Next Article in Journal
Young Women’s Attitudes and Behaviors in Treatment and Prevention of UTIs: Are Biomedical Students at an Advantage?
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between COVID-19 and ICU-Acquired Bloodstream Infections Related to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/antibiotics12071106
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales

by
Alessandro Bondi
1,2,†,
Antonio Curtoni
1,2,†,
Marco Peradotto
3,
Elisa Zanotto
1,
Matteo Boattini
1,
Gabriele Bianco
1,
Marco Iannaccone
1,
Anna Maria Barbui
1,
Rossana Cavallo
1,2 and
Cristina Costa
1,2,*
1
Microbiology and Virology Unit, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
2
Department of Public Healt and Pediatric Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
3
Clinical Laboratory, Microbiology Unit, Sant’Andrea Hospital, 13100 Vercelli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(7), 1106; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071106
Submission received: 19 May 2023 / Revised: 22 June 2023 / Accepted: 25 June 2023 / Published: 26 June 2023
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Fosfomycin is an old bactericidal drug that has gained increasing interest in the last decade for its potential use in multi-drug resistant gram-negative infections. However, evidence on fosfomycin susceptibility testing reports a poor correlation between commercial methods vs. reference agar dilution (AD) for Enterobacterales (EB). The study aimed at assessing the performance of two automated systems for the determination of fosfomycin susceptibility in EB clinical isolates. Methods: Fosfomycin susceptibility testing results of two collections of 100 non-duplicate clinical EB strains obtained using two different platforms (BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus) were compared with those obtained by AD. Categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME) and very major error (VME) rates were calculated. Results: BD Phoenix exhibited a 6.9% rate of false-resistant results and achieved a CA of 69%, whereas MicroScan WalkAway Plus achieved 3.7% of false-resistant results and 72% of CA. Both automated systems showed poor detection of resistant isolates, with 49.1% and 56.2% of false-susceptible results for BD Phoenix and Microscan WalkAway Plus, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, agar dilution remains the most suitable method for routine laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing of fosfomycin on Enterobacterales strains, given the poor performance of automated systems. The application of both automated systems, in the clinical laboratories reporting of fosfomycin, should be reviewed in light of the accuracy results falling below the acceptable threshold.

1. Introduction

The emerging and global spread of extended-spectrum β-lactamase- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBLp-EB and Cp-EB) has reduced the number of effective drugs, and new therapeutic options are highly desirable [1,2]. Fosfomycin is an old bactericidal drug that inhibits peptidoglycan synthesis, interfering with the formation of citoplasmatic precursor UDP N-UDP N-acetylmuramic acid (UDP-MurNAc) [3]. In the last years, its use in clinical practice has been a subject matter of increasing interest. Given its broad-spectrum activity, ability to penetrate into biofilm, pharmacokinetic profile, and safety, it is currently recommended for the treatment of lower urinary tract infections [3,4,5]. Additionally, it serves as a reliable option for infections caused by multi-drug (MDR) resistant gram-negative bacilli and carbapenem-sparing therapy [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) provide two clinical breakpoints (BPs) based on administration route (iv and os administration) for Enterobacterales spp. The os BPs are valid only for uncomplicated urinary tract infection caused by E. coli [12].
According to international guidelines [12,13], agar dilution (AD) represents the reference method for fosfomycin susceptibility testing. However, due to its time-consuming protocol, fosfomycin susceptibility testing is largely and routinely performed using automated systems. Recently, we investigated the performance of automatic systems against Staphylococcus aureus and found low categorical agreement [14]. In order to investigate the cause of this low reliability, whether it was attributable to specific bacterial specie or the method, we have pointed our attention on Gram-negative bacteria. Limited published evidence reports a poor correlation between commercial methods and reference AD for EB isolates [15,16,17,18]. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of two automated systems, BD Phoenix (Becton Dickinson, MD, USA) and MicroScan WalkAway Plus (Beckman Coulter, CA, USA), in comparison with reference AD for the determination of fosfomycin susceptibility in EB clinical isolates.

2. Results

Two different collection of EB were tested to evaluated the performance of BD Phoenix (Klebsiella pneumoniae n = 50, Escherichia coli n = 46, Enterobacter cloacae n = 4) and MicroScan WalkAway (E. coli n = 42, K. pneumoniae n = 27, E. cloacae n = 17, Proteus mirabilis n = 10, Morganella morganii n = 3, Citrobacter koseri n = 3).
Phenotypic characterization of the EB tested using BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus is reported in Table 1. The two automated systems were used to assess similar rates of ESBLp-EB (33% vs. 30%) and Cp-EB (17% vs. 16%). A total of 17 Cp-EB strains were tested by BD Phoenix (KPC-producers n = 14; VIM-producing E. cloacae n = 2; OXA-48-producing K. pneumoniae n = 1). Similarly, 16 Cp-EB were tested by Microscan WalkAway Plus (KPC-producers n = 10; VIM-producers n = 5; OXA-48-producing K. pneumoniae n = 1). The fosfomycin resistance rate of the EB strains detected by BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus was 57% and 46%, respectively. The overall fosfomycin susceptibility obtained with the reference method was 48.6% (n = 97).
The comparison between fosfomycin susceptibility testing results obtained with the automated systems and the reference agar dilution method for overall EB isolates and according to the most frequent species is reported in Table 2 and Table 3.
Categorical agreement, major error and very major error are reported in Table 4.
The fosfomycin susceptibility rates provided by AD for the collections tested by BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus were 43% and 54%, respectively. BD Phoenix exhibited 6.9% false-resistant results, 69% CA, and modest concordance (κ = 41% IC95% 24–59%). On the other hand, MicroScan WalkAway Plus showed 3.7% of false-resistant results, 72% CA, and modest concordance (κ = 41% IC95% 23–60%). Nevertheless, both automated systems showed poor detection of resistant isolates, with 49.1% and 56.2% false-susceptible results for BD Phoenix and Microscan WalkAway Plus, respectively. Both methods showed a strong deviation of bias towards a single direction (−77% for BD Phoeniex and −52% for WalkAway).
For E. coli (n = 46) and K. pneumoniae (n = 50), BD Phoenix registered poor CA (82.6% and 58%, respectively), high VME rates (53.8% and 50%, respectively), and high ME (6.1% and 10%, respectively). It seemed to best perform with E. coli compared to K. pneumoniae, with 38 vs. 29 isolates correctly categorized, respectively. It also exhibited a relevant number of false-resistant results (E. coli n = 2 of 33, K. pneumoniae n = 1 of 10) and underestimated MIC values, with 6 and 20 VME for E. coli and K. pneumoniae, respectively. E. coli was the only species with more than 40 isolates among MicroScan WalkAway Plus tested strains. A suitable CA (90.4%) and ME rate (0%) with an unacceptable VME (57.1%) were shown.

