Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 12;16(1):e0245290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245290

Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings

Wirittamulla Gamage Maheshika Kumudunie 1, Lakmini Inoka Wijesooriya 2, Yasanandana Supunsiri Wijayasinghe 1,*
Editor: Iddya Karunasagar3
PMCID: PMC7802922  PMID: 33434203

Abstract

Rapidly progressing antibiotic resistance is a great challenge in therapy. In particular, the infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are exceedingly difficult to treat. Carbapenemase production is the predominant mechanism of resistance in CRE. Early and accurate identification of carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CP-CRE) is extremely important for the treatment and prevention of such infections. In the present study, four phenotypic carbapenemase detection tests were compared and an algorithm was developed for rapid and cost-effective identification of CP-CRE. A total of 117 Enterobacteriaceae (54 CP-CRE, 3 non-CP-CRE, and 60 non-CRE) isolates were tested for carbapenemase production using modified Hodge test (MHT), modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM), Carba NP test (CNPt), and CNPt-direct test. The overall sensitivity/specificity values were 90.7%/92.1% for MHT, 100%/100% for mCIM, 75.9%/100% for CNPt, and 83.3%/100% for CNPt-direct. OXA-48-like enzymes were detected with 93.2% sensitivity by MHT and >77.3% sensitivity by two Carba NP tests. MHT could only detect half of the NDM carbapenemase producers. CNPt-direct exhibited enhanced sensitivity compared to CNPt (100% vs 25%) for detection of NDM producers. Considering these findings we propose CNPt-direct as the first test followed by mCIM for rapid detection of CP-CRE. With this algorithm >80% of the CP-CRE could be detected within 24 hours from the time the sample is received and 100% CP-CRE could be detected in day two. In conclusion, mCIM was the most sensitive assay for the identification of CP-CRE. CNPt-direct performed better than CNPt. An algorithm consisting CNPt-direct and mCIM allows rapid and reliable detection of carbapenemase production in resource-limited settings.

Introduction

Carbapenems are the antibiotics of “last-resort” that are used to treat severe infections caused by drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae such as Klebsiella spp., Escherichia spp., Enterobacter spp., etc., which are frequently associated with both nosocomial and community-acquired infections. The emergence of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) poses a serious public health threat as these infections are difficult to treat [1].

Carbapenem resistance is caused by a number of mechanisms, but mainly by the production of carbapenem hydrolyzing enzymes (carbapenemases) [2]. Carbapenemases are of several types and are grouped into three β-lactamase Ambler classes: class A (KPC is the predominant), class B (includes metallo β–lactamases; MBLs, eg: NDM, VIM, IMP), and class D (eg: OXA-48-like). It has been found that the infections caused by carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CP-CRE) are associated with greater threat to human health with high fatality rates and increased healthcare cost, compared to the infections caused by non-CP-CRE [36]. Carbapenemase-producing microorganisms have a high potential to cause outbreaks as carbapenemase genes can be easily transferred to the sensitive bacteria [710]. CP-CRE are also less likely to be susceptible to other groups of antibiotics, such as aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and polymyxins [4]. In addition, distinguishing carbapenemase producers from non-carbapenemase producers is important to prioritize newer antibiotics for the infection caused by CP-CRE, which might delay the development of resistance to novel drugs. Thus, rapid and reliable detection of CP-CRE is becoming increasingly important to streamline antibiotic treatment and also to minimize the spread of these difficult-to-treat bacteria both in healthcare facilities and in the community.

Several laboratory methods are available for the identification of CP-CRE. Molecular detection by polymerase chain reactions (PCR) is considered as the gold standard for the confirmation of carbapenemase production [11]. However due to high cost, unavailability of necessary instrumentation and technical expertise in many diagnostic laboratories, the PCR is not suitable for routine detection of CP-CRE in developing countries. On the other hand, PCR detects only the genes encoding the known enzymes and hence the organisms harbor novel carbapenemase genes are possibly undetected [12]. In recent years, a number of simple phenotypic methods have been developed for the identification of carbapenemase production, including colorimetric biochemical assays (eg: Carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel or Carba NP test) and growth based carbapenem inactivation disc assays (eg: modified Hodge test (MHT), modified carbapenem inactivation method) [13].

At present, Carba NP test (CNPt) and modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) are the only carbapenemase confirmatory tests endorsed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) [14, 15]. However, there is no perfect method to identify all CP-CRE as different tests show variable sensitivities and specificities depending on the carbapenemase type [16, 17]. Therefore, it is recommended to select a carbapenemase detection test based on the molecular epidemiology of CP-CRE in a given geographical area. In addition, user-friendliness, cost effectiveness, and turnaround time should also be considered when deciding which method to be employed in a clinical diagnostic laboratory [18].

In the present study, we assessed the performance of four phenotypic carbapenemase detection tests, namely MHT, mCIM, and CNPt and Carba NP-direct (CNPt-direct). CNPt-direct is a recently developed variant of Carba NP assay, in which the proprietary bacterial lysis solution (B-PER II) is replaced with Triton-X100 (a nonionic detergent) to reduce the cost of CNPt. In addition, CNPt-direct has also demonstrated superior sensitivity in detecting CP-CRE [19]. All four tests are based on the ability of carbapenemases to hydrolyze carbapenems. These tests are inexpensive compared to the PCR based detection methods, hence can be easily performed at routine clinical microbiology laboratories in developing countries. Moreover, we also proposed an algorithm for the rapid identification of CP-CRE in resource-limited settings.

