Comparison of the NG-Test Carba 5, Colloidal Gold Immunoassay (CGI) Test, and Xpert Carba-R for the Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases in Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms
by
, and
Danxia Gu
1,
Zelin Yan
2,
Chang Cai
3,
Jiaping Li
2,
Yanyan Zhang
2,
Yuchen Wu
2,
Jiaxing Yang
2,
Yonglu Huang
2,
Rong Zhang
2,* and
Yongning Wu
4,* 1
Laboratory Medicine Center, Department of Clinical Laboratory, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Affiliated People’s Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China
2
Department of Clinical Laboratory, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China
3
College of Animal Science and Technology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Zhejiang Agricultural and Forestry University, Hangzhou 311300, China
4
NHC Key Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment, China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Research Unit of Food Safety, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2019RU014), Beijing 100022, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(2), 300; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020300
Submission received: 14 November 2022
/
Revised: 28 December 2022
/
Accepted: 11 January 2023
/
Published: 2 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Antimicrobial Use in the Hospital: Challenges and Possible Solutions)
Abstract
:Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are increasingly recognized as an urgent public health concern. The rapid and accurate identification of carbapenemases could provide insights into antimicrobial therapy and infection control. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of three different methods, including the NG-test Carba 5, colloidal gold immunoassay (CGI) test, and Xpert Carba-R assay, for the rapid detection of five carbapenemases (KPC, NDM, IMP, OXA-48, and VIM). A total of 207 Gram-negative strains collected from patients and hospital sewages were tested. The presence or absence of carbapenemase genes in the whole-genome sequences was used as the gold standard for evaluating the accuracy of the above-mentioned three methods. Among the 192 strains carrying only one carbapenemase gene, the accuracies of the NG-Test Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R were 96.88% (95% CI, 93.01–98.72%), 96.88% (95% CI, 93.01–98.72%), and 97.92% (95% CI, 94.41–99.33%), respectively. Xpert Carba-R was able to detect all 13 types of KPC variants, including KPC-2, KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-33, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-52, KPC-71, KPC-76, KPC-77, KPC-78, KPC-93, and KPC-123, with a detection sensitivity of 100.00% (95% CI, 96.50–100.00%), a specificity of 100.00% (95% CI, 92.38–100.00%), and a κ index of 1.00. For IMP, Carba 5 was superior to the other two methods, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 71.66–100.00%), a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 97.38–100.00%), and a κ index of 1.00. For the remaining 15 strains carrying two or three kinds of carbapenemase genes, Carba 5 performed the best, which accurately identified all the target genes, followed by Xpert Carba-R (12/15, 80.00%) and the CGI test (10/15, 66.67%). Therefore, all three assays demonstrated reliable performances in carbapenemase detection, and Xpert Carba-R should be recommended for the detection of KPC variants, especially for patients at a high risk of infections caused by ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant strains. IMPORTANCE: CRE was listed as one of the top three pathogens that are in critical need of new antibiotics by the WHO. The rapid and accurate identification of carbapenemases is important for antimicrobial therapy and infection control. In recent years, new beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations such as ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to cope with CRE challenges. CZA was effective against class A, class C, and some class D enzymes such as OXA-48-like. However, CZA-resistant KPC variants emerged at an alarming speed, which posed a new challenge for the accurate identification of KPC variants. In this study, we evaluated the performance of two lateral flow immunochromatographic assays, namely, NG-test Carba 5 and the CGI test, and the automated real-time quantitative PCR Xpert Carba-R in the rapid detection of carbapenemases. Notably, 13 types of KPC variants were enrolled in this study, which covered most KPC variants discovered in China. Carba-R was superior to NG-teat Carba 5 and the CGI test; it was able to detect all of the included KPC variants, including KPC-2, KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-33, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-52, KPC-71, KPC-76, KPC-77, KPC-78, KPC-93, and KPC-123.
1. Introduction
Antimicrobial resistance is one of the leading public health threats of the 21st century. According to a recent report [1], an estimated 4.95 million (3.62–6.57) deaths were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019, among which 1.27 million (95% UI, 0.911–1.71) were attributed to bacterial antimicrobial resistance. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) which undergo global transmission are increasingly recognized as an urgent threat. Data from the China CRE Network in 2015 indicated that the incidence of CRE infection was 4.0/10,000, and the mortality was 33.50% [2]. In the USA, CRE admission was 57 per 100,000 admissions, and the 30-day mortality was 24% [3]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), CRE is one of the top three pathogens that are in critical need of new antibiotics.
