Abstract
Objectives
To determine the influence of local spread of clonal strains and testing of follow-up isolates on categorical (CA) and essential agreement rates (EA) of common colistin (COL) drug susceptibility testing methods with the broth microdilution (BMD) reference method.
Methods
COL MICs were determined for 178 bacterial isolates (Enterobacteriaceae, n = 97; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, n = 81) collected within one year from 64 patients by BMD according to ISO standard 20776–1 (reference method), the SensiTest BMD panel (ST), agar dilution (AD), the VITEK 2 instrument, and gradient diffusion (GD) using antibiotic strips of two and Muller-Hinton agar plates of three manufacturers. CA and EA with BMD were calculated for all isolates and compared to the subset of 68 unique isolates.
Results
CA ranges were 79.4% to 94.1% for the unique isolateq panel and 89.9% to 96.1% for all tested isolates. EA ranges were 64.7% to 86.8% and 67.4% to 91.0%, respectively. In both panels, EA for all GD assays was lower than 90%. Both lower and higher EA values ranging from—18.3% (MTS on BD agar) to + 6.3% (AD, Vitek 2) were observed in the full one-year sample. Acquisition of colistin resistance under therapy was observed for 3 patients.
Conclusions
i) Repeat testing and local spread of clonal strains can positively or negatively affect CA and EA, ii) CA is more robust towards local influences than EA, iii) EA of GD and AD methods for COL with the reference BMD method is insufficient.
Introduction
With the emergence of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB), colistin (COL) has received significant attention as a last resort antimicrobial [1]. As administration of COL is associated with renal and, to a lesser extent, neurological toxicity, reliable antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is crucial [2]. Recently, the European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), issued a warning stating that i) gradient diffusion (GD) tests underestimate COL minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), ii) disk diffusion shall not be used for susceptibility testing, and iii) broth microdilution (BMD) is currently the only valid AST method [3].
In 2015, plasmid-encoded resistance to COL due to the phosphoethanolamine transferase MCR-1 has been reported for the first time in samples from livestock, food and humans [4]. Since then, the prevalence rates for MCR-1 positive isolates have been reported to range from only sporadic observations to 67% [5]. Although sufficient to confer resistance to COL in an in vivo infection model, MICs of isolates encoding MCR-1 (2–8 mg / L) are close to the current EUCAST resistance breakpoint (R > 2 mg / L), further emphasizing the relevance of reliable AST methods for correct isolate categorization [4]. Since the first description of transferable colistin resistance due to MCR-1, additional mcr genes have been described [6].
Most studies reporting performance data of COL AST methods are based on single patient isolates [7–9]. However, patients receiving COL are often chronically ill and thus likely to be sampled and tested repeatedly. In addition, clonal spread of causative species such as carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Klebsiella pneumoniae within healthcare centers is well documented [10–14]. We wondered if categorial (CA) and essential agreement rates (EA) of COL AST methods, such as GD, agar dilution (AD), the SensiTest commercial BMD panel (ST) and the semiautomated Vitek 2 platform, with the reference standard (manual BMD according to ISO standard 20776–1, Table 1) were different in a “real-life” sample set, i.e. in all carbapenem-resistant MDR-GNB subjected to COL AST within one year including follow-up and clonal isolates, as compared to an “ideal” panel of unique bacterial isolates.
Table 1. Colistin AST methods compared in this study.
VITEK 2 cards were incubated and evaluated automatically by the device, all other tests were incubated at 36 ± 2°C for 16–20 hours in ambient air. McF, McFarland standard; CAMHB, cation-adjusted Muller-Hinton II broth; QC, quality control; MHA, Muller-Hinton agar; BMD, broth microdilution; FSCA, Field Safety Corrective Action.
