The aim of this study was to compare the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method with the Disk Diffusion (DD) test and strip test against a collection of 75 well-characterized Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) clinical strains to assess cefiderocol (CFD) antimicrobial activity. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on KPC-Kp strains by Illumina iSeq100 platform. The Categorical Agreement (CA) between the BMD method and DD test was 92% (69/75) with a Major Error (ME) of 16.7% (6/36). Additionally, the CA between the BMD method and test strip was 90.7% (68/75) with a Very Major Error (VME) of 17.9% (7/39) and 82.7% (62/75) between the strip test and DD with a ME of 30.2%. KPC-Kp strains showing resistance to CFD were 27 out of 75 (36%) by three methods. Specifically, 51.9% (14/27) of KPC-Kp resistant to CFD harbored blaKPC-3, while 48.1% (13/27) harbored mutated blaKPC-3. Moreover, KPC-Kp strains carrying a mutated blaKPC-3 gene exhibited high MIC values (p value < 0.001) compared to wild-type blaKPC-3. In conclusion, the DD test resulted as a valid alternative to the BMD method to determine the in vitro susceptibility to CFD, while the strip test exhibited major limitations.

Comparison of Broth Microdilution, Disk Diffusion and Strip Test Methods for Cefiderocol Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae / Bovo F, Lazzarotto T, Ambretti S, Gaibani P.. - In: ANTIBIOTICS. - ISSN 2079-6382. - ELETTRONICO. - 12:3(2023), pp. 614.1-614.8. [10.3390/antibiotics12030614]

Comparison of Broth Microdilution, Disk Diffusion and Strip Test Methods for Cefiderocol Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae

Lazzarotto T;Ambretti S;Gaibani P.
2023

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method with the Disk Diffusion (DD) test and strip test against a collection of 75 well-characterized Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) clinical strains to assess cefiderocol (CFD) antimicrobial activity. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on KPC-Kp strains by Illumina iSeq100 platform. The Categorical Agreement (CA) between the BMD method and DD test was 92% (69/75) with a Major Error (ME) of 16.7% (6/36). Additionally, the CA between the BMD method and test strip was 90.7% (68/75) with a Very Major Error (VME) of 17.9% (7/39) and 82.7% (62/75) between the strip test and DD with a ME of 30.2%. KPC-Kp strains showing resistance to CFD were 27 out of 75 (36%) by three methods. Specifically, 51.9% (14/27) of KPC-Kp resistant to CFD harbored blaKPC-3, while 48.1% (13/27) harbored mutated blaKPC-3. Moreover, KPC-Kp strains carrying a mutated blaKPC-3 gene exhibited high MIC values (p value < 0.001) compared to wild-type blaKPC-3. In conclusion, the DD test resulted as a valid alternative to the BMD method to determine the in vitro susceptibility to CFD, while the strip test exhibited major limitations.
2023
Comparison of Broth Microdilution, Disk Diffusion and Strip Test Methods for Cefiderocol Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae / Bovo F, Lazzarotto T, Ambretti S, Gaibani P.. - In: ANTIBIOTICS. - ISSN 2079-6382. - ELETTRONICO. - 12:3(2023), pp. 614.1-614.8. [10.3390/antibiotics12030614]
Bovo F, Lazzarotto T, Ambretti S, Gaibani P.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2023 Bovo F Lazzarotto T Antibiotics-12-00614.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 738.01 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
738.01 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
antibiotics-12-00614-s001.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 186.63 kB
Formato Zip File
186.63 kB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/964112
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact