Performance of EUCAST and CLSI approaches for co-amoxiclav susceptibility testing conditions for clinical categorization of a collection of Escherichia coli isolates with characterized resistance phenotypes
Objectives: There are different methodological recommendations for in vitro testing of the co-amoxiclav combination. Performance of co-amoxiclav MIC testing for Escherichia coli by the standard ISO microdilution method (ISO 20776-1) was compared using EUCAST (fixed 2 mg/L clavulanate concentration)...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2015 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/171505 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/171505 https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkv088 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | MICs Amoxicillin/clavulanate E. coli |
| Sumario: | Objectives: There are different methodological recommendations for in vitro testing of the co-amoxiclav combination. Performance of co-amoxiclav MIC testing for Escherichia coli by the standard ISO microdilution method (ISO 20776-1) was compared using EUCAST (fixed 2 mg/L clavulanate concentration) and CLSI (2 : 1 ratio) interpretive criteria. Methods: MICs were determined by broth microdilution using a 2 : 1 ratio and fixed clavulanate concentrations (2 and 4 mg/L) for 160 clinical E. coli isolates with characterized resistance mechanisms. Essential agreements, categorical agreements and relative errors were determined. Results: For all isolates, essential agreement between microdilution using 2 mg/L clavulanate and a 2 : 1 ratio was 25.6%. For ESBL-producing isolates, considering EUCAST breakpoints, 55% of isolates tested with 2 mg/L clavulanate were classified as resistant; conversely, 95% of isolates tested with 4 mg/L clavulanate were susceptible. When using CLSI breakpoints and a 2 : 1 ratio, 90% of isolates were susceptible and 10% were intermediate. Conclusions: Variation in the clavulanate concentration gave different susceptibility testing results, particularly among ESBL-producing E. coli isolates. The in vitro concentration of clavulanate that better correlates with clinical outcome is still under debate and should be established. |
|---|