Materials and methods

Bacterial isolates

A total of 117 previously characterized Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates were tested to evaluate the performance of four phenotypic carbapenemase detection assays, namely MHT, mCIM, CNPt, and CNPt-direct [20]. These strains included 54 genetically identified CP-CRE producing carbapenemases of Ambler class A. B, and D: KPC (n = 2), NDM (n = 4), OXA-48-like (n = 44), NDM+OXA-48-like (n = 4). Three non-CP-CRE and 60 non-CRE consisted of 30 extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE: ESBL production was identified by double disc synergy test using 30 μg cefotaxime and 20/10 μg amoxicillin-clavulanic acid discs according to CLSI guidelines) and 30 non-ESBL-PE (Enterobacteriaceae sensitive to both third generation cephalosporins and carbapenems) served as negative control in the study. K. pneumoniae ATCC BAA-1705 possessing KPC, K. pneumoniae ATCC BAA-2146 and E. coli ATCC BAA-2469 possessing NDM-1 and K. pneumoniae ATCC BAA-2524 possessing OXA-48-like carbapenemases were used as positive controls. K. pneumoniae ATCC BAA-1706 strain was used as the negative control.

Modified Hodge test

The MHT was performed and interpreted according to CLSI M100-Ed27 guidelines [15]. Briefly, 10 μg ertapenem (Oxoid, UK) disc was placed on the center of Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) (Oxoid, UK) plate which had been previously inoculated with an E.coli indicator strain (ATCC 25922). The suspension of the indicator strain was prepared by emulsifying bacterial colonies in 5 ml normal saline and adjusting the turbidity similar to 0.5 McFarland standard solution. The straight lines of positive control organism, negative control organism and test organism were streaked from the edge of the disc to the edge of the plate and subsequently incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hours. The appearance of clover-leaf like indentation of the indicator strain growing along the streaks of the bacterial strain was indicative of carbapenemase production.

Modified carbapenem inactivation method

The mCIM was performed and interpreted according to CLSI M100-Ed28 guidelines [21]. Briefly, a 1 μL loopful of overnight grown bacteria on blood agar was emulsified in 2 mL of Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) (Oxoid, UK). In parallel, a second 2 mL TSB tube was labeled for each isolate for EDTA modified carbapenem inactivation method (eCIM) test in with 0.5 mM EDTA (pH 8.0). Each tube was vortexed for 10–15 seconds. Subsequently, a 10 μg meropenem disk (Oxoid, UK) was immersed in each bacterial suspension and incubated at 37°C. After 4 hours of incubation, meropenem disk in each bacterial suspension was placed on MHA (Oxoid, UK) plates which had been freshly inoculated with the 0.5 McFarland dilution of a susceptible E. coli indicator strain (ATCC 25922). The plates were incubated at 37°C for 18–24 h. Following day, the zone diameters were measured and interpreted according to the established CLSI standards. An inhibition zone diameter of ≤ 15 mm was indicative of CP-CRE. Besides, a ≥ 5 mm increase in zone diameter of eCIM compared to that of mCIM considered the presence of metallo β-lactamase type (i.e. Ambler class B) carbapenemases.

Carba NP test

CNPt was performed as per CLSI M100-Ed28 guidelines with slight modifications [21], briefly bacterial lysate was prepared in a 1.5 ml micro centrifuge tube by suspending a 10 μl loopful of overnight grown bacterial colonies on MHA (Oxoid, UK) or Blood Agar (Oxoid, UK) in 100 μl of B-PER II bacterial lysis solution (Thermo Scientific, USA) followed by vortexing and incubation for 15 minutes at room temperature. CLSI recommend using 1 μl loopful of bacteria, however, it was reported that more bacteria could increase the test sensitivity [22]. Then it was mixed with 100 μl of an indicator solution (Solution A) which had previously been adjusted to pH 7.8, consisting phenol red (0.005% W/V), 0.1 mM ZnSO4 and 6 mg/mL imipenem monohydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) or 12 mg/mL imipenem-cilastatin (Tienam 500, Merck, USA). Then the mixture of the enzymatic suspension being tested and the revealing solution was incubated at 37°C up to 2 hours. The observations for the color change of phenol red were recorded in every 15 minutes up to 2 hours. The results were interpreted according to CLSI guidelines. The change of the color of reaction medium from red to yellow or to light orange was considered as positive for carbapenemase production.

Carba NP-direct test

CNPt-direct test was performed as previously described [19]. Briefly, the indicator solution (Solution A) consisting phenol red (0.005% W/V) and 0.1 mM ZnSO4 was mixed with 0.1% of Triton X-100 (Sigma Aldrich) and pH was adjusted to 7.8 with 1N NaOH. A 10 μl loopful of pure bacterial colonies was directly suspended in 1.5 ml micro centrifuge tubes containing 100 μl of CNPt-direct mix supplemented with 6 mg/mL imipenem monohydrate or 12 mg/mL imipenem-cilastatin (Tienam 500, Merck, USA), the pharmaceutical form of imipenem for test reactions and without antibiotic for control reactions. Finally, all the tubes were incubated at 37°C and were monitored every 15 minutes up to 2 hours. Color change from red to yellow or to light orange was considered as positives for carbapenemase production. The pH adjusted, imipenem unsupplemented CNPt and CNPt-direct solutions were stored at 4°C and used within 4 weeks. The test solution was supplemented with imipenem or imipenem-cilastatin immediately before use.

