Loading…

Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have become a growing problem worldwide in recent years. Options for the treatment of CRE are limited and one of these options is gentamicin. For this reason, gentamicin susceptibility should be properly determined. In a recently reported study, it is reco...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Le infezioni in medicina 2021, Vol.29 (4), p.568-573
Main Authors: Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi, Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu, Birinci, Asuman
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3020-dace7286fb7307895e6d45255fd0a44b2583773dd655524339df70f86f0d02b43
cites
container_end_page 573
container_issue 4
container_start_page 568
container_title Le infezioni in medicina
container_volume 29
creator Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi
Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu
Birinci, Asuman
description Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have become a growing problem worldwide in recent years. Options for the treatment of CRE are limited and one of these options is gentamicin. For this reason, gentamicin susceptibility should be properly determined. In a recently reported study, it is recommended to review the results of automated systems for assessing gentamicin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant isolates. In this study, we aimed to determine gentamicin susceptibility using three different methods and compare the methods. The study included 107 CRE isolates from different samples. Gentamicin susceptibility was determined using Vitek 2 Compact (bioMérieux, France), Microscan Walkaway Plus (Beckman Coulter, USA) automatic systems, and disk diffusion (DD) method. The broth microdilution method (BMD) was used as reference method. Minor, major, and very major errors and categorical agreement rates were determined for each method. Aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia) were assayed in discrepant isolates. According to BMD results, 90.7%, 1,8 %, and 7.5 % of the isolates were determined as susceptible, intermediate, and resistant to gentamicin, respectively. Compared to the results of the BMD for detecting gentamicin susceptibility, disk diffusion method showed the highest categorical agreement (98.1%), and Vitek 2 Compact showed the lowest categorical agreement (90.6%). The very major error rates were determined 7.5%, 0.9%, and 0.9% for Vitek 2 Compact, Microscan Walkaway Plus, and DD method, respectively. In addition, aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia genes were detected in 8 discrepant isolates. For gentamicin susceptibility, the DD showed the most compatible results. The DD can be used as a reliable method for determining gentamicin susceptibility. Compatibility of automated systems with BMD was acceptable, although lower than DD. The discrepancies detected in the Vitek 2 Compact results could be due to the presence of aac(6′)Ib and/or aph(2″)Ia aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes.
doi_str_mv 10.53854/liim-2904-10
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8805464</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8805464</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3020-dace7286fb7307895e6d45255fd0a44b2583773dd655524339df70f86f0d02b43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkdtKAzEQhoMottReep8XWM3mtNkbQUo9QMEbvQ7ZzaSN7KEkaaVvb9aK4DAwMDP_NwM_QrcluRNMCX7fed8XtCa8KMkFmlPBaKGkqi_RvCwpL2pWkxlaxvhJckhS1rW6RjMmSi6ZlHP0tT6a7mCSHwc8Opx2AQBb7xwEGBLuIe1GG7EbA46H2MI--cZ3Pp1wgpj8sJ1U27xqet_6AedsTWjMHgbocYDoYzIZtB4ShLExbS6mg3iDrpzpIix_6wJ9PK3fVy_F5u35dfW4KVpGKCmsaaGiSrqmYqRStQBpuaBCOEsM5w0VilUVs1YKIShnrLauIi4LiCW04WyBHs7c_aHpwbb503xf74PvTTjp0Xj9fzL4nd6OR60UEVxOgOIMaMMYYwD3py2J_jFBTyboyYTcYt-qK30m</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi ; Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu ; Birinci, Asuman</creator><creatorcontrib>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi ; Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu ; Birinci, Asuman</creatorcontrib><description>Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have become a growing problem worldwide in recent years. Options for the treatment of CRE are limited and one of these options is gentamicin. For this reason, gentamicin susceptibility should be properly determined. In a recently reported study, it is recommended to review the results of automated systems for assessing gentamicin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant isolates. In this study, we aimed to determine gentamicin susceptibility using three different methods and compare the methods. The study included 107 CRE isolates from