3. Discussion

The increasing prevalence of MDR Enterobacterales spp. represents a challenge for the treatment of infection and new molecules are needed. However, the old fosfomycin may be a choice for the treatment of MDR bacteria. The AST result influences the choice of antibiotic treatment. For this reason, the reliability of AST is the objective of clinical microbiologist.
The reference method for fosfomycin susceptibility testing is a laborious and time-consuming test, often incompatible with clinical laboratory routine.
Several commercial ASTs are available for Fosfomycin; however, with low agreement with reference agar dilution [15,16,17,18].
This study evaluated the performance of two automated systems largely used in lab routine for the determination of fosfomycin susceptibility in EB clinical isolates. Fosfomycin MICs were determined by AD as the reference method. Both systems provided low CA rates and high percentages of false-resistant and false-sensitive results.
BD Phoenix exhibited poor correlation with AD showing a low CA rate (69%) and a relevant categorical discrepancy compared to reference method with 49.1% of VME rate. These findings are consistent with a previous study that showed high VME rates for ESBLp K. pneumoniae and ESBLp E. coli (12% and 12.5%, respectively) [16], suggesting fosfomycin MIC underestimation of BD Phoenix in comparison to the reference method. The strong bias deviation (−77%) observed in this opinion is consistent exsisting with literature data [17].
Similarly, an unacceptable VME rate (56.2%) was achieved with Microscan WalkAway Plus suggesting fosfomycin MIC underestimation, with unreliable susceptibility results, confirmed by bias calculation (−52%). These findings are inconsistent with previously reported data for Pseudomonas aeruginosa [19,20]. The different micro-organism tested could explain the discrepancy of results.
The two false-resistant results concerned two strains of Proteus mirabilis. It is necessary to conduct further investigations to understand the relationship between bacterial species and fosfomycin MIC overestimation achieved by Microscan WalkAway Plus.
Despite BD Phoenix achieving a 10% of ME, we noted that all EB isolates with MIC > 64 mg/L were correctly categorized, suggesting a reliable result in case of elevated MIC value.
Separate analysis according to most frequent EB species for BD Phoenix showed low accuracy and high categorical agreement discrepancy in K. pneumoniae and E. coli. These findings contrast with a study by Aprile and coll., which reported better performance of BD Phoenix for K. pneumoniae KPC compared to E. coli KPC, with high agreement between AD and BD Phoenix results (CA > 94% and VME < 2% for both microorganisms) [21]. We speculate that the difference could be explained with the low level of FF-R rate reported. Reliability of E. coli AST with Miscoscan WalkAway Plus was calculated. The results confirm the trend of fosfomycin MIC underestimation. No data are available in the literature to support our findings.
The FF AST is a challenge for clinical microbiologists. Existing literature shows a poor concordance between commercial tests and reference AD method. The gradient test displays variable CA (82–92.5%) and VME (2.1–70%) for Enterobacterales spp. [22,23,24,25]. We suggest that the bacteria species tested could explain the high variability. An acceptable CA (100%) and none ME and VME for E. coli is reported. On the other hand, the AST for K. pneumoniae seems to be more unreliable, especially in correctly classifying FF-resistant strains (52–82% of CA, 2.1–78.8% of VME and 5.8–76.7% of ME) [15,25,26,27]. Automated systems provide unreliable results compared to the reference method, with a low capacity to identify susceptible strains [15,16,17].
The difference between AD and broth-based AST inoculum can explain the poor agreement with reference method [25] or by difference diffusion of FF in the medium [17].
Limited data are available for Gram-positive bacteria. EUCAST defines clinical breakpoints only for Staphylococcus spp. The CLSI provides BPs for Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. The FF AST broth-based method is unreliable for S. aureus, although the Etest method shows better performance (CA = 84.1%, EA = 98.7, ME = 1.3) [14,27].
Recently, commercial AD is available for application in clinical microbiology laboratory routine. An acceptable value of CA, no VME, and ME for both for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria compared to the AD method. These data suggested that commercial method based on agar dilution can be used to replace home-made and laborious AD [27,28].
Our findings are in accordance with data in the literature [15,16,17,18,22,23,24,25] and highlight the low agreement between commercial test and reference method. We suggest that it could be reported “resistant” if tested with MicroScan WalkAway Plus (MIC > 32 mg/L). On the other hand, a result of fosfomycin MIC > 64 mg/L of BD Phoenix is reliable. Susceptibility result must be confirmed with reference method, especially if fosfomycin is used during therapy.
In conclusion, both automated systems provided unacceptable rates of MEs and VMEs, indicating that determination of fosfomycin susceptibility is unreliable, with frequent underestimation of MIC values.
Limitations of the present study include the small number of EB isolates collected in a single center and the use of two different collections of strains. The high number of Fosfomycin-resistant EB isolates represents a notable strength.
Further studies are needed to confirm and expand our findings.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Design

We compared the result of fosfomycin susceptibility test of two different collections of Enterobacterales spp. using the reference AD method. Each collection consisted of 100 non-duplicate clinical EB collected from several clinical specimen, including urine (n = 105), blood (n = 20), bile (n = 19), wound (n = 18), rectal swab (n = 17), peritoneal fluid (n = 11), bronco-lavage (n = 6), joint fluid (n = 1), and tissue biopsy (n = 3).

4.2. Bacteria Isolates and Detection of MDR Strains

Species identification for each strain was performed using MALDI-ToF technology (MALDI Biotyper Systems, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany). Phenotypic characterization of MDR strains was performed using the Total ESBL Confirm Kit (Rosco, Taastrup, Denmark) to identify ESBL production in the case of cefotaxime (CTX) and/or ceftazidime (CAZ) minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) > 1 mg/L. MASTDISCS combi Carba plus disc system (Mast Group Ltd., Bootle, UK) was used to characterize carbapenemase producers when meropenem (MEM) MIC was >0.125 mg/L. Detection of carbapenemases genes was carried out using the Xpert Carba-R assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