| Test | Description | MIC range (mg / L) |
Inoculum | Medium used in this study | Comment | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broth microdilution | In-house prepared serial dilution of colistin sulfate in untreated polystyrene 96-well plates | ≤0.25 –>128 | 5 × 105 CFU / mL | CAMHB (Sigma-Aldrich) |
EUCAST and CLSI reference method; comparably labor intensive; single isolate test runs possible; |
ISO 20776–1[15] |
| Agar dilution | In-house prepared serial dilution of colistin sulfate in untreated polystyrene 96-well plates | ≤0.5 –>16 | 1 × 104 CFU / spot | MHA (CAMHB + 1.7% Agar) |
Comparably labor intensive; single isolate test runs possible by using 8-well microtiter strips; |
Wiegand et al. [16] |
| Etest, MIC Test Strip | Agar gradient diffusion | ≤0.016 –>256 | McF 0.5 streaked with sterile swab | MHE (bioMérieux), MHA (Oxoid), MHA (BD) |
Suitable for routine application; single isolate test runs possible; For Etest, use of MHE plates is mandatory; For Etest, only Enterobacteriaceae must be tested for diagnostic use; Comparably expensive; |
FSCA 3061, FSCA 3206 |
| VITEK 2 | Card-based, semiautomated AST (manual inoculum preparation, automated incubation and reading) | ≤0.5 –>16 | McF 0.5–0.63 | Contained in the test card | Suitable for routine application; single isolate test runs possible; Colistin susceptible test results require confirmation; |
Dafopoulou et al.[17] FSCA 3490 |
| SensiTest | Commercially available 4-test BMD panel containing dried colistin in 7 two-fold dilutions | ≤0.25 –>16 | 5 × 105 CFU / mL | CAMHB (Liofilchem, provided with assay) |
Suitable for routine application; Comparably expensive; simultaneous AST of four isolates per panel required for optimum cost-efficiency; |
Matuschek et al.[18] |
Methods
Isolate collection, species identification, strain typing and inoculum preparation
All bacterial isolates were cultured from routine samples submitted to the bacteriology service at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2016. Species identification was performed on a Biotyper MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry system (Bruker, Bremen, Germany) and pure stock cultures were stored at -80°C. Clonal identity of bacterial isolates was assessed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) as described previously [14,19,20]. For AST, stock cultures were thawed and passaged twice on MH agar plates. Inocula were prepared freshly in saline and adjusted to a 0.50 ± 0.05 McFarland (McF) turbidity standard using a calibrated Densichek device and polystyrene tubes (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). E. coli ATCC 25922 (mcr-1 negative), E. coli NCTC 13846 (mcr-1 positive) and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were used as controls for all AST assays.
Broth microdilution
In-house BMD was performed according to ISO standard 20776–1 in untreated 96-well polystyrene plates (Greiner bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany) using cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton II broth (CAMHB, Sigma-Aldrich, Munich, Germany) [15]. No additives were included in any part of the testing process (in particular, no polysorbate-80 or other surfactants). COL sulfate was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (lot no. SLBQ0243V). The final inoculum was adjusted to 2–8 × 105 CFU/ml. Correct inoculum densities were confirmed by obtaining CFU counts of appropriate inoculum dilutions on MH agar plates.
Agar dilution
Agar powder (BactoAgar, BD) was added to CAMHB at a concentration of 17 g/L (1.7% agar) [16]. After autoclaving, the medium was aliquoted, cooled to 50°C and COL sulfate (Sigma-Aldrich) was added at appropriate concentrations to generate working solutions corresponding to a two-fold serial dilution. 100 μl of each aliquot were poured into the appropriate wells of untreated polystyrene 96-well plates. Plates were covered with sterile plastic lids, dried and stored in plastic bags in inverted position at 4 °C. The final inoculum was adjusted to 1 × 104 CFU / well.
Gradient diffusion
Inoculum suspensions were streaked on MHE agar (bioMérieux), MH agar (Oxoid, Wesel, Germany) and MH agar (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) using sterile cotton swabs. Gradient diffusion (GD) strips (Etest, bioMérieux, and MIC Test Strip, MTS, Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy) were placed on inoculated agar plates using a flame-sterilized forceps. Plates were incubated at 36 ± 2°C for 16–20 hours at ambient air. MIC endpoints were read according to manufacturer recommendations. MIC values between two-fold dilutions were rounded to the next two-fold dilution to allow comparison with the other AST assays.
