...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Evaluation of Updated Interpretative Criteria for Categorizing Klebsiella pneumoniae with Reduced Carbapenem Susceptibility
【24h】

Evaluation of Updated Interpretative Criteria for Categorizing Klebsiella pneumoniae with Reduced Carbapenem Susceptibility

机译:评价更新的解释性标准,以降低碳青霉烯易感性分类肺炎克雷伯菌

获取原文
           

摘要

We studied the accuracy of various susceptibility testing methods, including the 2009, 2010, and updated 2010 CLSI recommendations, to identify Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates with reduced susceptibility to carbapenems associated with different mechanisms of resistance. Forty-three wild-type (WT) strains, 42 extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producers, 18 ESBL producers with outer membrane porin protein loss (ESBL/Omp strains), and 42 blaKPC-possessing K. pneumoniae (KPC-Kp) isolates were evaluated. Imipenem (IPM), meropenem (MEM), ertapenem (ERT), and doripenem (DOR) were tested by broth microdilution (BMD), Etest, and disk diffusion (DD), and the modified Hodge test (MHT) was performed using IPM and MEM disks. Results were interpreted according to original as well as recently updated interpretative criteria. MHT was positive for all 42 KPC-Kp isolates and 10 of 18 ESBL/Omp strains and therefore had poor specificity in differentiating between KPC-Kp and ESBL/Omp isolates. Based on the updated CLSI standards, phenotypic susceptibility testing by BMD and DD differentiated most carbapenem-susceptible from carbapenem-nonsusceptible K. pneumoniae isolates without the need for MHT, while the Etest method characterized many KPC-Kp isolates as susceptible, and breakpoints may need to be lowered for this method. However, both the original and updated CLSI criteria do not adequately differentiate between isolates in the KPC-Kp group, which are unlikely to respond to carbapenem therapy, and those in the ESBL/Omp group, which are likely to respond to carbapenem therapy if MICs are within pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets. Further studies are required to determine if there is a clinical need to differentiate between KPC-Kp and ESBL/Omp groups.
机译:我们研究了包括2009年,2010年和2010年CLSI建议在内的各种药敏试验方法的准确性,以鉴定对肺炎克雷伯菌肺炎克雷伯菌的分离株,这些分离株对与碳青霉烯类耐药性相关的耐药机制有所降低。 43株野生型(WT)菌株,42株广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)菌株,18株具有外膜孔蛋白损失的ESBL菌株(ESBL / Omp菌株)和42株 bla < sub> KPC -拥有 K。对肺炎克雷伯菌(KPC-Kp)分离株进行了评估。亚胺培南(IPM),美罗培南(MEM),厄他培南(ERT)和多利培南(DOR)通过肉汤微稀释(BMD),Etest和磁盘扩散(DD)进行测试,改良的Hodge检验(MHT)使用IPM进行和MEM磁盘。结果根据原始和最近更新的解释标准进行解释。 MHT对所有42个KPC-Kp分离株和18个ESBL / Omp菌株中的10个都呈阳性,因此在区分KPC-Kp和ESBL / Omp分离株时特异性较差。基于更新的CLSI标准,通过BMD和DD进行的表型敏感性测试将大多数对碳青霉烯敏感的和对不对碳青霉烯敏感的 K进行了区分。不需要MHT的肺炎克雷伯菌分离株,而Etest方法将许多KPC-Kp分离株鉴定为易感株,此方法可能需要降低断点。但是,无论是原始的还是更新的CLSI标准都不能充分地区分KPC-Kp组中对碳青霉烯类药物无效的分离株和ESBL / Omp组中可能对碳青霉烯类化合物治疗的ESBL / Omp分离株在药代动力学/药效学目标之内。需要进行进一步的研究以确定在临床上是否需要区分KPC-Kp和ESBL / Omp组。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号