4.3. Reference Method (Agar Dilution Method)

The reference minimum inhibitory concentration for fosfomycin was determined by AD according to international guidelines [29,30] with in-house Mueller Hinton II Agar (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) containing fosfomycin (Nordic Pharma, Gentilly, France), with two-fold dilutions from 16 mg/L to 64 mg/L, and 25 mg/L of Glucose-6-Phosphate (Sigma, Germany), as previously described [16]. The addition of Glucose-6-Phosphate to agar is mandatory because the drug needs glucose-6-phosphate transporters to penetrate into the cell [3]. Each isolate, after 24 h of grown on blood agar (Becton Dickinson, MD, USA), was tested in technical triplicate on separate days. In brief, 0.5 McFarland suspension was performed and spotted on Mueller Hinton II Agar to final inocolum of 1 × 104 CFU/spot. The plates were incubated at 35 ± 2 °C for 16–20 h. The lowest concentration of fosfomycin that inhibited bacterial growth in at least two out of three spots was defined as isolate MIC. EUCAST breakpoints (Version 13.0) for fosfomycin iv was applied to define susceptibility (susceptible ≤ 32 mg/L, resistant > 32 mg/L).

4.4. Commercial Method

The determination of fosfomycin MIC with BD Phoenix (Becton Dickinson, MD, USA) and MicroScan WalkAway Plus (Beckman Coulter, CA, USA) was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions with the test panels NMIC/ID-94 and Neg Combo-83, respectively. ASTs were set up starting from isolates grown 24 h on blood agar. BD Phoenix fosfomycin AST is based on three dilution (16 mg/L, 32 mg/L and 64 mg/L) with a MIC range of ≤16 mg/L to >64 mg/L. MicroScan WalkAway panel has one dilution of fosfomyin (32 mg/L). Antibiotic susceptibility was interpreted according to EUCAST breakpoints.