Statistics

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and, negative predictive values, and associated confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each test using MedCalc, an internet-based statistical software (Available from: https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php). The prevalence of CP-CRE was considered as 10% in the calculation of positive and negative predictive values. The sensitivities were compared by McNemar’s test. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Overall performance of four carbapenemase detection tests

All four tests exhibited above 75% sensitivity for the overall detection of carbapenemase production in Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates. The performance characteristics of each assay are presented in Table 1. Among four tests, only mCIM showed 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values in detecting carbapenemase producers. Of 54 CP-CRE, 49 were identified by MHT (sensitivity of 90.7%). Five Enterobacteriaceae in negative control group (i.e. non-CP-CRE and non-CRE) produced false-positive results in MHT yielding specificity of 92.1%. MHT had negative predictive value of 98.9% and positive predictive value of 56.0%. All non-CP-CRE and non CRE were identified as negative by CNPt and CNPt-direct resulting in 100% specificity and positive predictive values. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were 75.9% and 97.4%, respectively for CNPt, and those were increased to 83.3% and 98.2%, respectively when tested with CNPt-direct. However, CNPt and CNPt-direct were not significantly different with respect to sensitivity (P = 0.125). The pharmaceutical imipenem (i.e. imipenem-cilastatin) generated identical results to authentic imipenem (i.e. imipenem monohydrate) in both CNPt and CNPt-direct.

Table 1. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of four carbapenemase detection tests.

Enterobacteriaceae isolate Carbapenemase detection test
MHT n (%) mCIM n (%) CNPt n (%) CNPt-direct n (%)
CP-CRE N = 54 49 (90.7%) 54 (100%) 41 (75.9%) 45 (83.3%)
Non-CP-CRE N = 3 1 (33.3%) 0 0 0
Non-CRE N = 60 4 (6.7%) 0 0 0
Sensitivity, % (95% CI) 90.7% (79.7–96.9) 100% (93.4–100) 75.9% (62.4–86.5) 83.3% (70.7–92.1)
Specificity, % (95% CI) 92.1% (82.4–97.4) 100% (94.3–100) 100% (94.3–100) 100% (94.3–100)
Positive predictive value, % (95% CI) 56.0% (35.3–74.7) 100% 100% 100%
Negative predictive value, % (95% CI) 98.9% (97.5–99.5) 100% 97.4% (95.9–98.4) 98.2% (96.8–99.0)

Enzyme type and organism-wise performance of carbapenemase detection tests

The performance of MHT and CNP tests varied among different carbapenemase types and the organism. The sensitivities of the four assays for detecting different carbapenemase types in different Enterobacteriaceae species are shown in Table 2. The MHT had lower sensitivities for the detection of NDM (50%) and OXA-48-like (93.2%) producers. CNPt-direct performed better than CNPt for detection of NDM carbapenemase (sensitivities 100% vs 25%), but their sensitivity for the detection of OXA-48-like producers ranged from 77 to 80%. The single NDM producing Enterobacter cloacae, Providencia rettgeri, and one out of two Citrobacter freundii isolates produced false-negative results in CNPt. While, all four NDM producing Enterobacteriaceae were detected by CNPt-direct. Only 31 of 39 (79.5%) OXA-48-like producing K. pneumoniae and 2 of 3 (66.7%) OXA-48-like producing E. coli isolates were detected by both CNPt and CNPt-direct. Though, only one out of two OXA-48-like producing C. freundii isolate was identified by CNPt, both isolates were identified by CNPt-direct. All KPC producers and NDM + OXA-48-like coproduces were identified by all tests.

Table 2. Performance of four carbapenemase detection tests according to the type of carbapenemase and organism.

Carbapenemase type Enterobacteriaceae species (n) MHT n (%) mCIM n (%) eCIM n (%) CNPt n (%) CNPt-direct n (%)
OXA-48-like N = 44 41 (93.2%) 44 (100%) 4 (9.1%) 34 (77.3%) 35 (79.5%)
K. pneumoniae (39) 37 (94.9%) 39 (100%) 4 (10.3%) 31 (79.5%) 31 (79.5%)
E. coli (3) 2 (66.7%) 3 (100%) 0 2 (66.7%) 2 (66.7%)
C. freundii (2) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 1 (50%) 2 (100%)
NDM N = 04 2 (50%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 1 (25%) 4 (100%)
C. freundii (2) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%)
P. rettgeri (1) 0 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%)
E. cloacae (1) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%)
OXA-48-like & NDM N = 04 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 0 4 (100%) 4 (100%)
K. pneumoniae (3) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 0 3 (100%) 3 (100%)
K. aerogenes (1) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 1 (100%)
KPC N = 02 K. pneumoniae (2) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 2 (100%) 2 (100%)

To assess the diagnostic value of EDTA modified carbapenem inactivation method (eCIM) in the detection of MBL producers (i.e. NDM in this study), we analyzed 57 CRE. eCIM detected all 4 NDM producers with 100% sensitivity. However, four (10.3%) OXA-48-like producing K. pneumoniae isolates yielded false-positive results.

Discussion

Emergence and world-wide dissemination of CP-CRE is a major public health concern [23]. Rapid and accurate detection of CP-CRE is important as early identification can optimize antibiotic therapy and minimize unnecessary/ inappropriate prescription of medicines [24]. Although the conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing is sufficient for the selection of appropriate antibiotics, commonly used disc diffusion method has a minimum of two day delay to results and is also not suitable for some antibiotics like colistin. Moreover, CLSI recommended breakpoints are not available for a number of antibiotics such as tigecycline, and for newer antibiotics [21, 25]. Therefore, timely identification of CP-CRE is important to guide the antibiotic treatment decisions and to minimize the spread.