different samples. Gentamicin susceptibility was determined using Vitek 2 Compact (bioMérieux, France), Microscan Walkaway Plus (Beckman Coulter, USA) automatic systems, and disk diffusion (DD) method. The broth microdilution method (BMD) was used as reference method. Minor, major, and very major errors and categorical agreement rates were determined for each method. Aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia) were assayed in discrepant isolates. According to BMD results, 90.7%, 1,8 %, and 7.5 % of the isolates were determined as susceptible, intermediate, and resistant to gentamicin, respectively. Compared to the results of the BMD for detecting gentamicin susceptibility, disk diffusion method showed the highest categorical agreement (98.1%), and Vitek 2 Compact showed the lowest categorical agreement (90.6%). The very major error rates were determined 7.5%, 0.9%, and 0.9% for Vitek 2 Compact, Microscan Walkaway Plus, and DD method, respectively. In addition, aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia genes were detected in 8 discrepant isolates. For gentamicin susceptibility, the DD showed the most compatible results. The DD can be used as a reliable method for determining gentamicin susceptibility. Compatibility of automated systems with BMD was acceptable, although lower than DD. The discrepancies detected in the Vitek 2 Compact results could be due to the presence of aac(6′)Ib and/or aph(2″)Ia aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1124-9390</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2532-8689</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.53854/liim-2904-10</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35146366</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>InfezMed</publisher><subject>Original</subject><ispartof>Le infezioni in medicina, 2021, Vol.29 (4), p.568-573</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 - 2021 InfezMed 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3020-dace7286fb7307895e6d45255fd0a44b2583773dd655524339df70f86f0d02b43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805464/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805464/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,4024,27923,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Birinci, Asuman</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales</title><title>Le infezioni in medicina</title><description>Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have become a growing problem worldwide in recent years. Options for the treatment of CRE are limited and one of these options is gentamicin. For this reason, gentamicin susceptibility should be properly determined. In a recently reported study, it is recommended to review the results of automated systems for assessing gentamicin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant isolates. In this study, we aimed to determine gentamicin susceptibility using three different methods and compare the methods. The study included 107 CRE isolates from different samples. Gentamicin susceptibility was determined using Vitek 2 Compact (bioMérieux, France), Microscan Walkaway Plus (Beckman Coulter, USA) automatic systems, and disk diffusion (DD) method. The broth microdilution method (BMD) was used as reference method. Minor, major, and very major errors and categorical agreement rates were determined for each method. Aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia) were assayed in discrepant isolates. According to BMD results, 90.7%, 1,8 %, and 7.5 % of the isolates were determined as susceptible, intermediate, and resistant to gentamicin, respectively. Compared to the results of the BMD for detecting gentamicin susceptibility, disk diffusion method showed the highest categorical agreement (98.1%), and Vitek 2 Compact showed the lowest categorical agreement (90.6%). The very major error rates were determined 7.5%, 0.9%, and 0.9% for Vitek 2 Compact, Microscan Walkaway Plus, and DD method, respectively. In addition, aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia genes were detected in 8 discrepant isolates. For gentamicin susceptibility, the DD showed the most compatible results. The DD can be used as a reliable method for determining gentamicin susceptibility. Compatibility of automated systems with BMD was acceptable, although lower than DD. The discrepancies detected in the Vitek 2 Compact results could be due to the presence of aac(6′)Ib and/or aph(2″)Ia aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes.</description><subject>Original</subject><issn>1124-9390</issn><issn>2532-8689</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkdtKAzEQhoMottReep8XWM3mtNkbQUo9QMEbvQ7ZzaSN7KEkaaVvb9aK4DAwMDP_NwM_QrcluRNMCX7fed8XtCa8KMkFmlPBaKGkqi_RvCwpL2pWkxlaxvhJckhS1rW6RjMmSi6ZlHP0tT6a7mCSHwc8Opx2AQBb7xwEGBLuIe1GG7EbA46H2MI--cZ3Pp1wgpj8sJ1U27xqet_6AedsTWjMHgbocYDoYzIZtB4ShLExbS6mg3iDrpzpIix_6wJ9PK3fVy_F5u35dfW4KVpGKCmsaaGiSrqmYqRStQBpuaBCOEsM5w0VilUVs1YKIShnrLauIi4LiCW04WyBHs7c_aHpwbb503xf74PvTTjp0Xj9fzL4nd6OR60UEVxOgOIMaMMYYwD3py2J_jFBTyboyYTcYt-qK30m</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi</creator><creator>Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu</creator><creator>Birinci, Asuman</creator><general>InfezMed</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales</title><author>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi ; Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu ; Birinci, Asuman</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3020-dace7286fb7307895e6d45255fd0a44b2583773dd655524339df70f86f0d02b43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Birinci, Asuman</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Le infezioni in medicina</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cayci, Yeliz Tanriverdi</au><au>Ulker, Kubra Hacieminoglu</au><au>Birinci, Asuman</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales</atitle><jtitle>Le infezioni in medicina</jtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>568</spage><epage>573</epage><pages>568-573</pages><issn>1124-9390</issn><eissn>2532-8689</eissn><abstract>Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) have become a growing problem worldwide in recent years. Options for the treatment of CRE are limited and one of these options is gentamicin. For this reason, gentamicin susceptibility should be properly determined. In a recently reported study, it is recommended to review the results of automated systems for assessing gentamicin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant isolates. In this study, we aimed to determine gentamicin susceptibility using three different methods and compare the methods. The study included 107 CRE isolates from different samples. Gentamicin susceptibility was determined using Vitek 2 Compact (bioMérieux, France), Microscan Walkaway Plus (Beckman Coulter, USA) automatic systems, and disk diffusion (DD) method. The broth microdilution method (BMD) was used as reference method. Minor, major, and very major errors and categorical agreement rates were determined for each method. Aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia) were assayed in discrepant isolates. According to BMD results, 90.7%, 1,8 %, and 7.5 % of the isolates were determined as susceptible, intermediate, and resistant to gentamicin, respectively. Compared to the results of the BMD for detecting gentamicin susceptibility, disk diffusion method showed the highest categorical agreement (98.1%), and Vitek 2 Compact showed the lowest categorical agreement (90.6%). The very major error rates were determined 7.5%, 0.9%, and 0.9% for Vitek 2 Compact, Microscan Walkaway Plus, and DD method, respectively. In addition, aac(6′)Ib and aph(2″)Ia genes were detected in 8 discrepant isolates. For gentamicin susceptibility, the DD showed the most compatible results. The DD can be used as a reliable method for determining gentamicin susceptibility. Compatibility of automated systems with BMD was acceptable, although lower than DD. The discrepancies detected in the Vitek 2 Compact results could be due to the presence of aac(6′)Ib and/or aph(2″)Ia aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes.</abstract><pub>InfezMed</pub><pmid>35146366</pmid><doi>10.53854/liim-2904-10</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1124-9390
ispartof Le infezioni in medicina, 2021, Vol.29 (4), p.568-573
issn 1124-9390
2532-8689
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8805464
source PubMed Central
subjects Original
title Evaluation of three different methods for susceptibility testing of gentamicin in carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T11%3A01%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20three%20different%20methods%20for%20susceptibility%20testing%20of%20gentamicin%20in%20carbapenem%20resistant%20Enterobacterales&rft.jtitle=Le%20infezioni%20in%20medicina&rft.au=Cayci,%20Yeliz%20Tanriverdi&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=568&rft.epage=573&rft.pages=568-573&rft.issn=1124-9390&rft.eissn=2532-8689&rft_id=info:doi/10.53854/liim-2904-10&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral_cross%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8805464%3C/pubmedcentral_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3020-dace7286fb7307895e6d45255fd0a44b2583773dd655524339df70f86f0d02b43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/35146366&rfr_iscdi=true