4.7 Article

Controlling False-Positive Results Obtained with the Hodge and Masuda Assays for Detection of Class A Carbapenemase in Species of Enterobacteriaceae by Incorporating Boronic Acid

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 1323-1332

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01771-09

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The modified Hodge method (MHT) has been recommended by the CLSI for confirmation of suspected class A carbapenemase production in species of Enterobacteriaceae. This test and the Masuda method (MAS) have advantages over traditional phenotypic methods in that they directly analyze carbapenemase activity. In order to identify the potential interferences of these tests, we designed a panel composed of diverse bacterial genera with distinct carbapenem susceptibility patterns (42 carbapenemase producers and 48 nonproducers). About 25% of results among carbapenemase nonproducers, mainly strains harboring CTX-M and AmpC hyperproducers, were observed to be false positive. Subsequently, we developed an optimized approach for more-accurate detection of suspicious isolates of carbapenemase by addition of boronic acid (BA) derivatives (reversible inhibitor of class A carbapenemases and AmpC cephalosporinases) and oxacillin (inhibitor of AmpCs enzymes). The use of the modified BA-and oxacillin-based MHT and MAS resulted in high sensitivity (>90%) and specificity (100%) for class A carbapenemase detection. By use of these methodologies, isolates producing KPCs and GES, Sme, IMI, and NMC-A carbapenemases were successfully distinguished from those producing other classes of beta-lactamases (extended-spectrum beta-lactamases [ESBLs], AmpC beta-lactamases, metallo-beta-lactamases [MBLs], etc.). These methods will provide the fast and useful information needed for targeting of antimicrobial therapy and appropriate infection control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available