Modified Hodge test is the first CP-CRE confirmatory method recommended by CLSI. Although MHT has been excluded from current CLSI guidelines due to its poor performance, it is still being used in developing countries to detect CP-CRE [26, 27]. In the present study, we observed relatively low overall sensitivity (90.7%) and specificity (92.1%), and low positive predictive value (56.0%) for MHT (Table 1). The poor sensitivity of MHT towards the identification of NDM producing CRE greatly contributed to the observed low positive predictive value of MHT (Table 2). Although, this study consisted of a small sample of NDM producing CRE (n = 4), these findings are in agreement with previous studies in which MHT has been found to have poor sensitivity (50–86%) for detection of MBLs [18, 28] and low specificity (91%) [18]. False positive MHT results have been reported with ESBL producers (Mostly CTX-M type and AmpC) with reduced membrane permeability [28, 29]. However, MHT has been found to have excellent sensitivity for detecting Ambler classes A and D carbapenemases [18, 28]. Since MHT is a simple, inexpensive test, and detect all KPC, all OXA-48+NDM, and above 90% of OXA-48-like producers, it can still be used in the regions, where KPC and/or OXA-48-like carbapenemases are predominant. However, it is worth to note that NDM is now wide spread and is growing. On the other hand interpretation of MHT is subjective and has a long turnaround time.

In the present study, mCIM demonstrated to be an excellent phenotypic test for carbapenemase detection (Table 1). Our findings corroborate the results of previous studies that have reported nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity of mCIM for detecting commonly found carbapenemase types such as KPC, NDM, VIM, IMP, and OXA-48-like [18, 30, 31]. mCIM is suitable for a resource-poor microbiology laboratory as it is inexpensive and easy to perform. Interpretations of mCIM results were less subjective than that of MHT. However, a major drawback of this method is that it has a longer turnaround time as it needs an overnight incubation. It is important to distinguish KPC and OXA-48-like (Ambler class A and D) from NDM (class B) enzyme producers as some of the new antibiotics combinations such as ceftazidime-avibactam are effective only against KPC and OXA-48-like (i.e. serine carbapenemase) producing CRE [32, 33]. Since, metallo-β-lactamases are inhibited by EDTA, EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method has been recommended by CLSI for the detection of MBL producing Enterobacteriaceae [21]. eCIM can be performed side-by-side with mCIM in the same culture plate. Hence, we also evaluated the performance of eCIM to detect MBL producing CRE and found 100% sensitivity for the detection of NDM producers. As expected OXA-48-like+NDM co-producers did not yield positive results in eCIM, due to the fact that OXA-48-like enzymes are not inhibited by EDTA. Surprisingly, approximately 10% of OXA-48-like producers were also positive for eCIM (Table 2). eCIM has been reported to have 100% sensitivity and specificity for detecting MBLs [34]. However, eCIM was recently showed to produce false positive results with OXA-48-like enzymes [35, 36]. eCIM was also found to be less sensitive for the detection of IMP type MBLs (sensitivity 79.6%), but it was 100% sensitive for NDM enzymes [36]. Therefore, further studies with large samples are required to validate the performance of eCIM.

Routine culture-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing takes 48 hours or more from sample collection to reporting of results. It takes another 24 hours to test antibiotics that are not frequently used. Therefore, rapid diagnostic tests can shorten the turnaround time and hence the time to appropriate therapy. In that regard, CNPt is a valuable test for the detection of carbapenemase activity as it takes less than two hours to produce results. CNPt is a biochemical test based on in vitro hydrolysis of imipenem β-lactam ring resulting in a decrease of the pH of the medium, which is detected by the change of phenol red indicator color from red to yellow. CNPt has been claimed to provide rapid and accurate results for screening of CP-CRE [37].

In the current study, the overall sensitivity of both CNPt (75.9%) and CNPt-direct (83.3%) was low compared to that of MHT (90.7%). Both Carba NP tests had superior specificity (100%) than the specificity of MHT (92.1%) (Table 1). The original publication by Nordmann et al. has reported that CNPt was 100% sensitive and specific for CP-CRE [37]. Subsequent studies have reported lower (<90%) overall sensitivity of CNPt [22, 38, 39]. Tamma et al. has reported low sensitivity of manual CNPt (CLSI) for the detection of KPC (84%), NDM (92%), and OXA-48-like (40%) enzyme producing Enterobacteriaceae [18]. Further, CNPt has been repeatedly found less sensitive for OXA-48-like carbapenemases, as these enzymes have weak carbapenemase activity compared to the other enzymes [22, 3840]. Our results were concordant with this observation as both CNPt and CNPt-direct showed low sensitivity (77.3% and 79.5%, respectively) for the detection of OXA-48-like carbapenemase in Enterobacteriaceae (Table 2).

Furthermore, the performance of CNPt-direct was better than CNPt for the detection of NDM CP-CRE as CNPt-direct detected all NDM producers, while CNPt failed to identify three out of four NDM isolates (Table 2). Therefore, the overall low sensitivity of CNPt-direct is mainly due to the false negative results of OXA-48 producers. However, due to the limited number of NDM used in this study, this observation needs to be further tested using a large group of NDM producers. It has also been reported that the NDM-1 producing Providencia spp with mucoid colonies tend to produce false-negative results [22]. CNPt has been reported to have lower sensitivity for isolates with mucoid colonies irrespective of the type of enzyme (eg: NDM-producing P. rettgeri, OXA-48-like-producing K. pneumoniae isolates) [22, 38, 41]. Tijet et al. has revealed that the false negative results obtained for mucoid metallo β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates were due to incomplete lysis of bacterial cell [40]. Pasteran et al. showed a higher sensitivity of CNPt-direct than CNPt (100% vs 71%) for the detection of NDM producing CRE [19]. The absence of a buffer in the lysis solution and efficient cell lysis by Triton X-100 are possible reasons for the superior performance of CNPt-direct. Carba NP tests detect the pH change when imipenem is hydrolyzed by carbapenemase. CNPt-direct simplifies the bacterial lysis step and shorten the time to color change in the test. However, the detection of OXA-48-like was not improved with CNPt-direct. Trton X-100 and imipenem-cilastatin are significantly cheaper than B-Per II and imipenem monohydrate, respectively. Therefore, the cost per CNPt-direct test is lower than that of CNPt.