The production of carbapenemases is the major cause of carbapenem resistance in CRE strains [4]. Carbapenemases typically belong to three classes of β-lactamases: classes A, B, and D. Among class A carbapenemases, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) are the most prevalent. NDM, IMP, and VIM are the representative class B metallo-β-lactamases. Oxacillinase (OXA)-48-like β-lactamases are the most common Class D carbapenemases. Han et al. reported that carbapenemases were detected in 97.43% of CRE strains in China from 2016 to 2018, with KPC-2 being dominant (51.55%), followed by NDM (35.72%) and OXA-48-like (7.27%) [5].
Infections caused by CRE strains are often difficult to treat. New beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations such as ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to cope with CRE challenges. CZA can exert a potent inhibitory function against class A, class C, and some class D β-lactamases (such as OXA-48-like), but it is ineffective against class B metallo-β-lactamases [6]. The rapid and accurate identification of carbapenemases can provide insights into antimicrobial therapy and infection control.
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommended several tests for the determination of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Carba NP is rapid and can be finished in two hours, but it requires some reagents which have to be prepared in the laboratory and have short shelf lives. Modified carbapenem inactivation methods (mCIM) and mCIM with eCIM are based on overnight cultivation. Various methods have been developed for the rapid detection of carbapenemases, such as the biochemical assay-based Nitro Speed-Carba NP Test [7], lateral flow immunochromatographic assay NG-test Carba 5 [8], and automated real-time quantitative PCR Xpert Carba-R [9]. In this study, the performances of the NG-test Carba 5, colloidal gold immunoassay (CGI) test, and Xpert Carba-R assay were analyzed with carbapenemase-producing strains isolated from patients and hospital sewages.
2. Results
Of the 207 strains tested in this study, 192 strains carried a single carbapenemase gene covering 19 types of carbapenemase-encoding genes, including blaKPC (120 blaKPC-2 and 13 blaKPC variants), blaNDM (19 blaNDM-1, 24 blaNDM-5, and 1 blaNDM-13), blaIMP (2 blaIMP-1, 4 blaIMP-4, 2 blaIMP-8, 1 blaIMP-25, 2 blaIMP-26, and 2 blaIMP-30), and blaOXA-48-like (1 blaOXA-181 and 1 blaOXA-232). Additionally, 15 strains co-producing two or three types of carbapenemases were also tested Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Regarding strains with single carbapenemase genes, the overall accuracy of the NG-Test Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R was 96.88% (95% CI, 93.01–98.72%), 96.88% (95% CI, 93.01–98.72%), and 97.92% (95% CI, 94.41–99.33%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity varied with different types of carbapenemases, as shown in Table 1. For the detection of different variants of KPC, Xpert Carba-R was superior to the other two methods, with a sensitivity of 100.00% (95% CI, 96.50–100.00%) and a specificity of 100.00% (95% CI, 92.38–100.00%). Compared to the WGS results, the κ index of Xpert Carba-R was 1.00. NG-test Carba 5 missed six target Carbapenemases, while the CGI test missed two targets, leading to a sensitivity of 95.49% (95% CI, 90.02–98.15%) and 98.50% (95% CI, 94.12–99.74%), respectively. The κ indexes of NG-test Carba 5 and the CGI test were 0.93 and 0.98, respectively. As for NDM, the two immunochromatographic assays accurately detected all of the target carbapenemases with a sensitivity of 100.00% (95% CI, 90.00–100.00%) and a specificity of 100.00% (95% CI, 96.85–100.00%), whilst Xpert Carba-R missed two targets, with one false-negative result and one false-positive result, leading to a sensitivity of 97.73% (95% CI, 86.49–99.88%) and a specificity of 99.32% (95% CI, 95.73–99.96%). Compared with the results of the WGS, the κ indexes of the NG-test Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R were 1.00, 1.00, and 0.97, respectively. For IMP, NG-test Carba 5 performed the best; it identified all the variants with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 71.66–100.00%) and a specificity of 100.00% (95% CI, 97.38–100.00%). This was followed by Xpert Carba-R, which missed three targets and exhibited a sensitivity of 76.92% (95% CI, 45.98–93.83%), and the CGI test, which missed four targets and had a sensitivity of 69.23% (95% CI, 38.89–89.65%) and a specificity of 100.00% (95% CI, 97.38–100.00%). The κ indexes of the Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R were 1.00, 0.81, and 0.86, respectively. For the OXA-48-like carbapenemase, all three methods reported the detection of OXA with a κ index of 1.00. As for VIM, only one Enterobacter cloacae strain co-producing VIM-1 and NDM-1 was included in the current study, which was accurately detected by all three methods.
Except for KPC-2 and KPC-3, 11 other types of KPC variants were included, as shown in Table 2, covering KPC-25, KPC-33, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-52, KPC-71, KPC-76, KPC-77, KPC-78, KPC-93, and KPC-123. NG-test Carba 5 detected 6 out of the 12 KPC variants, including KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-78, and KPC-93. As for the CGI test, KPC-76 and KPC-123 were not detected. Xpert Carba-R accurately identified all 12 targets. Overall, KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-78, and KPC-93 could be detected by all three methods.
For IMP, six types of IMP variants were included, covering IMP-1, IMP-4, IMP-8, IMP-25, IMP-26, and IMP-30 (shown in Table 3). NG-test Carba 5 detected all IMP variants, while the CGI test missed one IMP-8-producing Aeromonas hydrophila, one IMP-26-producing K. penumoniae, and two IMP-30-producing K. pneumoniae. Regarding Xpert Carba-R, one IMP-4-producing A. hydrophila was misidentified as NDM, and two IMP-8-producing strains (1 A. hydrophila and 1 P. aeruginosa) were not detected.
The detection results for strains with multiple carbapenemase genes are shown in Table 4. NG-test Carba 5 detected all 15 strains accurately. For the CGI test, three Klebsiella spp. strains co-producing KPC-2 and IMP-4 were reported as KPC-producing, and two K. oxytoca strains co-producing NDM-1 and IMP-4 were reported as NDM-producing. Regarding Xpert Carba-R, one Klebsiella michiganensis with the coexistence of KPC-2, NDM-1, and IMP-4 was detected as KPC and NDM. Additionally, two P. aeruginosa strains co-producing IMP-45 and NDM-1 were reported as IMP-producing.
3. Discussion
The rapid and accurate detection of carbapenemase is of significant importance to tackling the threat caused by the global transmission of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Carbapenemase detection is not only important for effective clinical chemotherapy against infections but also for the prevention and control of carbapenemase-producing strains in healthcare-associated environments. Several methods have been developed for the detection of carbapenemase. Some of the methods, such as the phenotypic characterization of the carbapenem-hydrolyzing activity, involve a complex operation with a long turn-around time, and their application in clinical laboratories is therefore restricted. In this study, the performances of three commercial kits for the detection of carbapenemases (KPC, NDM, IMP, VIM, and OXA-48-like), namely, the NG-test Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R, were evaluated with clinical and hospital sewage carbapenemase-producing strains.
As reported, all three assays were able to shorten the turnaround time to less than two hours and directly identify carbapenemases from clinical samples [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Overall, the three methods demonstrated an excellent detection performance among CRE strains. With regard to Klebsiella spp., the accuracy of Carba-R was the highest (100.00%), followed by the CGI test (98.09%) and Carba 5 (96.82%). For E. coli, the accuracies of Carba 5 and the CGI test were both 100.00%, and that of Carba-R was 96.00%. Additionally, the accuracy of each assay varied with different types of carbapenemases, especially for the KPC variants and IMP variants.
Despite the fact that CZA was recently introduced for chemotherapy, the in vivo evolution of CZA-resistant strains after prolonged treatment were reported [14,15,16]. Previous studies demonstrated that the majority of CZA-resistant strains produced KPC-2 or KPC-3 variants [17,18,19]. The most frequently identified mutation was Asp179Tyr (D179Y), which was located within the omega loop of the KPC enzyme [17,18,19]. So far, 123 types of KPC variants have been deposited in the NCBI database, among which 50 types were resistant to beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pathogens/refgene/#KPC, accessed on 4 September 2022). In this study, 13 types of KPC variants were tested with the Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R, and KPC-2 and KPC-3 were accurately identified by all three methods. Although various studies have evaluated the performance of NG-test Carba 5 and Xpert Carba-R, KPC variants-producing strains were seldom studied. According to the previous studies [20,21], Carba 5 could detect KPC-3, KPC-14, KPC-35, KPC-78, and KPC-79. In the current study, Carba 5 could detect KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-78, and KPC-93, while KPC-33, KPC-52, KPC-71, KPC-76, KPC-77, and KPC-123 were not detected by Carba 5. KPC-33, KPC-52, and KPC-76 all possessed the D179Y substitution, KPC-71 had an amino acid insertion at position 181, KPC-77 had an amino acid substitution at position 164, and KPC-123 had amino acid insertions at positions 179 and 270. The majority of those mutations were located inside the omega loop of KPC enzymes (R164-D179). To be concerned, some KPC variants such as KPC31 and KPC33 could no longer be considered as carbapenemases, as they had lost their carbapenemase activity. In this study, KPC-33, KPC-52, KPC-71, and KPC-123 belonged to cephalosporinases rather than carbapenemases, while KPC-76 and KPC-77 had poor carbapenemase activity. As opposed to Queslati’s study [22], which reported that NG-test Carba 5 demonstrated a sensitivity of 100.00% for the detection of KPC enzymes with carbapenemase activity, in the current study, NG-test Carba 5 missed two KPC-type carbapenemases with low activity. As for the CGI test, ten types of KPC variants were accurately identified, including KPC-3, KPC-25, KPC-33, KPC-35, KPC-51, KPC-52, KPC-71, KPC-77, KPC-78, and KPC-93, but two variants, KPC-76 and KPC-123, were missed. Distinct from the former two methods, Carba-R was based on real-time PCR, which was less affected by gene mutations. Carba-R demonstrated a perfect performance in the detection all of the KPC variants, with a sensitivity of 100.00% and a specificity of 100.00%, which was in line with the findings of Ding et al. [20].
