False non-susceptible results of tigecycline susceptibility testing against Enterobacteriaceae by an automated system: A multicentre study

Journal of Medical Microbiology

Volumn 65, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 877-881

  Idelevich, Evgeny A ^a   Büsing, Marina ^a   Mischnik, Alexander ^b,e   Kaase, Martin ^c   Bekeredjian Ding, Isabelle ^d,f   Becker, Karsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BONN   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^f PAUL EHRLICH INSTITUT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TIGECYCLINE; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; MINOCYCLINE;

ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; AUTOMATION; BACTERIUM ISOLATE; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; EPSILOMETER TEST; LETTER; MASS SPECTROMETER; MICROBIOLOGY TEST; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DRUG EFFECTS; HUMAN; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; MULTICENTER STUDY; PROCEDURES;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; HUMANS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MINOCYCLINE;

EID: 84986879791     PISSN: 00222615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.000281     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Bradford, P. A., Petersen, P. J., Young, M., Jones, C. H., Tischler, M. & O’Connell, J. (2005). Tigecycline MIC testing by broth dilution requires use of fresh medium or addition of the biocatalytic oxygen-reducing reagent oxyrase to standardize the test method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49, 3903–3909.
2. Cohen Stuart, J., Mouton, J. W., Diederen, B. M., Al Naiemi, N., Thijsen, S., Vlaminckx, B. J., Fluit, A. C. & Leversteinvan Hall, M. A. (2010). Evaluation of Etest to determine tigecycline MICs for Enterobacter species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54, 2746–2747.
3. Fernández-Mazarrasa, C., Mazarrasa, O., Calvo, J., Del Arco, A. & Martínez-Martínez, L. (2009). High concentrations of manganese in Mueller-Hinton agar increase MICs of tigecycline determined by Etest. J Clin Microbiol 47, 827–829.
4. Hope, R., Mushtaq, S., James, D., Pllana, T., Warner, M., Livermore, D. M. & Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Group (2010). Tigecycline activity: low resistance rates but problematic disc breakpoints revealed by a multicentre sentinel survey in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 65, 2602–2609.
5. Huang, T. D., Berhin, C., Bogaerts, P. & Glupczynski, Y. (2012). In vitro susceptibility of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates to tigecycline. J Antimicrob Chemother 67, 2696–2699.
6. ISO (2006). 20776-1. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems - Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices - Part 1: Reference method for testing the in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents against rapidly growing aerobic bacteria involved in infectious diseases. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.
7. ISO (2007). 20776-2. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems - Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices - Part 2: evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.
8. Lat, A., Clock, S. A., Wu, F., Whittier, S., Della-Latta, P., Fauntleroy, K., Jenkins, S. G., Saiman, L. & Kubin, C. J. (2011). Comparison of polymyxin B, tigecycline, cefepime, and meropenem MICs for KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae by broth microdilution, Vitek 2, and Etest. J Clin Microbiol 49, 1795–1798.
9. Leal Castro, A. L., Buitrago Gutierrez, G., Ovalle, V., Cortes, J. A., Alvarez, C. A. & Colombian Tigecycline Susceptibility Surveillance Group (2010). Comparing in vitro activity of tigecycline by using the disk diffusion test, the manual microdilution method, and the VITEK 2 automated system. Rev Argent Microbiol 42, 208–211.
10. Marchaim, D., Pogue, J. M., Tzuman, O., Hayakawa, K., Lephart, P. R., Salimnia, H., Painter, T., Zervos, M. J., Johnson, L. E. & other authors (2014). Major variation in MICs of tigecycline in gram-negative bacilli as a function of testing method. J Clin Microbiol 52, 1617–1621.
11. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (2012a). Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 2.0.
12. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (2012b). EUCAST Disk Diffusion Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Version 2.1. http://www.eucast.org
13. Torrico, M., González, N., Giménez, M. J., Alou, L., Sevillano, D., Navarro, D., Díaz-Antolín, M. P., Larrosa, N., Aguilar, L. & other authors (2010). Influence of media and testing methodology on susceptibility to tigecycline of Enterobacteriaceae with reported high tigecycline MIC. J Clin Microbiol 48, 2243–2246.
14. Ullery, M. (2006). Are VITEK® 2 MICs “Real” MICs? bioMérieux Connection 3, 1–5.
15. Zarkotou, O., Pournaras, S., Altouvas, G., Pitiriga, V., Tziraki, M., Mamali, V., Themeli- Digalaki, K. & Tsakris, A. (2012). Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for expandedspectrum cephalosporin- and carbapenemresistant gram-negative pathogens. J Clin Microbiol 50, 3747–3750.