Based on the findings of the present study, we propose an algorithm for the rapid detection of CP-CRE in resource-limited settings (Fig 1). In this algorithm, CNPt-direct is used as the first test, which can detect CP-CRE within 2 hours after isolation of bacterial colonies. The positive test confirmed the presence of carbapenemase producers. If negative, mCIM is performed as the second test. The positive mCIM test confirmed the presence of carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae. If mCIM is negative, the presence of CP-CRE is unlikely. In combination of CNPt-direct and mCIM, above 80% of CP-CRE were identified in day one and all (100%) CP-CRE were identified by day 2. The proposed algorithm is rapid, simple and affordable. This algorithm does not require specialized equipment or skilled personnel and hence it could be easily implemented in most of the clinical laboratories in resource-limited settings. However, this algorithm does not invalidate the importance of antimicrobial susceptibility test, which is required to guide antibiotic selection. Since the present study is mainly based on the OXA-48-like carbapenemase producing CRE, further studies with a large sample of CP-CRE isolates with adequate representation of commonly found genotypes (eg: KPC, NDM, OXA-48-like, IMP, VIM, etc.) may help better understanding of the performance of the proposed algorithm.

Fig 1. Proposed algorithm for rapid detection of CP-CRE in resource-limited settings.

Fig 1

Conclusions

mCIM was superior to Carba NP tests and MHT for the detection of CP-CRE. mCIM together with CNPt-direct offers a reliable, simple, rapid, and cost effective phenotypic carbapenemase detection algorithm that can routinely be employed in the clinical diagnostic laboratories in developing countries.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the laboratory staff at the Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a research grant to YSW (Grant No. NRC 17-055) from the National Research Council of Sri Lanka. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Morrill HJ, Pogue JM, Kaye KS, LaPlante KL. Treatment Options for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections. Open forum infectious diseases. 2015;2(2):ofv050 10.1093/ofid/ofv050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Suay-Garcia B, Perez-Gracia MT. Present and Future of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Infections. Antibiotics. 2019;8(3). 10.3390/antibiotics8030122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nordmann P, Poirel L. The difficult-to-control spread of carbapenemase producers among Enterobacteriaceae worldwide. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2014;20(9):821–30. 10.1111/1469-0691.12719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tamma PD, Goodman KE, Harris AD, Tekle T, Roberts A, Taiwo A, et al. Comparing the Outcomes of Patients With Carbapenemase-Producing and Non-Carbapenemase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Bacteremia. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2017;64(3):257–64. 10.1093/cid/ciw741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Falagas ME, Tansarli GS, Karageorgopoulos DE, Vardakas KZ. Deaths attributable to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Emerging infectious diseases. 2014;20(7):1170–5. 10.3201/eid2007.121004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Otter JA, Burgess P, Davies F, Mookerjee S, Singleton J, Gilchrist M, et al. Counting the cost of an outbreak of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: an economic evaluation from a hospital perspective. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2017;23(3):188–96. 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Goodman KE, Simner PJ, Tamma PD, Milstone AM. Infection control implications of heterogeneous resistance mechanisms in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Expert review of anti-infective therapy. 2016;14(1):95–108. 10.1586/14787210.2016.1106940 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beyrouthy R, Barets M, Marion E, Dananche C, Dauwalder O, Robin F, et al. Novel Enterobacter Lineage as Leading Cause of Nosocomial Outbreak Involving Carbapenemase-Producing Strains. Emerging infectious diseases. 2018;24(8):1505–15. 10.3201/eid2408.180151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jimenez A, Castro JG, Munoz-Price LS, de Pascale D, Shimose L, Mustapha MM, et al. Outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-Producing Citrobacter freundii at a Tertiary Acute Care Facility in Miami, Florida. Infection control and hospital epidemiology. 2017;38(3):320–6. 10.1017/ice.2016.273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ahn K, Hwang GY, Kim YK, Kim HY, Jeong HR, Hong JS, et al. Nosocomial Outbreak Caused by NDM-5 and OXA-181 Carbapenemase Co-producing Escherichia coli. Infection & chemotherapy. 2019;51(2):177–82. 10.3947/ic.2019.51.2.177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Azimi L, Talebi M, Owlia P, Pourshafie MR, Najafi M, Lari ER, et al. Tracing of false negative results in phenotypic methods for identification of carbapenemase by Real-time PCR. Gene. 2016;576(1 Pt 1):166–70. 10.1016/j.gene.2015.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nordmann P, Gniadkowski M, Giske CG, Poirel L, Woodford N, Miriagou V, et al. Identification and screening of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2012;18(5):432–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhong H, Wu ML, Feng WJ, Huang SF, Yang P. Accuracy and applicability of different phenotypic methods for carbapenemase detection in Enterobacteriaceae: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of global antimicrobial resistance. 2020;21:138–47. 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.10.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lutgring JD, Limbago BM. The Problem of Carbapenemase-Producing-Carbapenem-Resistant-Enterobacteriaceae Detection. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2016;54(3):529–34. 10.1128/JCM.02771-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aguirre-Quinonero A, Martinez-Martinez L. Non-molecular detection of carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates. Journal of infection and chemotherapy: official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy. 2017;23(1):1–11. 10.1016/j.jiac.2016.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tamma PD, Opene BN, Gluck A, Chambers KK, Carroll KC, Simner PJ. Comparison of 11 Phenotypic Assays for Accurate Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2017;55(4):1046–55. 10.1128/JCM.02338-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pasteran F, Tijet N, Melano RG, Corso A. Simplified Protocol for Carba NP Test for Enhanced Detection of Carbapenemase Producers Directly from Bacterial Cultures. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2015;53(12):3908–11. 10.1128/JCM.02032-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kumudunie WGM, Wijesooriya LI, Namalie KD, Sunil-Chandra NP, Wijayasinghe YS. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Sri Lanka: First evidence of blaKPC harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of infection and public health. 2020;13(9):1330–5. 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tijet N, Boyd D, Patel SN, Mulvey MR, Melano RG. Evaluation of the Carba NP test for rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2013;57(9):4578–80. 10.1128/AAC.00878-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Logan LK, Weinstein RA. The Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: The Impact and Evolution of a Global Menace. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2017;215(suppl_1):S28–S36. 10.1093/infdis/jiw282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zilberberg MD, Nathanson BH, Sulham K, Fan W, Shorr AF. Carbapenem resistance, inappropriate empiric treatment and outcomes among patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae urinary tract infection, pneumonia and sepsis. BMC infectious diseases. 2017;17(1):279 10.1186/s12879-017-2383-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Doi Y. Treatment Options for Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative Bacterial Infections. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2019;69(Suppl 7):S565–S75. 10.1093/cid/ciz830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nosheen S, Bukhari NI, Ejaz H, Abbas N. Antibiogram and recent incidence of multi-drug resistant carbapenemase producing Escherichia coli isolated from paediatric patients. Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2020;36(2):246–50. 10.12669/pjms.36.2.928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Makharita RR, El-Kholy I, Hetta HF, Abdelaziz MH, Hagagy FI, Ahmed AA, et al. Antibiogram and Genetic Characterization of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens Incriminated in Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infection and drug resistance. 2020;13:3991–4002. 10.2147/IDR.S276975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Girlich D, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Value of the modified Hodge test for detection of emerging carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2012;50(2):477–9. 10.1128/JCM.05247-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Carvalhaes CG, Picao RC, Nicoletti AG, Xavier DE, Gales AC. Cloverleaf test (modified Hodge test) for detecting carbapenemase production in Klebsiella pneumoniae: be aware of false positive results. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2010;65(2):249–51. 10.1093/jac/dkp431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pierce VM, Simner PJ, Lonsway DR, Roe-Carpenter DE, Johnson JK, Brasso WB, et al. Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method for Phenotypic Detection of Carbapenemase Production among Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2017;55(8):2321–33. 10.1128/JCM.00193-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kuchibiro T, Komatsu M, Yamasaki K, Nakamura T, Nishio H, Nishi I, et al. Evaluation of the modified carbapenem inactivation method for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of infection and chemotherapy: official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy. 2018;24(4):262–6. 10.1016/j.jiac.2017.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pogue JM, Bonomo RA, Kaye KS. Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Meropenem/Vaborbactam, or Both? Clinical and Formulary Considerations. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2019;68(3):519–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.van Duin D, Bonomo RA. Ceftazidime/Avibactam and Ceftolozane/Tazobactam: Second-generation beta-Lactam/beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2016;63(2):234–41. 10.1093/cid/ciw243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sfeir MM, Hayden JA, Fauntleroy KA, Mazur C, Johnson JK, Simner PJ, et al. EDTA-Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method: a Phenotypic Method for Detecting Metallo-beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2019;57(5). 10.1128/JCM.01757-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chan WW, Campbell L, Doyle D, Pitout JD. Rapid detection of Enterobacterales that produce carbapenemases. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease. 2020;98(2):115120 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yamada K, Sasaki M, Imai W, Murakami H, Morita T, Aoki K, et al. Evaluation of inhibitor-combination mCIM for detecting MBL-producing Enterobacterales using three MBL inhibitors. Journal of medical microbiology. 2019;68(11):1604–6. 10.1099/jmm.0.001073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nordmann P, Poirel L, Dortet L. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerging infectious diseases. 2012;18(9):1503–7. 10.3201/eid1809.120355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Osterblad M, Hakanen AJ, Jalava J. Evaluation of the Carba NP test for carbapenemase detection. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2014;58(12):7553–6. 10.1128/AAC.02761-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cunningham SA, Limbago B, Traczewski M, Anderson K, Hackel M, Hindler J, et al. Multicenter Performance Assessment of Carba NP Test. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2017;55(6):1954–60. 10.1128/JCM.00244-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tijet N, Boyd D, Patel SN, Mulvey MR, Melano RG. Reply to "further proofs of concept for the Carba NP test". Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2014;58(2):1270 10.1128/AAC.02285-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yamada K, Kashiwa M, Arai K, Nagano N, Saito R. Comparison of the Modified-Hodge test, Carba NP test, and carbapenem inactivation method as screening methods for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of microbiological methods. 2016;128:48–51. 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Iddya Karunasagar

20 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31489

Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wijayasinghe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript requires substantial revision in all sections

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide more information on how another researcher could obtain the CRE strains used in this study so that they could reproduce your results.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. In addition, please report your p-values to support your claims. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Two reviewers have commented on the manuscript and made several pertinent points to improve the manuscript. Please address these point by point. The number of NDM resistant strains used is small and conclusions based on such small number should have a caveat.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings” describes the four different phenotypic methods (MHT, mCIM, CNPt, and Carba NP-direct) for carbapenemase detection and also proposed a protocol to simplify rapid detection of CP-CRE using the combination of CNPt-direct and mCIM. While the study brings information, required improvements, including statistical interpretation.

Major comments

Statistical interpretation of the results is not clearly mentioned in the manuscript, especially to compare among four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests that were used in this study.

Lines no 101-103: Details of the control microorganisms can be mentioned.

Line 163-164: Statistics analysis used for the study can be explained in detail, including the software used, if any.

Line 188 and table 2: The microorganisms used in this study, Enterobacteriaceae species, has not been isolated in this study. Hence, it can be mentioned with reference(s).

The proposed protocol for rapid detection of CP-CRE (Line 302) using the combination of CNPt-direct and mCIM, can be move to the result section, followed by discussion of the same in the discussion section.

Minor comments

Lines no: 51-52: Please rephrase the sentences

Line no 59: microorganisms, instead “organisms.”

Lines no 68-72: These two sentences are contrary to each other. The first/second sentence can be rephrased differently.

Line no 88: Expand the abbreviation, MHT, as appears for the first time

Line 93: Which “molecular methods” are authors talking about?

Lines 111, 122, 126, 137, 140, 153, 154: remove “ - ” between number and unit

Lines 210-222: This paragraph can be summarised.

Lines 221-222: This sentence can be removed from here

Lines 224-226: Include a reference

Line 226: ….we observed overall low sensitivity…….

Lines 227-228: Rephrase this sentence

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Th paper compares 4 techniques for detecting carbapenem resistance in CRE organisms. The paper compares the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for 4 methodologies as a comparison.

The paper brings out important problems in various methods for detecting carbapenamases. But the following can be added

1. What were the clinical sources of the isolates? The choice of antibiotic is also dependent on the site of infection hence this data could enhance the data in the paper

2. This is a pilot study kind of data as far as the numbers are concerned. For example, 4 NDM isolates were only present in the study. It would be important to explain that larger number of isolates may help in understanding the shortcomings of these tests better

3. When the authors mention Oxa-48 producers or NDM producers, how were these characterized? It would be important to also have this mentioned in the paper

4. Why were other CRO's like Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter not studied?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Anusha Rohit

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 12;16(1):e0245290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245290.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Dec 2020

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have reformatted the manuscript according to the given PLOSOne guidelines.

2. Please provide more information on how another researcher could obtain the CRE strains used in this study so that they could reproduce your results.

Thank you for your suggestion. “All data are fully available without restriction” is already mentioned in the Data Availability section in the manuscript submission form.

If further explanation is needed, following statement can be added.

Materials of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. In addition, please report your p-values to support your claims. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

Thank you for your comment. We have added additional information on statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Two reviewers have commented on the manuscript and made several pertinent points to improve the manuscript. Please address these point by point. The number of NDM resistant strains used is small and conclusions based on such small number should have a caveat.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback on our manuscript.

We agree with the editor that our study contains a smaller number of NDM producers. We have added several sentences in the discussion section to highlight the limitations of our study.

“Although, this study consisted of a small sample of NDM producing CRE (n=4), these findings are in agreement with previous studies in which MHT has been found to have poor sensitivity (50 - 86%) for detection of MBLs (18, 28) and low specificity (91%) (18).” (Line no 244-246 in manuscript with track changes)

“Since the present study is mainly based on the OXA-48-like carbapenemase producing CRE, further studies with a large sample of CP-CRE isolates with adequate representation of commonly found genotypes (eg: KPC, NDM, OXA-48-like, IMP, VIM, etc.) may help better understanding of the performance of the proposed algorithm.” (Line no 330-334 in manuscript with track changes)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings” describes the four different phenotypic methods (MHT, mCIM, CNPt, and Carba NP-direct) for carbapenemase detection and also proposed a protocol to simplify rapid detection of CP-CRE using the combination of CNPt-direct and mCIM. While the study brings information, required improvements, including statistical interpretation.

Major comments

Statistical interpretation of the results is not clearly mentioned in the manuscript, especially to compare among four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests that were used in this study.

Thank you for your comment. We have added additional information on statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods and have included 95% confidence intervals and P values in the results section.

Lines no 101-103: Details of the control microorganisms can be mentioned.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the details of the control organisms and have rewritten the section on bacterial isolates in the materials and methods.

Line 163-164: Statistics analysis used for the study can be explained in detail, including the software used, if any.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the relevant information.

Line 188 and table 2: The microorganisms used in this study, Enterobacteriaceae species, has not been isolated in this study. Hence, it can be mentioned with reference(s).

The proposed protocol for rapid detection of CP-CRE (Line 302) using the combination of CNPt-direct and mCIM, can be move to the result section, followed by discussion of the same in the discussion section.

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Bacterial isolates in the methods section. Following sentence is mentioned with reference 20.

A total of 117 previously characterized Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates were tested to evaluate the performance of four phenotypic carbapenemase detection assays, namely MHT, mCIM, CNPt, and CNPt-direct (20).

Reference no 20:

Kumudunie WGM, Wijesooriya LI, Namalie KD, Sunil-Chandra NP, Wijayasinghe YS. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Sri Lanka: First evidence of blaKPC harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of infection and public health. 2020;13(9):1330-5.

