Direct-from-Specimen Detection of Major Carbapenemases by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set: Comparative Analysis of Accuracy and Turnaround Time
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Location, and Duration
2.2. Sample Size Justification
2.3. Ethical Consideration
2.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.5. Samples Collection and Processing
2.6. Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria (CR-GNB) by Vitek 2 Compact System
2.7. Culture-Enhanced Multiplex PCR for Detection of the Five Major Carbapenemase Genes
2.8. Detection of Carbapenemase Enzymes by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set Directly from the Specimen
2.9. Calculation of Turnaround Time (TAT) of Each Protocol
2.10. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Distribution of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Isolates Across Various Clinical Matrices
3.2. Distribution of the Five Major Carbapenemase Genes Across the Isolated Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Using PCR (Reference Standard)
3.3. Performance Evaluation of Direct-from-Specimen LEIA Across Various CR-GNB
3.4. Performance Evaluation of Direct-from-Specimen LFIA Across Various Clinical Matrices
3.5. Time-to-Result Analysis of Direct-from-Specimen LFIA in Comparison to the Other Two Modalities Across Clinical Specimens
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Limitations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- van Loon, K.; Voor In ‘t Holt, A.F.; Vos, M.C. A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of the Clinical Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 62, e01730-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990–2021: A systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. Lancet 2024, 404, 1199–1226.
- Noster, J.; Thelen, P.; Hamprecht, A. Detection of Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacterales-From ESBLs to Carbapenemases. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caliskan-Aydogan, O.; Alocilja, E.C. A review of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacterales and its detection techniques. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Shen, M.J.; An, W.H.; Chen, Z.Q.; Xue, J. Development and Evaluation of a Duplex Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Rapid Detection of KPC and NDM Carbapenemases. Infect. Drug Resist. 2026, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumudunie, W.G.; Wijesooriya, L.I.; Wijayasinghe, Y.S. 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 2021, 16, e0245290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuffari, S.; Aiezza, N.; Antonelli, A.; Giani, T.; Rossolini, G.M. Evaluation of three commercial lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of KPC, VIM, NDM, IMP and OXA-48-like carbapenemases. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2024, 79, 2724–2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendez-Sotelo, B.J.; López-Jácome, L.E.; Colín-Castro, C.A.; Hernández-Durán, M.; Martínez-Zavaleta, M.G.; Rivera- Buendía, F.; Velázquez-Acosta, C.; Rodríguez-Zulueta, A.P.; Morfín-Otero, M.d.R.; Franco-Cendejas, R. Comparison of Lateral Flow Immunochromatography and Phenotypic Assays to PCR for the Detection of Carbapenemase- Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria, a Multicenter Experience in Mexico. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutal, H.; Moguet, C.; Pommiès, L.; Simon, S.; Naas, T.; Volland, H. The Revolution of Lateral Flow Assay in the Field of AMR Detection. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greissl, C.; Saleh, A.; Hamprecht, A. Rapid detection of OXA-48-like, KPC, NDM, and VIM carbapenemases in Enterobacterales by a new multiplex immunochromatographic test. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 38, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García, P.D.; Rojas, P.; Guzmán, A.M.; Torres, S.P.; Wozniak, A. An Algorithm for Rapid and Low-Cost Detection of Carbapenemases Directly from Positive Blood Cultures Using an Immunochromatographic Test. Antibiotics 2025, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodendoerfer, E.; Keller, P.M.; Mancini, S. Rapid identification of NDM-, KPC-, IMP-, VIM- and OXA-48-like carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriales from blood cultures by a multiplex lateral flow immunoassay. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1749–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stokes, W.; Pitout, J.; Campbell, L.; Church, D.; Gregson, D. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing organisms directly from blood cultures positive for Gram-negative bacilli. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 40, 381–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahmani, S.; Basu, S.; Simner, P.J.; Kambli, P.; Shetty, A.; Rodrigues, C. Evaluation of the rapid lateral flow assay (LFA) for detection of five major carbapenemase enzyme families in genotypically characterised bacterial isolates. Indian J. Med. Res. 2025, 161, 695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, K.C.; Pfaller, M.A.; Karlowsky, J.; Landry, M.L.; McAdam, A.J.; Patel, R.; Pritt, B.S. (Eds.) Manual of Clinical Microbiology; 4 Volume Set; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.; Wu, Y.; Deng, G.; Deng, J. Value of sputum Gram stain, sputum culture, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid Gram stain in predicting single bacterial pathogen among children with community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Pulm. Med. 2022, 22, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, N.; Jahan, R.; Varshney, A.; Banik, D.; Gupta, A.; Kaushal, A.; Singh, N.P. Small steps, big impact: Effect of mandatory sputum quality assessment prior to sputum culture processing on quality of samples received. Ann. Natl. Acad. Med. Sci. 2025, 61, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poirel, L.; Walsh, T.R.; Cuvillier, V.; Nordmann, P. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 70, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawande, P.P.; Wankhade, R.S.; Akhtar, F.I.; Noman, O. Turnaround time: An efficacy measure for medical laboratories. Cureus 2022, 14, e28824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CLSIM100; Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2022.
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badran, S.G.; Malek, M.M.; Ateya, R.M.; Afifi, A.H.; Magdy, M.M.; Elgharabawy, E.S. Susceptibility of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates to new antibiotics from a tertiary care hospital, Egypt: A matter of hope. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2022, 16, 1852–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raheel, A.S.; Azab, H.; Hessam, W.; Abbadi, S.; Ezzat, A. Detection of carbapenemase enzymes and genes among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates in Suez Canal University Hospitals in Ismailia, Egypt. Microbes Infect. Dis. 2020, 1, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elrahem, A.A.; El-Mashad, N.; Elshaer, M.; Ramadan, H.; Damiani, G.; Bahgat, M.; Mercuri, S.R.; Elemshaty, W. Carbapenem resistance in Gram-negative bacteria: A hospital-based study in Egypt. Medicina 2023, 59, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lathakumari, R.H.; Vajravelu, L.K.; Thulukanam, J.; Nair, D.M.; Vimala, P.B.; Panneerselvam, V. Prevalence and molecular insights into carbapenem resistance: A 2-year retrospective analysis of superbugs in South India. Front. Med. 2025, 12, 1571231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkaik, F.A.; Rakha, E.B.; Alkhateeb, A.A.; Al-Zahrani, I.A. Molecular characterization of Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli associated with nosocomial infections in Hail, Saudi Arabia. Ann. Saudi Med. 2026, 46, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Xu, Z.; Xu, L.; Liu, D. Analysis of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Resistance in a Hospital in Kunming Over the Past Two Years. Infect. Drug Resist. 2025, 18, 6335–6351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotb, S.; Lyman, M.; Ismail, G.; Abd El Fattah, M.; Girgis, S.A.; Etman, A.; Hafez, S.; El-Kholy, J.; Zaki, M.E.; Rashed, H.A.; et al. Epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Egyptian intensive care units using National Healthcare–associated Infections Surveillance Data, 2011–2017. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2020, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juliet, R.; Nachimuthu, R. Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae from clinical infections: A multifactorial analysis of resistance, virulence, and biofilm potential. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2025, 15, 1712034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gellatly, S.L.; Hancock, R.E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: New insights into pathogenesis and host defenses. Pathog. Dis. 2013, 67, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gedefie, A.; Demsis, W.; Ashagrie, M.; Kassa, Y.; Tesfaye, M.; Tilahun, M.; Bisetegn, H.; Sahle, Z. Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm formation and its role in disease pathogenesis: A review. Infection and drug resistance. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 14, 3711–3719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdelaziz, N.A. Phenotype-genotype correlations among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales recovered from four Egyptian hospitals with the report of SPM carbapenemase. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2022, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoala, A.R.; Nassar, Y.; El-Kholy, A.A.; Soliman, N.S.; Abdel-Fattah, A.; El-Ghawaby, H. Clinical predispositions, features, and outcomes of infections with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales among critical care patients. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. Peer-Rev. Off. Publ. Indian Soc. Crit. Care Med. 2024, 29, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taha, M.S.; Gabr, B.M.; Elaziz, W.A.; Elgohary, A.M.; Kasem, B.S.; Elkolaly, R.M.; Elatrozy, H.I.; Emam, M.N.; Essawy, A.S.; Eldin, H.E.; et al. Comparison of Commercial Lateral Flow Immunochromatography with Phenotypic and Genotypic Assays for the Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria at Tanta University Hospitals. Microorganisms 2025, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitout, J.D.; Peirano, G.; Kock, M.M.; Strydom, K.A.; Matsumura, Y. The global ascendency of OXA-48-type carbapenemases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 33, 10-1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yıldız, S.S.; Arıcasoy, Ö.N.; Bakkaloğlu, Z.; Ünaldı, Ö.; Hekimoğlu, C.H.; Güreser, A.S.; Mumcuoğlu, İ.; Dal, T. Comparative analysis of two lateral flow immunoassays for carbapenemase detection in Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Acta Microbiol. Et Immunol. Hung. 2026, 16, 030-2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benhadid-Brahmi, Y.; Amaris, H.C.; Abdelmoumene, L.; Jaouen, E.; Magnan, M.; Gits-Muselli, M.; Lescat, M.; Tenaillon, O.; Bonacorsi, S.; Birgy, A. Evaluation of phenotypic and genotypic methods for detecting KPC variants. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2025, 69, e00082-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.H.; Cao, H.; Jiang, S.; Wong, T.T.; Tse, C.W.; Ho, P.L. Inoculum size and false-positive detection of NDM-and OXA-48-type carbapenemases using two multiplex lateral flow assays. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jenkins, S.; Ledeboer, N.A.; Westblade, L.F.; Burnham, C.A.; Faron, M.L.; Bergman, Y.; Yee, R.; Mesich, B.; Gerstbrein, D.; Wallace, M.A.; et al. Evaluation of NG-Test Carba 5 for rapid phenotypic detection and differentiation of five common carbapenemase families: Results of a multicenter clinical evaluation. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 58, 10-1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, J.; Kim, C.H.; Yoon, S.Y.; Lim, C.S.; Lee, C.K. Application of a multiplex immunochromatographic assay for rapid identification of carbapenemases in a clinical microbiology laboratory: Performance and turn-around-time evaluation of NG-test Carba 5. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takissian, J.; Bonnin, R.A.; Naas, T.; Dortet, L. NG-Test Carba 5 for Rapid Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales from Positive Blood Cultures. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e00011-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]


| Standard Culture-Based Results | Number of Isolates n/Total (%) | Blood n/Total (%) | Urine n/Total (%) | Respiratory n/Total (%) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETT | BAL | |||||
| Gram-negative Bacteria | 124/300 (41.3%) | 20/124 (16.1%) | 54/124 (44.5%) | 25/124 (20.1%) | 25/124 (20.1%) | <0.01 |
| 60/124 (48.3%) | 12/60 (20%) | 18/60 (30%) | 15/60 (25%) | 15/60 (25%) | |
| 64/124 (51.6%) | 8/64 (12.5%) | 36/64 (56.3%) | 10/64 (15.6%) | 10/64 (15.6%) | |
| Gram-Positive Bacteria | 53/300 (17.7%) | 23/53 (43.3%) | 8/53 (15.1%) | 7/53 (13.2%) | 15/53 (28.3%) | |
| Candida spp. | 12/300 (4%) | 5/12 (41.7%) | 5/12 (41.7%) | 2/12 (16.7%) | 0/12 (0%) | |
| No Growth/Non-Significant Flora | 111/300 (37%) | 52/111 (46.8%) | 33/111 (29.7%) | 16/111 (14.4%) | 10/111 (9%) | |
| Total | 300/300 (100%) | 100/300 (33.3%) | 100/300 (33.3%) | 50/300 (16.7%) | 50/300 (16.7%) | |
| Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria | Number of Isolates (%) | Blood Samples | Urine Samples | Respiratory Samples | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETT | BAL | |||||
| Fermenters | 34 (56.6%) | 0.423 | ||||
| 25 (38.5%) | 5 (20%) | 10 (40%) | 5 (20%) | 5 (20%) | |
| 7 (10.8%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (57.1%) | 2 (28.6%) | 1 (14.3%) | |
| 2 (3.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | |
| Non-fermenters | 26 (43.3%) | |||||
| 15 (23.1%) | 5 (33.3%) | 1 (6.7%) | 4 (26.7%) | 5 (33.3%) | |
| 11 (16.9%) | 2 (18.2%) | 3 (27.3%) | 3 (27.3%) | 3 (27.3%) | |
| Total | 60 (100%) | 12 (20%) | 18 (30%) | 15 (25%) | 15 (25%) | |
| Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Isolates | Total Isolates n = 60 | blaNDM n = 35 (58.3%) | blaOXA-48 n = 25 (41.6%) | blaKPC n = 24 (40%) | blaVIM n = 22 (36.6%) | blaIMP n = 29 (48.3%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fermenters | 34 | |||||
| 25 | 15 (60%) | 11 (44%) | 9 (36%) | 11 (44%) | 14 (56%) |
| 7 | 0 (0%) | 2 (28%) | 2 (28%) | 2 (28%) | 2 (28%) |
| 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (50%) | 0 (0%) |
| Non-Fermenters | 26 | |||||
| 15 | 11 (73%) | 9 (60%) | 6 (40%) | 4 (26%) | 7 (46%) |
| 11 | 10 (90%) | 3 (27%) | 7 (63%) | 4 (36%) | 6 (54%) |
| Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Isolates | Gene Target | Raw Outcomes (TP/FP/FN/TN) | Sensitivity % (95% CI) | Specificity % (95% CI) | Accuracy % | Cohen’s Kappa (κ) * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fermenters | ||||||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 25) | ||||||
| blaNDM | 11/0/4/10 | 73.3% | 100% | 84.0% | 0.687 | |
| blaOXA-48 | 11/5/0/9 | 100% | 64.3% | 80.0% | 0.613 | |
| blaKPC | 9/0/0/16 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaVIM | 3/0/8/14 | 27.3% | 100% | 68.0% | 0.296 | |
| blaIMP | 12/0/2/11 | 85.7% | 100% | 92.0% | 0.841 | |
| Escherichia coli (n = 7) | ||||||
| blaNDM | 0/0/0/7 | N/A * | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaOXA-48 | 2/0/0/5 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaKPC | 0/0/2/5 | 0.0% | 100% | 71.4% | 0.000 | |
| blaVIM | 0/0/2/5 | 0.0% | 100% | 71.4% | 0.000 | |
| blaIMP | 0/0/2/5 | 0.0% | 100% | 71.4% | 0.000 | |
| Enterobacter cloacae (n = 2) | ||||||
| blaNDM | 0/0/0/2 | N/A * | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaOXA-48 | 0/0/0/2 | N/A * | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaKPC | 0/0/0/2 | N/A * | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaVIM | 0/0/1/1 | 0.0% | 100% | 50.0% | 0.000 | |
| blaIMP | 0/0/0/2 | N/A * | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| Non-fermenters | ||||||
| Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 15) | ||||||
| blaNDM | 11/1/0/3 | 100% | 75.0% | 93.3% | 0.815 | |
| blaOXA-48 | 9/0/0/6 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| blaKPC | 6/1/0/8 | 100% | 88.9% | 93.3% | 0.865 | |
| blaVIM | 0/0/4/11 | 0.0% | 100% | 73.3% | 0.000 | |
| blaIMP | 7/0/0/8 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 1.000 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 11) | ||||||
| blaNDM | 10/1/0/0 | 100% | 0.0% ** | 90.9% | 0.000 ** | |
| blaOXA-48 | 3/1/0/7 | 100% | 87.5% | 90.9% | 0.792 | |
| blaKPC | 5/0/2/4 | 71.4% | 100% | 81.8% | 0.645 | |
| blaVIM | 1/0/3/7 | 25.0% | 100% | 72.7% | 0.298 | |
| blaIMP | 5/0/1/5 | 83.3% | 100% | 90.9% | 0.820 |
| Clinical Matrix | Carbapenemase Genotype Target | PCR Positive N (%) | LFIA Positive N (%) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | Cohen’s Kappa (κ) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood (n = 12) | blaNDM | 7 (58.3%) | 6 (50%) | 85.7% (42.1–99.6) | 100% (47.8–100) | 100% (59.8–100) | 83.3% (35.9–99.6) | 91.7% | 0.833 | 0.003 |
| blaOXA-48 | 5 (41.7%) | 5 (41.7%) | 80.0% (28.4–99.5) | 85.7% (42.1–99.6) | 80.0% (28.4–99.5) | 85.7% (42.1–99.6) | 83.3% | 0.657 | 0.023 | |
| blaKPC | 4 (33.3%) | 3 (25%) | 75.0% (19.4–99.4) | 100% (63.1–100) | 100% (47.8–100) | 88.9% (51.8–99.7) | 91.7% | 0.800 | 0.005 ** | |
| blaVIM | 3 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 0% (0–70.8) | 100% (66.4–100) | 0.0% (0–100) | 75.0% (39.0–94.0) | 75% | - | - | |
| blaIMP | 4 (33.3%) | 3 (25%) | 75.0% (19.4–99.4) | 100% (63.1–100) | 100% (47.8–100) | 88.9% (51.8–99.7) | 91.6% | 0.800 | 0.005 | |
| Urine (n = 18) | blaNDM | 7 (38.9%) | 6 (33.3%) | 85.7% (42.1–99.6) | 100% (71.5–100) | 100% (59.8–100) | 91.7% (61.5–99.8) | 94.4% | 0.880 | <0.001 ** |
| blaOXA-48 | 6 (33.3%) | 7 (38.9%) | 83.3% (35.9–99.6) | 83.3% (35.9–99.6) | 71.4% (29.0–96.3) | 90.9% (58.7–99.8) | 83.3% | 0.640 | 0.006 ** | |
| blaKPC | 7 (38.9%) | 5 (27.8%) | 71.4% (29.0–96.3) | 100% (71.5–100) | 100% (59.0–100) | 84.6% (54.6–98.1) | 88.9% | 0.753 | <0.001 ** | |
| blaVIM | 6 (33.3%) | 1 (5.6%) | 16.7% (0.4–64.1) | 100% (73.5–100) | 100% (2.5–100) | 70.6% (44.0–89.7) | 72.2% | 0.211 | 0.146 | |
| blaIMP | 10 (55.6%) | 7 (38.9%) | 70.0% (34.8–93.3) | 100% (63.1–100) | 100% (59.8–100) | 72.7% (39.0–94.0) | 83.33% | 0.675 | 0.002 ** | |
| Respiratory (n = 30) | blaNDM | 22 (62.9%) | 22 (62.9%) | 90.9% (70.8–98.9) | 84.6% (54.6–98.1) | 90.9% (70.8–98.9) | 84.6% (54.6–98.1) | 88.5% | 0.755 | <0.001 ** |
| blaOXA-48 | 14 (40%) | 20 (57.1%) | 85.7% (57.2–98.2) | 61.9% (38.4–81.9) | 60.0% (36.1–80.9) | 86.7% (59.5–98.3) | 71.4% | 0.444 | 0.005 ** | |
| blaKPC | 13 (37.1%) | 13 (37.1%) | 84.6% (54.6–98.1) | 90.9% (70.8–98.9) | 84.6% (54.6–98.1) | 90.9% (70.8–98.9) | 88.6% | 0.755 | <0.001 ** | |
| blaVIM | 13 (37.1%) | 3 (8.6%) | 23.1% (5.0–53.8) | 100% (84.6–100) | 100% (29.2–100) | 68.8% (50.0–83.9) | 71.42% | 0.274 | 0.018 * | |
| blaIMP | 15 (42.9%) | 14 (40%) | 86.7% (59.5–98.3 | 95.0% (75.1–99.9) | 92.9% (66.1–99.8) | 90.5% (69.6–98.8) | 91.42% | 0.824 | <0.001 ** |
| Sample Matrix (n = 60) | Protocol | Mean TAT ± SD (min) | Median TAT (IQR) (min) | Range (Min–Max) (min) | p-Value LFIA vs. PCR | p-Value PCR vs. Routine Culture | p-Value LFIA vs. Routine Culture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood (n = 12) | Direct LFIA | 48.58 ± 10.66 | 44 (22) | 27 (36–63) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Culture-enhanced PCR | 1740.83 ± 217.3 | 1766 (432) | 650 (1453–2103) | ||||
| Routine Culture +VITEK2 ID and AST | 4293.83 ± 1087.6 | 4414 (1946) | 2858 (2901–5759) | ||||
| Urine (n = 18) | Direct LFIA | 52.56 ± 7.7 | 54.5 (13) | 25 (37–62) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Culture-enhanced PCR | 1813.9 ± 226.1 | 1803 (430) | 705 (1448–2153) | ||||
| Routine Culture, VITEK2 ID and AST | 4012.5 ± 754.4 | 4059 (1369) | 2570 (3013–5583) | ||||
| Respiratory (n = 30) | Direct LFIA | 51.4 ± 9.35 | 52 (17) | 29 (35–64) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Culture-enhanced PCR | 1713.9 ± 170.1 | 1725 (260) | 653 (1447–2100) | ||||
| Routine Culture, VITEK2 ID and AST | 4014.74 ± 837.3 | 3816 (1669) | 2649 (2918–5567) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Gabr, B.M.; Gadallah, M.A.E.-A.; Abd Elaziz, W.; Metwally, S.; Mashaal, R.G.; Abd Ellatif, R.A.; Elkhouly, A.G.; Salem, H.; Oraiby, A.E.; Kasem, B.S.; et al. Direct-from-Specimen Detection of Major Carbapenemases by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set: Comparative Analysis of Accuracy and Turnaround Time. Pathogens 2026, 15, 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15060634
Gabr BM, Gadallah MAE-A, Abd Elaziz W, Metwally S, Mashaal RG, Abd Ellatif RA, Elkhouly AG, Salem H, Oraiby AE, Kasem BS, et al. Direct-from-Specimen Detection of Major Carbapenemases by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set: Comparative Analysis of Accuracy and Turnaround Time. Pathogens. 2026; 15(6):634. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15060634
Chicago/Turabian StyleGabr, Basant Mostafa, Mona Abd El-Aziz Gadallah, Wafaa Abd Elaziz, Sama Metwally, Raghda Gabr Mashaal, Rasha A. Abd Ellatif, Ahmed G. Elkhouly, Hanan Salem, Amira E. Oraiby, Bsant S. Kasem, and et al. 2026. "Direct-from-Specimen Detection of Major Carbapenemases by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set: Comparative Analysis of Accuracy and Turnaround Time" Pathogens 15, no. 6: 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15060634
APA StyleGabr, B. M., Gadallah, M. A. E.-A., Abd Elaziz, W., Metwally, S., Mashaal, R. G., Abd Ellatif, R. A., Elkhouly, A. G., Salem, H., Oraiby, A. E., Kasem, B. S., Abdelbaky, S., Elkolaly, R. M., & Taha, M. S. (2026). Direct-from-Specimen Detection of Major Carbapenemases by Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set: Comparative Analysis of Accuracy and Turnaround Time. Pathogens, 15(6), 634. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15060634