4.5. Statistical Analysis

The evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC/ID-94 panel and MicroScan WalkAway Neg Combo-83 panel was performed by calculating categorical agreement (CA), major error (ME) and very major error (VME) according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO standard 20776-2), using AD susceptibility results as reference (CA ≥ 90%, VME ≤ 3%) [30]. Briefly, CA was defined as the proportion of isolates classified in the same susceptibility category by reference method and the methods under evaluation. VME and ME were defined as variations in interpretation from resistant to susceptible (false susceptible) and from susceptible to resistant (false resistant) compared to reference method, respectively. The bias of the method was calculated as indicated by the new ISO 20776-2:2021 and it is defined as the deviation of the test compared to reference method [31]. The concordance agreement was assessed using κ-Cohen [32].
Finally, automated systems performance for bacterial species represented by more than 40 isolates was also assessed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., M.P. and C.C.; Data curation, E.Z., M.B. and M.I.; Investigation, A.B., A.C. and M.P.; Methodology, A.B., A.C. and M.B.; Project administration, C.C.; Supervision, G.B. and C.C.; Validation, C.C. and R.C.; Visualization, A.M.B.; Writing–original draft, A.B. and A.C.; Writing–review & editing, M.P. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by EU funding within the MUR PNRR Extended Partnership initiative on Emerging Infectious Diseases (Project no. PE00000007, INF-ACT).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Duin, D.; Doi, Y. The global epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Virulence 2017, 8, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dangelo, R.G.; Johnson, J.K.; Bork, J.T.; Heil, E.L. Treatment options for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and AmpC-producing bacteria. Expert Opin Pharm. 2016, 17, 953–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Falagas, M.E.; Vouloumanou, E.K.; Samonis, G.; Vardakas, K.Z. Fosfomycin. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 29, 321–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Keating, G.M. Fosfomycin trometamol: A review of its use as a single-dose oral treatment for patients with acute lower urinary tract infections and pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria. Drugs 2013, 73, 1951–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bassetti, M.; Graziano, E.; Berruti, M.; Giacobbe, D.R. The role of fosfomycin for multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 32, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Corcione, S.; Lupia, T.; Maraolo, A.E.; Pinna, S.M.; Gentile, I.; De Rosa, F.G. Carbapenem-sparing strategy: Carbapenemase, treatment, and stewardship. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 32, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bielen, L.; Likic, R. Experience with fosfomycin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum betalactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Ther. Adv. Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  8. Falagar, M.E.; Kastoris, A.C.; Kapaskelis, A.M.; Karageorgopoulos, D.E. Fosfomycin for the treatment of multidrug-resistant, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing, Enterobacteriaceae infections: A systematic review. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reffert, J.L.S.W. Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infection. Pharmacotherapy 2014, 34, 845–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Williams, P.C.; Waichungo, J.; Gordon, N.C.; Sharland, M.; Murunga, S.; Kamau, A.; Berkley, J.A. Potential of fosfomycin for multi-drug resistant sepsis: An analysis of in vitro activity against invasive paediatric gram-negative bacteria. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Fournier, D.; Chirouze, C.; Leroy, J.; Cholley, P.; Talon, D.; Plesiat, P.; Bertrand, X. Alternatives to carbapenems in ESBL-producing Escherichia coli infections. Med. Mal. Infect. 2013, 43, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters, Version 13.0. 2023. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints (accessed on 24 June 2023).
  13. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 2018. Available online: https://clsi.org/all-free-resources/ (accessed on 24 June 2023).
  14. Bondi, A.; Peradotto, M.; Bianco, G.; Ghibaudo, D.; Barbui, A.M.; Costa, C.; Cavallo, R. Evaluation of BD Pheonix and Microscan WalkAway for determination of fosfomycin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 99, 115240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Camarlinghi, G.; Parisio, E.M.; Antonelli, A.; Nardone, M.; Coppi, M.; Giani, T.; Mattei, R. Discrepancies in fosfomycin susceptibility testing of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae with various commercial methods. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 93, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. van den Bijllaardt, W.; Schijffelen, M.J.; Bosboom, R.W.; Cohen Stuart, J.; Diederen, B.; Kampinga, G.; Le, T.N.; Overdevest, I.; Stals, F.; Voorn, P.; et al. Susceptibility of ESBL Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to fosfomycin in the Netherlands and comparison of several testing methods including Etest, MIC test strip, Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 2380–2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Hirsch, E.B.; Raux, B.R.; Zucchi, P.C.; Kim, Y.; McCoy, C.; Kirby, J.E.; Wright, S.B.; Eliopoulos, G.M. Activity of fosfomycin and comparison of several susceptibility testing methods against contemporary urine isolates. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 46, 642–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mojica, M.F.; De La Cadena, E.; Hernández-Gómez, C.; Correa, A.; Appel, T.M.; Pallares, C.J.; Villegas, M.V. Performance of disk diffusion and broth microdilution for Fosfomycin susceptibility testing of multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 21, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bressan, A.; Rodio, D.M.; Stangherlin, F.; Puggioni, G.; Ambrosi, C.; Arcari, G.; Carattoli, A.; Antonelli, G.; Pietropaolo, V.; Trancassini, M. In vitro activity of fosfomycin against mucoid and non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 20, 328–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peradotto, M.; Bondi, A.; Bianco, G.; Iannaccone, M.; Barbui, A.M.; Costa, C.; Cavallo, R. Comparison of Three Different Commercial Methods for Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microb. Drug Resist. 2022, 28, 911–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aprile, A.; Scalia, G.; Stefani, S.; Mezzatesta, M.L. In vitro fosfomycin study on concordance of susceptibility testing methods against ESBL and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 23, 286–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. López-Cerero, L.; de Cueto, M.; Díaz-Guerrero, M.A.; Morillo, C.; Pascual, A. Evaluation of the Etest method for fosfomycin susceptibility of ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2007, 59, 810–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kaase, M.; Szabados, F.; Anders, A.; Gatermann, S.G. Fosfomycin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Germany. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 1893–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Van Mens, S.P.; Ten Doesschate, T.; Kluytmans-van den Bergh, M.F.Q.; Mouton, J.W.; Rossen, J.W.A.; Verhulst, C.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Kluytmans, J.A.J.W. Fosfomycin Etest for Enterobacteriaceae: Interobserver and interlaboratory agreement. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 52, 678–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Karlowsky, J.A.; Baxter, M.R.; Golden, A.R.; Adam, H.J.; Walkty, A.; Lagacé-Wiens, P.R.S.; Zhanel, G.G. Use of Fosfomycin Etest To Determine In Vitro Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales Other than Escherichia coli, Nonfermenting Gram-Negative Bacilli, and Gram-Positive Cocci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021, 59, e0163521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ballestero-Téllez, M.; Docobo-Pérez, F.; Rodríguez-Martínez, J.M.; Conejo, M.C.; Ramos-Guelfo, M.S.; Blázquez, J.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Pascual, A. Role of inoculum and mutant frequency on fosfomycin MIC discrepancies by agar dilution and broth microdilution methods in Enterobacteriaceae. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Parisio, E.M.; Camarlinghi, G.; Coppi, M.; Niccolai, C.; Antonelli, A.; Nardone, M.; Vettori, C.; Giani, T.; Mattei, R.; Rossolini, G.M. Evaluation of the commercial AD fosfomycin test for susceptibility testing of multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 27, 788.e5–788.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Campanile, F.; Wootton, M.; Davies, L.; Aprile, A.; Mirabile, A.; Pomponio, S.; Demetrio, F.; Bongiorno, D.; Walsh, T.R.; Stefani, S.; et al. Gold standard susceptibility testing of fosfomycin in Staphylococcus aureus and Enterobacterales using a new agar dilution panel®. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 23, 334–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). EUCAST Definitive Document E.DEF 3.1, June 2000: Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibacterial agents by agar dilution. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2000, 6, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. ISO 20776-2:2007; Clinical Laboratory Testing and In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems–Susceptibility Testing of Infectious Agents and Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices–Part 2: Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  31. ISO 20776-2:2021; Clinical Laboratory Testing and In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems-Susceptibility Testing of Infectious Agents and Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices-Part 2: Evaluation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices Against Reference Broth Microdilution. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  32. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Multi-drugs resistant Enterobacterales isolates tested for fosfomycin susceptibility using BD Phoenix and Microscan WalkAway Plus.
Table 1. Multi-drugs resistant Enterobacterales isolates tested for fosfomycin susceptibility using BD Phoenix and Microscan WalkAway Plus.
AST Method/SpeciesESBLp-EBCp-EB
BD Phoenix33 (33)17 (17)
Escherichia coli41 (19)2 (1)
Klebisella pneumoniae28 (14)28 (14)
Enterobacter cloacae-50 (2)
MiscroScan WalkAway Plus30 (30)16 (16)
Escherichia coli50 (21)7.2 (3)
Klebsiella pneumoniae28 (7)40 (10)
Enterobacter cloacae-12 (2)
Proteus mirabilis2 (2)-
Morganella morganii--
Citrobacter koseri--
All data are shown as relative (%) and absolute (n) frequencies, unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations: AST: antimicrobial susceptibility testing; ESBLp-EB: extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales; Cp-EB: carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales.
Table
Table 2. Comparison between results of BD Phoenix and Agar dilution.
Table 2. Comparison between results of BD Phoenix and Agar dilution.
Agar Dilution
MIC (mg/L)≤163264>64
≤16325813
321234
642115
>6400023
Table
Table 3. Comparison between results of MicroScan WalkAway and Agar dilution.
Table 3. Comparison between results of MicroScan WalkAway and Agar dilution.
Agar Dilution
MIC (mg/L)≤163264>64
≤32493422
>3211020
Table
Table 4. Evaluation of AST method compared to Agar dilution.
Table 4. Evaluation of AST method compared to Agar dilution.
AST Method/SpeciesCAVMEME
BD Phoenix69 (69)49.1 (28)6.9 (3)
Escherichia coli (46)82.6 (38)53.8 (6)6.1 (2)
Klebsiella pneumoniae (50)58 (29)50 (20)10 (1)
Microscan WalkAway Plus72 (72)56.2 (26)3.7 (2)
Escherichia coli (42)90.4 (38)57.1 (4)-
All data are shown as relative (%) and absolute (n) frequencies, unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations: AST: antimicrobial susceptibility testing; CA: categorical agreement; VME: very major error; ME: major error.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bondi, A.; Curtoni, A.; Peradotto, M.; Zanotto, E.; Boattini, M.; Bianco, G.; Iannaccone, M.; Barbui, A.M.; Cavallo, R.; Costa, C. Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071106

AMA Style

Bondi A, Curtoni A, Peradotto M, Zanotto E, Boattini M, Bianco G, Iannaccone M, Barbui AM, Cavallo R, Costa C. Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(7):1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071106

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bondi, Alessandro, Antonio Curtoni, Marco Peradotto, Elisa Zanotto, Matteo Boattini, Gabriele Bianco, Marco Iannaccone, Anna Maria Barbui, Rossana Cavallo, and Cristina Costa. 2023. "Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales" Antibiotics 12, no. 7: 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071106

APA Style

Bondi, A., Curtoni, A., Peradotto, M., Zanotto, E., Boattini, M., Bianco, G., Iannaccone, M., Barbui, A. M., Cavallo, R., & Costa, C. (2023). Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix and MicroScan WalkAway Plus for Determination of Fosfomycin Susceptibility in Enterobacterales. Antibiotics, 12(7), 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071106

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop