Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019 Apr 18;19:136–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.04.006

Table 3:

Results of WGS for Prediction of AMR among clinical VRE isolates

Antibiotic No.
Isolates
Phenotypic
Resistance
Genotypic
Resistance
Concordance
with
Disk
Diffusion
(%)
Sensitivity
(95%
CI) (%)
Specificity
(95%
CI)
(%)
PPV
(95%
CI)
(%)
NPV
(95%
CI)
(%)
Automated
No,
(%)
Disk
Diffusion,
No, (%)
Inferred resistant
by WGS
No. (%)
Vancomycin 100 100
(100)
96
(96.0)
96
(96.0)
100 100
(96.2-100)
100
(39.8-100)
100
(96.2-100)
100
(39.8-100)
Linezolid1 96 3
(3.1)
2
(2.1)
0 97.9 0
(0-84.2)
100
(96.2-100)
n/a 97.9
(97.9-97.9)
Erythromycin 56 56
(100)
56
(100)
56
(100)
100 100.00
(93.6-100)
n/a 100
(93.6-100)
n/a
Tetracycline 48 44
(91.7)
45
(93.8)
47
(97.9)
95.8 100
(92.1-10)
33.3
(0.82-90.6)
95.7
(91.0-98.0)
100
(5.0-100)
Total2,3 300 203
(67.7)
199
(66.3)
199
(66.3)
98.7 99.0
(96.4-99.9)
98.0
(93.0-99.8)
99.0
(96.1-99.7)
98.0
(92.6-99.5)
1

With the additional step of examining for point mutations in housekeeping genes concordance and NPV were increased to 100% (95 CI, 96.2-100%)

2

Total results for all VRE isolate/antibiotic combinations

3

Additional identification of point mutations in housekeeping genes increased the concordance to 99.3%, sensitivity to 100% (95% CI, 99.1-100%) and NPV to 100% (95% CI, 96.8-100%).