TABLE 6.
MBL detection techniques
Technique | Test | Substrate-inhibitor combination | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clinical microbiology | Disk approximation | Ceftazidime and 2-mercaptoproprionic acid | Easy to use | Disk and distance of disk placement not standardized and not always easy to interpret | 6 |
Disk diffusion | Imipenem and EDTA | Easy to use and relatively easy to interpret | Disk not standardized. MBL-producing bacteria can be imipenem sensitive | 202 | |
Microdilution test | Imipenem and EDTA and 1,10-phenanthroline | Based on reduction in MICs, easy to interpret | Specialized and labor intensive, MBL-producing bacteria can be imipenem sensitive | 99 | |
Etest | Imipenem and EDTA | Easy to use and relatively easy to interpret | MBL-producing bacteria can be imipenem sensitive and borderline cases may be missed | 177 | |
Carbapenem hydrolysis | Meropenem and EDTA | Very sensitive and deemed to be the gold standard | Highly specialized, labor intensive, and interpretation not straightforward | 180 | |
Molecular detection | PCR for genes for IMP, VIM, etc. | Easy to perform, specific for gene family | Requires tailor-made DNA primers, cannot differentiate between variants, may not detect new variants | 158 | |
DNA probes | Specialized, labor intensive | Probe required for each gene family, cannot differentiate between variants | |||
Cloning and sequencing | Molecular gold standard | Labor intensive, intepretation of data requires experience | 167 |