd., Bootle Merseyside, UK), Etest (bioMérieux, Inc., Durham, NC), and MIC test strip (MTS) (Liofilchem, Inc., Waltham, MA) methods yield equivalent results to those of broth microdilution (BMD) for imipenem-relebactam susceptibility testing using a collection of 297 Gram-negative bacilli, including members of the order Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, enriched for drug resistance. MIC and disk diameter results were interpreted using United States Food and Drug Administration breakpoints. Overall, 76.8% of the isolates tested were susceptible to imipenem-relebactam by BMD. MIC values for agar dilution, Etest, and MTS were not significantly different from that for BMD, although they tended to be 1 to 2 dilutions higher. Essential agreement was 95.6% for agar dilution, 90.6% for Etest, and 85.2% for MTS. Categorical agreement was 98.0% for agar dilution, 73.1% for disk diffusion, 96.3% for Etest, and 96.6% for MTS. In conclusion, agar dilution and Etest yielded comparable results to BMD for imipenem-relebactam.

Evaluation of the Etest and disk diffusion method for detection of the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in China

Background

Ceftazidime-avibactam was approved in China in 2019 for treating complicated intra-abdominal infections, hospital-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and infections caused by Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which treatment options are limited. However, no currently available commercial systems have been approved for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of ceftazidime-avibactam in China. Here, we evaluated the Etest and disk diffusion method for detecting the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa in China.

Results

In total, 194 Enterobacterales and 77 P. aeruginosa isolates, which were divided into a random selection group (140 Enterobacterales and 46 P. aeruginosa isolates) and stock group (54 Enterobacterales and 31 P. aeruginosa isolates), were assessed by the Etest, disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods. Minimum inhibitory concentrations and zone diameters were interpreted according to the CLSI supplement M100 30th edition. For all 271 tested isolates, no very major errors were found by using Etest, whereas the overall major error rate was 2.0% (4/203). The overall categorical agreement rates of Etest for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 99.5% (193/194) and 96.1% (74/77), respectively, and the essential agreement rates were 95.9% (186/194) and 94.8% (73/77), respectively. The disk diffusion method showed that the very major error and major error rates were 1.5% (3/204) and 2.5% (5/203), respectively. Overall categorical agreement rates values of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 98.5% (191/194) and 93.5% (72/77) compared with broth microdilution, respectively.

Conclusions

For Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, both the Etest and disk diffusion method showed acceptable performance as alternatives to the standard broth microdilution method for clinical treatment interpretation. Application of the disk diffusion method in Enterobacterales was slightly better than that in P. aeruginosa.