We think that there is some overlap between results and discussion sections. Therefore, we prefer to keep the proposed algorithm at the present location as it is the take home message of the manuscript.

Minor comments

Lines no: 51-52: Please rephrase the sentences

Thank you for your suggestion. We have rephrased the sentence.

Line no 59: microorganisms, instead “organisms.”

Replaced

Lines no 68-72: These two sentences are contrary to each other. The first/second sentence can be rephrased differently.

Thank you for pointing out. We have rephrased the second sentence as follow.

However due to high cost, unavailability of necessary instrumentation and technical expertise in many diagnostic laboratories, the PCR is not suitable for routine detection of CP-CRE in developing countries.

Line no 88: Expand the abbreviation, MHT, as appears for the first time

Thank you for pointing out. “modified Hodge test” is first appeared in Line 80 (Line 77 in original submission), so MHT was added next to it.

Line 93: Which “molecular methods” are authors talking about?

Thank you for pointing out. By “molecular methods” we broadly referred the techniques used to detect the presence of particular genes. To be more specific, we have replaced the “molecular method” with “PCR based detection methods”.

Lines 111, 122, 126, 137, 140, 153, 154: remove “ - ” between number and unit

Removed

Lines 210-222: This paragraph can be summarised.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have reduced the paragraph.

Lines 221-222: This sentence can be removed from here

Agreed. The sentence was removed.

Lines 224-226: Include a reference

Agreed. Two references (Ref 26 and 27) were added.

Line 226: ….we observed overall low sensitivity…….

This sentence was revised as,

we observed relatively low overall sensitivity (90.7%) and specificity (92.1%), and low positive predictive value (56.0%) for MHT (Table 1).

Lines 227-228: Rephrase this sentence

Thank you for your suggestion. We have rephrased the sentence.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Th paper compares 4 techniques for detecting carbapenem resistance in CRE organisms. The paper compares the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for 4 methodologies as a comparison.

The paper brings out important problems in various methods for detecting carbapenamases. But the following can be added

1. What were the clinical sources of the isolates? The choice of antibiotic is also dependent on the site of infection hence this data could enhance the data in the paper

Thank you for your comment. The information (sources, species and genetic identification, antibiotic susceptibilities, etc.) regarding the clinical isolates used in this study has been previously published and is available in reference 20 (an open access article). Reference 20 is cited in the materials and methods.

Reference no 20:

Kumudunie WGM, Wijesooriya LI, Namalie KD, Sunil-Chandra NP, Wijayasinghe YS. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Sri Lanka: First evidence of blaKPC harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of infection and public health. 2020;13(9):1330-5.

2. This is a pilot study kind of data as far as the numbers are concerned. For example, 4 NDM isolates were only present in the study. It would be important to explain that larger number of isolates may help in understanding the shortcomings of these tests better

We agree that our study contained only a very low number of NDM isolates. Even with this low numbers, similar trend was observed when compared to the published studies. Therefore, the following sentences were added to the discussion section in the manuscript.

“Although, this study consisted of a small sample of NDM producing CRE (n=4), these findings are in agreement with previous studies in which MHT has been found to have poor sensitivity (50 - 86%) for detection of MBLs (18, 28) and low specificity (91%) (18).” (Line no 244-246 in manuscript with track changes)

“Since the present study is mainly based on the OXA-48-like carbapenemase producing CRE, further studies with a large sample of CP-CRE isolates with adequate representation of commonly found genotypes (eg: KPC, NDM, OXA-48-like, IMP, VIM, etc.) may help better understanding of the performance of the proposed algorithm.” (Line no 330-334 in manuscript with track changes)

3. When the authors mention Oxa-48 producers or NDM producers, how were these characterized? It would be important to also have this mentioned in the paper

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the Bacterial isolates in the Materials and Methods with more details.

A total of 117 previously characterized Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates were tested to evaluate the performance of four phenotypic carbapenemase detection assays, namely MHT, mCIM, CNPt, and CNPt-direct (20). These strains included 54 genetically identified CP-CRE producing carbapenemases of Ambler class A. B, and D: KPC (n=2), NDM (n=4), OXA-48-like (n=44), NDM+OXA-48-like (n=4). Three non-CP-CRE and 60 non-CRE consisted of 30 extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE: ESBL production was identified by double disc synergy test using 30 μg cefotaxime and 20/10 μg amoxicillin-clavulanic acid discs according to CLSI guidelines) and 30 non-ESBL-PE ( Enterobacteriaceae sensitive to both third generation cephalosporins and carbapenems) served as negative control in the study.

The detailed genetic characterization of the CP-CRE used in this study is available at

Reference no 20:

Kumudunie WGM, Wijesooriya LI, Namalie KD, Sunil-Chandra NP, Wijayasinghe YS. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Sri Lanka: First evidence of blaKPC harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of infection and public health. 2020;13(9):1330-5.

4. Why were other CRO's like Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter not studied?

Thank you for your comment. We understand that it is worthwhile to explore the carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter as these CRO’s are also public health concerns. However, this manuscript is a product of a government funded, ongoing study on carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae. The tests we studied in this research cannot be directly employed to detect other CRO’s. Therefore, the study of the carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter would be the next step of our research.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Iddya Karunasagar

26 Dec 2020

Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings.

PONE-D-20-31489R1

Dear Dr. Wijayasinghe,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All reviewer comments have been addressed satisafactorily.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Iddya Karunasagar

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-31489R1

Comparison of four low-cost carbapenemase detection tests and a proposal of an algorithm for early detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in resource-limited settings

Dear Dr. Wijayasinghe:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES