4.7 Article

Laboratory Detection of Enterobacteriaceae That Produce Carbapenemases

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 12, Pages 3877-3880

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02117-12

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Merck
  2. Astra Zeneca
  3. Calgary Laboratory Services [73-6350]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study was designed to evaluate the modified Hodge test (MHT), Mastdiscs ID inhibitor combination disks (MDI), Rosco Diagnostica Neo-Sensitabs (RDS), metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) Etest, and in-house multiplex PCR for the detection of well-characterized carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. One hundred forty-two nonrepeat clinical isolates of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (including Klebsiella spp., Escherichia coli, Citrobacter freundii, and Enterobacter spp.) obtained from the SMART worldwide surveillance program during 2008 to 2009 were included. These included 49 KPC-, 27 NDM-, 19 VIM-, 14 OXA-48-like enzyme-, and 5 IMP-producing isolates and 28 carbapenem-resistant, carbapenemase-negative isolates. The manufacturer's instructions were followed for MDI, RDS, and MBL Etest and CLSI guidelines for MHT. A multiplex PCR was designed to detect KPC, NDM, VIM, IMP, and OXA-48-like carbapenemases. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity were 78% and 93% for MDI, 80% and 93% for RDS, 58% and 93% for MHT, and 55% and 100% for MBL Etest, respectively. The PCR had 100% sensitivity and specificity. MDI and RDS performed well for the detection of KPCs and NDMs but poorly for VIMs, IMPs, and OXA-48-like enzymes. MHT performed well for KPCs and OXA-48-like enzymes but poorly for NDMs, VIMs, and IMPs. MDI and RDS were easy to perform and interpret but lacked sensitivity for OXA-48-like enzymes, VIMs, and IMPs. MHT and MBL Etest were often difficult to interpret. We recommend using molecular tests for the optimal detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

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