VITEK 2
AST on the Vitek 2 system (bioMérieux) was performed using AST-N248 cards (lot no. 6480147103). Inocula (McF 0.50 ± 0.05 in 0.45% saline) and AST cards were loaded in the device for incubation and MIC values were determined automatically. MIC values were manually extracted from the device software for further analysis.
SensiTest
SensiTest COL panels (Liofilchem) were inoculated according to manufacturer recommendations using CAMHB supplied with the test panels. Panels were sealed and incubated at 36 ± 2°C for 16–20 hours in ambient air.
Detection of mcr genes
DNA was extracted from pure bacterial cultures on the Qiasymphony SP (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) instrument using QIAsymphony mericon bacteria chemistry. For detection of mcr-1, quantitative-realtime PCR was performed according to the protocol of Chabou et al. [21] using Quantifast pathogen + IC kit chemistry (Qiagen) on a Lightcycler 480 II instrument (Roche, Mannheim, Germany). For detection of mcr-2, -3, -4, and -5 a quantitative-realtime PCR was designed using the BeaconDesigner software (PRIMIER Biosoft, Palo Alto, USA) and consensus sequences available at the NCBI nucleotide database. Amplification of the 23S rRNA gene using primersTACYCYGGGGATAACAGG and TACYCYGGGGATAACAGG, and probe FAM-TTGGCACCTCGATGTCGG-BHQ1 was performed as extraction control [22]. DNA extracts from E. coli ATCC 25922 (mcr-1 negative), E. coli NCTC 13846 (mcr-1 positive), E. coli KP37 (mcr-2 positive), E. coli 2013-SQ352 (mcr-3 positive), E. coli DH5α with the entire mcr-4 gene cloned in the pCR2 vector and Salmonella Paratyphi B 13-SA01718 (mcr-5 positive) were used as positive controls [6].
Data analysis
MICs were interpreted according to the EUCAST breakpoint table, version 7.1 (MIC ≤ 2 mg / L, susceptible; MIC > 2 mg / L, resistant). Categorical agreement (CA) was defined as the percentage of isolates with identical MIC interpretation in BMD and the comparator method. Essential agreement (EA) was defined as the percentage of isolates with MICs within 1 doubling dilution from the reference method MIC. To allow comparability, calculation of EA was performed after reinterpretation of all MIC values according to the Vitek 2 and AD MIC range (≤ 0.5 –> 16 mg / L, the narrowest MIC range of all assays).
Results
A total of 178 carbapenem-resistant MDR-GNB from 64 patients were included in the study. The mean number of follow-up samples tested per patient was 1.2 (range 0 to 13). In addition, nosocomial transmission was observed for two carbapenemase producing strains (Oxa-48 and CTX-M 14 producing K. pneumoniae, VIM-2 producing P. aeruginosa) during the study period, resulting in 68 unique patient isolates (4 patients were tested positive for 2 strains) [14]. In three patients infected with K. pneumoniae (n = 2) or P. aeruginosa (n = 1), development of resistance to COL was observed during therapy. None of the tested isolates was positive for the investigated mcr alleles. Main characteristics of the whole one-year isolate panel and the subset of unique isolates are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of the isolates used in this study.
Susceptibility and resistance to colistin is reported as observed in the reference in-house broth microdilution method.
| Species | full one-year sample | unique isolate subset | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Median MIC (mg / L) |
MIC range (mg / L) |
n | median MIC (mg / L) |
MIC range (mg / L) |
|||||
| total | Susceptible (%) | Resistant (%) | total | Susceptible (%) | Resistant (%) | |||||
| Enterobacteriaceae | 97 | 66 (68.0) | 31 (32.0) | 0.5 | 0.5–32 | 24 | 21 (87.5) | 3 (12.5) | 0.5 | 0.5–16 |
| P. aeruginosa | 81 | 76 (93.8) | 5 (6.2) | 0.5 | 0.5–32 | 44 | 41 (93.2) | 3 (6.8) | 0.5 | 0.5–32 |
| total | 178 | 142 (79.8) | 36 (20.2) | 0.5 | 0.5–32 | 68 | 62 (91.2) | 6 (8.8) | 0.5 | 0.5–32 |
For the investigated Enterobacteriaceae, CA ranged between 87.5% (MTS on all tested MH media) and 95.8% (ST) in the unique isolate panel (n = 24), and between 89.7% (MTS on Oxoid MH) and 99.0% (ST) in all tested isolates (n = 97, Table 3). For P. aeruginosa, CA ranges were 72.7% (Etest on Oxoid MH) to 97.7% (MTS on MHE and BD MH) for the unique isolate panel (n = 44) and between 80.2% (Etest on Oxoid MH) and 97.5% (MTS on MHE and BD MH) in all tested isolates (n = 81). Overall, CA ranges were 79.4% (Etest on Oxoid MH) to 94.1% (Vitek 2, MTS on MHE and BD MH) for all unique isolates (n = 68) and 89.9% (Etest on Oxoid MH) to 96.1% (Vitek 2, Etest on MHE) for all tested isolates (n = 178).
Table 3. Percent categorical agreement (CA) between comparator methods for colistin MIC determination and the reference broth microdilution method.
| n | AD | Etest / MHE | Etest / Oxoid | Etest / BD | MTS / MHE | MTS / Oxoid | MTS / BD | Vitek2 | ST | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobactericeae1 | 24 | 91.7% | 91.7% | 91.7% | 91.7% | 87.5% | 87.5% | 87.5% | 91.7% | 95.8% |
| Enterobactericeae2 | 97 | 95.9% | 96.9% | 97.9% | 95.9% | 92.8% | 89.7% | 90.7% | 96.9% | 99.0% |
| P. aeruginosa1 | 44 | 86.4% | 93.2% | 72.7% | 77.3% | 97.7% | 93.2% | 97.7% | 95.5% | 88.6% |
| P. aeruginosa2 | 81 | 86.4% | 95.1% | 80.2% | 85.2% | 97.5% | 95.1% | 97.5% | 95.1% | 90.1% |
| Total1 | 68 | 88.2% | 92.6% | 79.4% | 82.4% | 94.1% | 91.2% | 94.1% | 94.1% | 91.2% |
| Total2 | 178 | 91.6% | 96.1% | 89.9% | 91.0% | 94.9% | 92.1% | 93.8% | 96.1% | 94.9% |
1 unique isolate subset
2 full one-year sample
EA ranged between 79.2% (MTS on Oxoid and BD MH) and 87.5% (AD, Etest on all MH, Vitek 2, ST) in all unique Enterobacteriaceae and between 60.8% (MTS on BD MH) and 94.8% (ST) in the full isolate panel (Table 4). For P. aeruginosa, EA ranges were 52.3% (AD) to 88.6% (MTS / MHE), and 40.7% (AD) to 86.4% (ST), respectively. Overall, EA ranged between 64.7% (AD) and 86.8% (MTS / MHE) for all unique isolates and between 67.4% (MTS / Oxoid) and 91.0% (ST) for all isolates tested during the study period.
Table 4. Percent essential agreement (EA) between comparator methods for colistin MIC determination and the reference broth microdilution method.
