Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods

Venere Cortazzo; Brunella Posteraro; Giulia Menchinelli; Flora Marzia Liotti; Tiziana D'Inzeo; Barbara Fiori; Francesco Luzzaro; Maurizio Sanguinetti; Teresa Spanu

doi:10.3390/antibiotics11081023

Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods

Venere Cortazzo
, Brunella Posteraro
, Giulia Menchinelli
, Flora Marzia Liotti
, Tiziana D'Inzeo
, Barbara Fiori
, Francesco Luzzaro
, Maurizio Sanguinetti^*
, Teresa Spanu

^*Autore corrispondente per questo lavoro

Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Di Lecco

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo in rivista › Articolo

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioMérieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6% and 0.0% (VITEK 2) and 56.9% and 0.0% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0% and 40.4% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.

Lingua originale	Inglese
pagine (da-a)	N/A-N/A
Rivista	Antibiotics
Volume	11
Numero di pubblicazione	8
DOI	https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11081023
Stato di pubblicazione	Pubblicato - 2022

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Microbiologia
Biochimica
Farmacologia, Tossicologia e Farmaceutica Generali
Microbiologia (medica)
Malattie Infettive
Farmacologia (medica)

Keywords

ETEST
VITEK 2
broth microdilution method
ceftazidime-avibactam
ceftolozane-tazobactam
meropenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates
susceptibility testing

OSS delle Nazioni Unite

Questo processo contribuisce al raggiungimento dei seguenti obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile

Accesso al documento

10.3390/antibiotics11081023

Altri file e collegamenti

Fingerprint

Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo

Cortazzo, V., Posteraro, B., Menchinelli, G., Liotti, F. M., D'Inzeo, T., Fiori, B., Luzzaro, F., Sanguinetti, M., & Spanu, T. (2022). Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods. Antibiotics, 11(8), N/A-N/A. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11081023

Cortazzo, Venere ; Posteraro, Brunella ; Menchinelli, Giulia et al. / Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods. In: Antibiotics. 2022 ; Vol. 11, N. 8. pagg. N/A-N/A.

@article{c3a6a8b3c9224489bdc267878021567d,

title = "Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods",

abstract = "This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioM{\'e}rieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6\% and 0.0\% (VITEK 2) and 56.9\% and 0.0\% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0\% and 40.4\% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1\% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6\% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0\% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6\% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0\% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100\% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100\% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100\% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.",

keywords = "ETEST, VITEK 2, broth microdilution method, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates, susceptibility testing, ETEST, VITEK 2, broth microdilution method, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates, susceptibility testing",

author = "Venere Cortazzo and Brunella Posteraro and Giulia Menchinelli and Liotti, \{Flora Marzia\} and Tiziana D'Inzeo and Barbara Fiori and Francesco Luzzaro and Maurizio Sanguinetti and Teresa Spanu",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.3390/antibiotics11081023",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "N/A--N/A",

journal = "Antibiotics",

issn = "2079-6382",

publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",

number = "8",

}

Cortazzo, V, Posteraro, B, Menchinelli, G, Liotti, FM, D'Inzeo, T, Fiori, B, Luzzaro, F, Sanguinetti, M & Spanu, T 2022, 'Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods', Antibiotics, vol. 11, n. 8, pagg. N/A-N/A. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11081023

Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods. / Cortazzo, Venere; Posteraro, Brunella; Menchinelli, Giulia et al.
In: Antibiotics, Vol. 11, N. 8, 2022, pag. N/A-N/A.

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo in rivista › Articolo

TY - JOUR

T1 - Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods

AU - Cortazzo, Venere

AU - Posteraro, Brunella

AU - Menchinelli, Giulia

AU - Liotti, Flora Marzia

AU - D'Inzeo, Tiziana

AU - Fiori, Barbara

AU - Luzzaro, Francesco

AU - Sanguinetti, Maurizio

AU - Spanu, Teresa

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioMérieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6% and 0.0% (VITEK 2) and 56.9% and 0.0% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0% and 40.4% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.

AB - This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioMérieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6% and 0.0% (VITEK 2) and 56.9% and 0.0% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0% and 40.4% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.

KW - ETEST

KW - VITEK 2

KW - broth microdilution method

KW - ceftazidime-avibactam

KW - ceftolozane-tazobactam

KW - meropenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates

KW - susceptibility testing

KW - ETEST

KW - VITEK 2

KW - broth microdilution method

KW - ceftazidime-avibactam

KW - ceftolozane-tazobactam

KW - meropenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates

KW - susceptibility testing

UR - https://publicatt.unicatt.it/handle/10807/313123

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85137337684&origin=inward

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85137337684&origin=inward

U2 - 10.3390/antibiotics11081023

DO - 10.3390/antibiotics11081023

M3 - Article

SN - 2079-6382

VL - 11

SP - N/A-N/A

JO - Antibiotics

JF - Antibiotics

IS - 8

ER -

Cortazzo V, Posteraro B, Menchinelli G, Liotti FM, D'Inzeo T, Fiori B et al. Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods. Antibiotics. 2022;11(8):N/A-N/A. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11081023