Compared with KPC, IMP is less prevalent in China. According to our previous nationwide surveillance of clinical CRE strains [23], 3% CRE produced IMP carbapenemase, all of which was encoded by blaIMP-4. In this study, six variants of IMP were included, and NG-test Carba 5 successfully identified all of these IMP variants, including IMP-1, IMP-4, IMP-8, IMP-25, IMP-26, and IMP-30. As was reported in previous studies [24,25,26,27,28], NG-test Carba 5 was designed to cover almost all IMP variants, including IMP-1, IMP-2, IMP-4, IMP-5, IMP-6, IMP-7, IMP-8, IMP-10, IMP-11, IMP-19, IMP-26, IMP-29, IMP-39, and IMP-79. However, due to the diversity of the IMP variants, some false-negative results were also reported, such as for IMP-13, IMP-14, IMP-15, IMP-18, IMP-37, IMP-63, IMP-66, and IMP-71 [24,26,27]. In comparison, the CGI test accurately identified nine strains with IMP variants (including IMP-1, IMP-4, IMP-8, and IMP-25) and reported four false-negative results. Interestingly, a recent study by Zhang et al. [8] reported that the CGI test failed to detect IMP-8; however, in the current study, IMP-8 was successfully identified in P. aeruginosa, but there was a failure to detect IMP-8 in A. hydrophila. The distinct expression levels of IMP-8 in different strains might throw light upon the contradiction. Regarding Xpert Carba-R, the overall sensitivity was 76.92%, and Carba-R successfully detected IMP-1, IMP-25, IMP-26, and IMP-30. Confusingly, a blaIMP-4-carrying A. hydrophila was misidentified as NDM-producing, whilst a blaIMP-4-carrying K. oxytoca was accurately identified. Two IMP-8-producing strains were identified as false-negative by Carba-R. According to the manufacturer’s datasheet, Carba-R was designed to detect IMP-4 and IMP-8 based on in silico analysis; nevertheless, IMP-8 could not be detected in several reports [8,29]. The low copy number of the carbapenemase genes in the tested strains might be the reason for the failure in the detection by Carba-R. Additionally, various mutations located in primer- or probe-binding regions might affect the effective detection by Carba-R.
Regarding strains with multiple carbapenemase genes, NG-test Carba 5 successfully identified all these carbapenemases. In comparison, the CGI test missed IMP-4 in five strains, including three strains co-producing KPC-2 and IMP-4 and two strains co-producing NDM-1 and IMP-4. IMP-4 was perfectly detected in strains with a single carbapenemase gene, as shown in our study. Interferences caused by other antibodies might exist, which could affect the co-detection of multiple resistance genes. As for Xpert Carba-R, a missed detection of IMP-4 in one strain of K. michiganensis co-carrying blaKPC-2, blaNDM-1, and blaIMP-4 was reported. Additionally, only IMP was reported in two P. aeruginosa strains co-producing IMP-45 and NDM-1. The low copy number of the associated genes might be the reason for the false-negative results. Overall, for strains with multiple carbapenemase genes, other regular methods such as antimicrobial susceptibility testing and phenotypic characterization should be conducted to resolve the resistance mechanisms.
Our study has some limitations. First, only one VIM-producing strain and two OXA-48-like-producing strains were included here; thus, the performance of these methods in the detection and VIM and OXA-48-like carbapenemases should be further evaluated in future studies. Purified colonies were subjected to the detection in this study, which might not accurately reflect the performance of detection methods; thus, clinical samples should be included in further studies.
In conclusion, we conducted a comparison of the performances of two lateral flow immunochromatographic assays, namely, NG-test Carba 5 and the CGI test, and the automatic real-time quantitative PCR Xpert Carba-R in carbapenemases detection. In comparison with the WGS results, all three methods demonstrated a decent accuracy and high accordance. However, the sensitivity and specificity of each method varied for different kinds of carbapenemases. For the detection of KPC variants, especially for those CZA-resistant strains, PCR-based Xpert Carba-R was superior to the other two methods. For the detection of IMP, Carba 5 was more potent than Carba-R and the CGI test. Notably, different methods including antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be considered for strains with negative results in carbapenemase detection.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Strain Source
A total of 207 carbapenemase-producing strains collected from patients and hospital sewages were enrolled in this study, including Escherichia coli (n = 36), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 125), Klebsiella oxytoca (n = 25), Klebsiella variicola (n = 1), Klebsiella michiganensis (n = 1), Enterobacter kobei (n = 1), Enterobacter cloacae (n = 2), Enterobacter xiangfangensis (n = 1), Citrobacter freundii (n = 3), Citrobacter koseri (n = 1), Raoultella ornithinolytica (n = 2), Aeromonas hydrophila (n = 3), and P. aeruginosa (n = 6). The strains were inoculated onto Columbia blood agar (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) and cultivated overnight at 35 °C with 5% CO2. Vitek MS (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) was used for the preliminary species identification, and whole-genome sequencing was performed for the accurate identification of species and resistance genes.
4.2. Whole-Genome Sequencing and Genome Analysis
The Hipure Bacterial DNA kit (Magen, Shanghai, China) was used for the DNA extraction. The extracted DNA was subjected to WGS sequencing by Illumina (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The reads were de novo assembled by SPAdes v3.13.1, and the carriage of antimicrobial resistance genes was identified at the Center for Genomic Epidemiology (CGE) (http://www.genomicepidemiology.org/services/, accessed on 4 September 2022) using ResFinder 4.1.
4.3. NG-Test Carba 5 Assay
According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the NG-test Carba 5 assay (NG Biotech, Guipry, France) was used for the detection of carbapenemases including KPC, IMP, NDM, VIM, and OXA-48-like. A colony of a pure cultivated strain was mixed with five drops of lysis buffer. After vortexing, the mixture should be left at 20–25 for ten minutes. Then, 100 μL of the mixture was transferred to the NG-Test Carba5 cassette. The results were read after 15 min of incubation.
4.4. Colloidal Gold Immunoassay (CGI) Test
A CGI test (Gold Mountain River Tech Development Company, Beijing, China) was developed based on colloidal gold immunochromatography to identify five major types of carbapenemases, including KPC, IMP, NDM, VIM, and OXA-48-like. Briefly, ten drops of the treatment solution and one or two colonies were vortexed together. Then, 50 μL of the mixture was added into the sample well of the testing cassettes, and the results were read in 10 min.
4.5. Xpert Carba-R Assay
The automated real-time quantitative PCR-based GeneXpert Carba-R assay (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, USA) was applied for the rapid detection of five major types of carbapenemases (including KPC, IMP, NDM, VIM, and OXA-48-like). As per the manufacturer’s instructions, 0.5 McFarland suspension was prepared with pure cultivated colonies, and 10 μL of the suspension was mixed with 5 ml of the sample reagent and vortexed for ten seconds. Then, 1.7 mL of the mixture was added into the Xpert Carba-R assay sample well and run with the GeneXpert system.
4.6. Statistical Analysis
The sensitivity and specificity of the NG-test Carba 5, CGI test, and Xpert Carba-R were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Kappa index (κ index) was used for the evaluation of the agreement between each method and WGS, the gold standard. The data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics v20.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics12020300/s1, Table S1: Detection results of carbapenemases genes by NG-test Carba 5, colloidal gold immunoassay (CGI) test, and Xpert Carba-R ; Table S2: Characteristics of strains tested in the current study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.Z. and Y.W. (Yongning Wu); Data curation, Y.H.; Formal analysis, Z.Y.; Funding acquisition, D.G., Y.H. and R.Z.; Investigation, C.C.; Methodology, C.C.; Project administration, R.Z.; Resources, R.Z.; Software, J.L.; Supervision, R.Z.; Validation, Y.Z., Y.W. (Yuchen Wu) and J.Y.; Writing—original draft, D.G.; Writing—review & editing, Y.W. (Yongning Wu). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 81861138052 and 22193064) and the Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission (grant no. 2023KY017).
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine (protocol code I12020001370 and date of approval 12 May 2020).
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available in supplementary material.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yin, Y.; Chen, H.; Jin, L.; Gu, B.; Xie, L.; Yang, C.; Ma, X.; Li, H.; et al. Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: Report from the China CRE Network. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e01882-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Duin, D.; Arias, C.A.; Komarow, L.; Chen, L.; Hanson, B.M.; Weston, G.; Cober, E.; Garner, O.B.; Jacob, J.T.; Satlin, M.J.; et al. Molecular and clinical epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in the USA (CRACKLE-2): A prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 731–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordmann, P.; Poirel, L. The difficult-to-control spread of carbapenemase producers among Enterobacteriaceae worldwide. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 821–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, R.; Shi, Q.; Wu, S.; Yin, D.; Peng, M.; Dong, D.; Zheng, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, R.; Hu, F. Dissemination of Carbapenemases (KPC, NDM, OXA-48, IMP, and VIM) Among Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Isolated From Adult and Children Patients in China. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirley, M. Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Review in the Treatment of Serious Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections. Drugs 2018, 78, 675–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordmann, P.; Sadek, M.; Demord, A.; Poirel, L. NitroSpeed-Carba NP Test for Rapid Detection and Differentiation between Different Classes of Carbapenemases in Enterobacterales. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 58, e00932-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Qin, X. Comparison of the Performance of Phenotypic Methods for the Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in Clinical Practice. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 849564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Bai, L.; Liu, J.; Lei, J.; Gao, X.; Tenover, F.C.; Lei, K.; Tang, Y.W.; Geng, Y.; He, A. Parallel Validation of the NG-Test Carba 5 and the Xpert Carba-R for Detection and Characterization of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Causing Bloodstream Infections. J. Mol. Diagn. JMD 2021, 23, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.T.; Kuo, Y.W.; Lee, N.Y.; Tien, N.; Liao, C.H.; Teng, L.J.; Ko, W.C.; Hsueh, P.R. Evaluating NG-Test CARBA 5 Multiplex Immunochromatographic and Cepheid Xpert CARBA-R Assays among Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Isolates Associated with Bloodstream Infection. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0172821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cury, A.P.; Almeida Junior, J.N.; Costa, S.F.; Salomão, M.C.; Boszczowski, Í.; Duarte, A.J.S.; Rossi, F. Diagnostic performance of the Xpert Carba-R™ assay directly from rectal swabs for active surveillance of carbapenemase-producing organisms in the largest Brazilian University Hospital. J. Microbiol. Methods 2020, 171, 105884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, I.Y.; Shin, D.P.; Heo, W.; Ha, S.I.; Cha, Y.J.; Park, Y.J. Comparison of BD MAX Check-Points CPO assay with Cepheid Xpert Carba-R assay for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae directly from rectal swabs. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2022, 103, 115716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratnayake, L.; Ang, H.Z.; Ong, C.H.; Chan, D.S.G. An optimized algorithm with improved turnaround time for detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales using the NG Test CARBA 5 in a routine laboratory. J. Med Microbiol. 2020, 69, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, R.K.; Chen, L.; Cheng, S.; Chavda, K.D.; Press, E.G.; Snyder, A.; Pandey, R.; Doi, Y.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Nguyen, M.H.; et al. Emergence of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Resistance Due to Plasmid-Borne bla(KPC-3) Mutations during Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e02097-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, R.K.; Potoski, B.A.; Haidar, G.; Hao, B.; Doi, Y.; Chen, L.; Press, E.G.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Clancy, C.J.; Nguyen, M.H. Clinical Outcomes, Drug Toxicity, and Emergence of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Resistance Among Patients Treated for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2016, 63, 1615–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Yang, X.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Cheung, Y.C.; Wai Chi Chan, E.; Chen, S.; Zhang, R. Identification of a KPC Variant Conferring Resistance to Ceftazidime-Avibactam from ST11 Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0265521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livermore, D.M.; Warner, M.; Jamrozy, D.; Mushtaq, S.; Nichols, W.W.; Mustafa, N.; Woodford, N. In vitro selection of ceftazidime-avibactam resistance in Enterobacteriaceae with KPC-3 carbapenemase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 5324–5330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, M.D.; Winkler, M.L.; Taracila, M.A.; Page, M.G.; Desarbre, E.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Shields, R.K.; Nguyen, M.H.; Clancy, C.; Spellberg, B.; et al. Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-2 (KPC-2), Substitutions at Ambler Position Asp179, and Resistance to Ceftazidime-Avibactam: Unique Antibiotic-Resistant Phenotypes Emerge from β-Lactamase Protein Engineering. mBio 2017, 8, e00528-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haidar, G.; Clancy, C.J.; Shields, R.K.; Hao, B.; Cheng, S.; Nguyen, M.H. Mutations in bla(KPC-3) That Confer Ceftazidime-Avibactam Resistance Encode Novel KPC-3 Variants That Function as Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e02534-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, L.; Shi, Q.; Han, R.; Yin, D.; Wu, S.; Yang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, D.; Hu, F. Comparison of Four Carbapenemase Detection Methods for bla(KPC-2) Variants. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0095421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianco, G.; Boattini, M.; Iannaccone, M.; Bondi, A.; Ghibaudo, D.; Zanotto, E.; Peradotto, M.; Cavallo, R.; Costa, C. Carbapenemase detection testing in the era of ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant KPC-producing Enterobacterales: A 2-year experience. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 24, 411–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oueslati, S.; Tlili, L.; Exilie, C.; Bernabeu, S.; Iorga, B.; Bonnin, R.A.; Dortet, L.; Naas, T. Different phenotypic expression of KPC β-lactamase variants and challenges in their detection. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 769–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Liu, L.; Zhou, H.; Chan, E.W.; Li, J.; Fang, Y.; Li, Y.; Liao, K.; Chen, S. Nationwide Surveillance of Clinical Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Strains in China. EBioMedicine 2017, 19, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanahashi, T.; Matsumura, Y.; Yamamoto, M.; Tanaka, M.; Nagao, M. Comparison of the Xpert Carba-R and NG-Test CARBA5 for the detection of carbapenemases in an IMP-type carbapenemase endemic region in Japan. J. Infect. Chemother. Off. J. Jpn. Soc. Chemother. 2021, 27, 503–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutal, H.; Vogel, A.; Bernabeu, S.; Devilliers, K.; Creton, E.; Cotellon, G.; Plaisance, M.; Oueslati, S.; Dortet, L.; Jousset, A.; et al. A multiplex lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid identification of NDM-, KPC-, IMP- and VIM-type and OXA-48-like carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 909–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, K.L.; Meunier, D.; Naas, T.; Volland, H.; Woodford, N. Evaluation of the NG-Test CARBA 5 multiplex immunochromatographic assay for the detection of KPC, OXA-48-like, NDM, VIM and IMP carbapenemases. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 3523–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potron, A.; Fournier, D.; Emeraud, C.; Triponney, P.; Plésiat, P.; Naas, T.; Dortet, L. Evaluation of the Immunochromatographic NG-Test Carba 5 for Rapid Identification of Carbapenemase in Nonfermenters. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e00968-19. [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]
- 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, e00344-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Comparison of the NG-test Carba 5, colloidal gold immunoassay (CGI) test, and Xpert Carba-R.
Table 1.
Comparison of the NG-test Carba 5, colloidal gold immunoassay (CGI) test, and Xpert Carba-R.
| Genes | NG-Test Carba 5 | CGI Test | Xpert Carba-R | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP | FP | FN | TN | Se (95% CI) | Sp (95% CI) | κ (95% CI) | TP | FP | FN | TN | Se (95% CI) | Sp (95% CI) | κ (95% CI) | TP | FP | FN | TN | Se (95% CI) | Sp (95% CI) | κ (95% CI) | |
| blaKPC | 127 | 0 | 6 | 59 | 95.49 (90.02–98.15)% | 100.00 (92.38–100.00)% | 0.93 (0.87–0.99) | 131 | 0 | 2 | 59 | 98.50 (94.12–99.74)% | 100.00 (92.38–100.00)% | 0.98 (0.92–1.00) | 133 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 100.00 (96.50–100.00)% | 100.00 (92.38–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
| blaNDM | 44 | 0 | 0 | 148 | 100.00 (90.00–100.00)% | 100.00 (96.85–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 44 | 0 | 0 | 148 | 100.00 (90.00–100.00)% | 100.00 (96.85–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 43 | 1 | 1 | 147 | 97.73 (86.49–99.88)% | 99.32 (95.73–99.96)% | 0.97 (0.93–1.00) |
| blaIMP | 13 | 0 | 0 | 179 | 100.00 (71.66–100.00)% | 100.00 (97.38–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 9 | 0 | 4 | 179 | 69.23 (38.89–89.64)% | 100.00 (97.38–100.00)% | 0.81 (0.62–0.99) | 10 | 0 | 3 | 179 | 76.92 (45.98–93.83)% | 100.00 (97.38–100.00)% | 0.86 (0.71–1.00) |
| blaOXA-48-like | 2 | 0 | 0 | 190 | 100.00 (19.79–100.00)% | 100.00 (97.53–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 190 | 100.00 (19.79–100.00)% | 100.00 (97.53–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 190 | 100.00 (19.79–100.00)% | 100.00 (97.53–100.00)% | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
TP, true-positive; FP, false-positive; FN, false-negative; TN, true-negative; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity.
Table 2.
Detection results of KPC variants by different methods.
| Cabapenemase Genes | Amino Acid Substitution | Susceptibility of CZA | Organism(n) | Detection Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NG-Test Carba 5 | CGI Test | Xpert Carba-R | ||||
| blaKPC-2 | S | Klebsiella pneumoniae(120) | KPC | KPC | KPC | |
| blaKPC-3 | S | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC | |
| blaKPC-25 | ins166_EL | S | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-33 | D179Y | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | - | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-35 | L196P | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-51 | D179N + Y241H + H274N | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-52 | D179Y + ins262_V | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | - | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-71 | ins182_S | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | - | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-76 | D179Y + 262V_268N dup | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | - | - | KPC |
| blaKPC-77 | R164P | S | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | - | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-78 | D179A | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-93 | ins267_PNNRA | R | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC | KPC | KPC |
| blaKPC-123 | ins179_TY + ins270_DDKHSEA | R | Citrobacter koseri(1) | - | - | KPC |
R, resistant; S, susceptibility; -, negative.
Table 3.
Detection results of IMP variants by different methods.
| Cabapenemase Genes | Number | Organism(Number) | Detection Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NG-Test Carba 5 | CGI Test | Xpert Carba-R | |||
| blaIMP-1 | 2 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa(2) | IMP | IMP | IMP |
| blaIMP-4 | 4 | Klebsiella oxytoca(3) | IMP | IMP | IMP |
| Aeromonas hydrophila(1) | IMP | IMP | NDM | ||
| blaIMP-8 | 2 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa(1) | IMP | IMP | - |
| Aeromonas hydrophila(1) | IMP | - | - | ||
| blaIMP-25 | 1 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa(1) | IMP | IMP | IMP |
| blaIMP-26 | 2 | Klebsiella pneumoniae(2) | IMP | IMP | IMP |
| IMP | - | IMP | |||
| blaIMP-30 | 2 | Klebsiella pneumoniae(2) | IMP | - | IMP |
| IMP | - | IMP | |||
Table 4.
Detection results of multi-carbapenemase genes by different methods.
| Carbapenemase Genes | Organism(n) | Detection Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NG-Test Carba 5 | CGI Test | Xpert Carba-R | ||
| blaKPC-2 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella pneumoniae(1) | KPC + IMP | KPC | KPC + IMP |
| blaKPC-2 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella variicola (1) | KPC + IMP | KPC | KPC + IMP |
| blaKPC-2 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella oxytoca(1) | KPC + IMP | KPC | KPC + IMP |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Citrobacter freundii(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Citrobacter freundii(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Klebsiella oxytoca(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Enterobacter kobei(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Klebsiella oxytoca(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 | Raoultella ornithinolytica(1) | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM | KPC + NDM |
| blaKPC-2 + blaNDM-1 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella michiganensis (1) | NDM + KPC + IMP | NDM + KPC + IMP | KPC + NDM |
| blaIMP-45 + blaNDM-1 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa(1) | IMP + NDM | IMP + NDM | IMP |
| blaIMP-45 + blaNDM-1 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa(1) | IMP + NDM | IMP + NDM | IMP |
| blaNDM-1 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella oxytoca(1) | NDM + IMP | NDM | NDM + IMP |
| blaNDM-1 + blaIMP-4 | Klebsiella oxytoca(1) | NDM + IMP | NDM | NDM + IMP |
| blaVIM-1 + blaNDM-1 | Enterobacter cloacae(1) | VIM + NDM | VIM + NDM | VIM + NDM |
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. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Gu, D.; Yan, Z.; Cai, C.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Yang, J.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Wu, Y. Comparison of the NG-Test Carba 5, Colloidal Gold Immunoassay (CGI) Test, and Xpert Carba-R for the Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases in Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020300
AMA Style
Gu D, Yan Z, Cai C, Li J, Zhang Y, Wu Y, Yang J, Huang Y, Zhang R, Wu Y. Comparison of the NG-Test Carba 5, Colloidal Gold Immunoassay (CGI) Test, and Xpert Carba-R for the Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases in Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(2):300. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020300
Chicago/Turabian StyleGu, Danxia, Zelin Yan, Chang Cai, Jiaping Li, Yanyan Zhang, Yuchen Wu, Jiaxing Yang, Yonglu Huang, Rong Zhang, and Yongning Wu. 2023. "Comparison of the NG-Test Carba 5, Colloidal Gold Immunoassay (CGI) Test, and Xpert Carba-R for the Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases in Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms" Antibiotics 12, no. 2: 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020300
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