| n | AD | Etest / MHE | Etest / Oxoid | Etest / BD | MTS / MHE | MTS / Oxoid | MTS / BD | Vitek 2 | ST | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobactericeae1 | 24 | 87.5% | 87.5% | 87.5% | 87.5% | 83.3% | 79.2% | 79.2% | 87.5% | 87.5% |
| Enterobactericeae2 | 97 | 93.8% | 88.7% | 87.6% | 85.6% | 64.9% | 62.9% | 60.8% | 93.8% | 94.8% |
| P. aeruginosa1 | 44 | 52.3% | 72.7% | 54.5% | 61.4% | 88.6% | 72.7% | 84.1% | 84.1% | 84.1% |
| P. aeruginosa2 | 81 | 40.7% | 74.1% | 49.4% | 61.7% | 85.2% | 72.8% | 80.2% | 85.2% | 86.4% |
| Total1 | 68 | 64.7% | 77.9% | 66.2% | 70.6% | 86.8% | 75.0% | 82.4% | 85.3% | 85.3% |
| Total2 | 178 | 69.7% | 82.0% | 70.2% | 74.7% | 74.2% | 67.4% | 69.7% | 89.9% | 91.0% |
1 unique isolate subset
2 full one-year sample
Calculations based on the full isolate panel mostly resulted in higher CA as compared to the unique isolate panel (range + 0.1% to + 10.5%) with the exception of P. aeruginosa and MTS / MHE, MTS / BD and Vitek 2 where CA was slightly lower (- 0.2%, - 0.2% and—0.4%, respectively). For EA, deviations towards both higher and lower values were observed in the full as compared to the unique sample set ranging from—18.3% (MTS / BD) to + 6.3% (AD, Vitek 2).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of follow-up testing and spread of single bacterial clones on CA and EA of COL AST as compared to the ISO standard 20776–1 reference BMD method. With respect to CA, most assays performed acceptably based on both the full one-year sample and the subset of unique isolates with CA rates close to or above 90%. One exception was Etest with Oxoid or BD MH media in P. aeruginosa, supporting the recommendation by the manufacturer to use MHE medium for this GD assay only. Of note, classification errors in P. aeruginosa may in part also relate to the fact that the breakpoint indicating susceptibility (MIC ≤ 2 mg / L) splits the wildtype population (epidemiological cut-off = 4 mg / L) [9]. With respect to EA, test performance showed significant variation. Firstly, our study corroborates previous observations that COL MICs from AD testing show insufficient agreement with MICs derived from BMD, especially for P. aeruginosa [17]. Secondly, our findings regarding GD assays are in accordance with a recent study by Matuschek et al. who studied a panel of 75 unique clinical isolates and also found low EA rates (43 to 71%) depending on GD and Mueller-Hinton agar manufacturers [9]. In our hands, EA values for Etest were lower in P. aeruginosa (irrespective of the medium) whereas EA values for MTS were lower in the tested Enterobacteriaceae. Interestingly, when results from the full one-year sample are compared to those of the unique isolate subset, EA values were found to be lower for MTS on all media while EA values were higher for other assays such as Etest, Vitek 2, and ST. This finding demonstrates that local factors can increase or decrease EA rates. In contrast, CA appears to be more robust with respect to local influences.
This study has some important limitations. Firstly, strain clonality was investigated using PFGE. While PFGE is a well-established method for outbreak investigations, current efforts are ongoing to allow more detailed investigations of clonal relationships between strains using whole genome sequencing. Secondly, the reported impact of outbreak events and testing of follow-up samples on EA and CA is specific to our local epidemiology and re-testing policy and cannot be generalized. However, our data clearly demonstrate that laboratories performing AST of COL should be aware that generic performance parameters derived from collections of “non-duplicate” bacterial isolates may not be directly applicable to their routine conditions.
In conclusion, our data show that testing a complete one-year sample of carbapenem-resistant MDR-GN bacteria did not negatively influence CA for the investigated comparator methods, e.g. by overrepresentation of discrepant isolates. The impact on EA, which by definition is more sensitive towards minor MIC changes than CA, is more difficult to predict and both increased and decreased agreement rates must be expected.
Supporting information
All MIC values in mg/L.
(XLSX)
PCRs were performed for one isolate per patient.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the technical staff at the Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf for providing excellent technical support throughout this study and to AR Rebelo and colleagues for the kind gift of strains used as positive controls.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by internal funding and a grant by the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF) to LA and FPM (TI 07.003). There was no additional external funding received for this study.
References
- 1.Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK, Saravolatz LD. Colistin: The Revival of Polymyxins for the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1333–41. 10.1086/429323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Spapen H, Jacobs R, Van Gorp V, Troubleyn J, Honoré PM. Renal and neurological side effects of colistin in critically ill patients. Ann Intensive Care 2011;1:14 10.1186/2110-5820-1-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.EUCAST. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of colistin—problems detected with several commercially available products. n.d. http://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/warnings/ (accessed August 8, 2017).
- 4.Liu Y-YY, Wang Y, Walsh TR, Yi L-XX, Zhang R, Spencer J, et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: A microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:161–8. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00424-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Skov R, Monnet D. Plasmid-mediated colistin resistance (mcr-1 gene): three months later, the story unfolds. WwwEurosurveillanceOrg n.d. 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.9.30155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rebelo AR, Bortolaia V, Kjeldgaard JS, Pedersen SK, Leekitcharoenphon P, Hansen IM, et al. Multiplex PCR for detection of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance determinants, mcr-1, mcr-2, mcr-3, mcr-4 and mcr-5 for surveillance purposes. Euro Surveill 2018;23 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.6.17-00672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gales AC, Reis AO, Jones RN. Contemporary assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for polymyxin B and colistin: review of available interpretative criteria and quality control guidelines. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:183–90. 10.1128/JCM.39.1.183-190.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kulengowski B, Ribes JA, Burgess DS. Polymyxin B Etest® compared with gold-standard broth microdilution in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae exhibiting a wide range of polymyxin B MICs. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018. 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Matuschek E, Åhman J, Webster C, Kahlmeter G. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of colistin—evaluation of seven commercial MIC products against standard broth microdilution for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter spp. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:865–70. 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.11.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Crespo MP, Woodford N, Sinclair A, Kaufmann ME, Turton J, Glover J, et al. Outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing VIM-8, a novel metallo-beta-lactamase, in a tertiary care center in Cali, Colombia. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:5094–101. 10.1128/JCM.42.11.5094-5101.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gibb AP, Tribuddharat C, Moore RA, Louie TJ, Krulicki W, Livermore DM, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with a new bla(IMP) allele, bla(IMP-7). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:255–8. 10.1128/AAC.46.1.255-258.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schwaber MJ, Lev B, Israeli A, Solter E, Smollan G, Rubinovitch B, et al. Containment of a country-wide outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Israeli hospitals via a nationally implemented intervention. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:848–55. 10.1093/cid/cir025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Snitkin ES, Zelazny AM, Thomas PJ, Stock F, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program Group, Henderson DK, et al. Tracking a hospital outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae with whole-genome sequencing. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:148ra116. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Katchanov J, Asar L, Klupp E-M, Both A, Rothe C, König C, et al. Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens in a German university medical center: Prevalence, clinical implications and the role of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. PLoS One 2018;13:e0195757 10.1371/journal.pone.0195757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.ISO. ISO 20776–1:2006: 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 vit. Geneva, Switzerland: 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wiegand I, Hilpert K, Hancock REW. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat Protoc 2008;3:163–75. 10.1038/nprot.2007.521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dafopoulou K, Zarkotou O, Dimitroulia E, Hadjichristodoulou C, Gennimata V, Pournaras S, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Colistin Susceptibility Testing Methods among Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii Clinical Isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:4625–30. 10.1128/AAC.00868-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Matuschek E, Åhman J, Webster C, Kahlmeter G. Evaluation of five commercial MIC methods for colistin antimicrobial susceptibility testing for Gram-negative bacteria. ECCMID Vienna Poster 161 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schröter M, Roggentin P, Hofmann J, Speicher A, Laufs R, Mack D. Pet snakes as a reservoir for Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae (Serogroup IIIb): a prospective study. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004;70:613–5. 10.1128/AEM.70.1.613-615.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering R V, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Persing DH, et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:2233–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Chabou S, Leangapichart T, Okdah L, Le Page S, Hadjadj L, Rolain J-M. Real-time quantitative PCR assay with Taqman(®) probe for rapid detection of MCR-1 plasmid-mediated colistin resistance. New Microbes New Infect 2016;13:71–4. 10.1016/j.nmni.2016.06.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang J-J, Tian J, Wei S, Duan S, Wang H, Chen Y, et al. An Internal Reference Control Duplex Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Detecting Bacterial Contamination in Blood Products. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134743 10.1371/journal.pone.0134743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
All MIC values in mg/L.
(XLSX)
PCRs were performed for one isolate per patient.
(XLSX)
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the manuscript.