4.7 Article

Evaluation of Boronic Acid Disk Tests for Differentiating KPC-Possessing Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates in the Clinical Laboratory

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 362-367

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01922-08

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide increase in the occurrence and dissemination of KPC beta-lactamases among gram-negative pathogens makes critical the early detection of these enzymes. Boronic acid disk tests using different antibiotic substrates were evaluated for detection of KPC-possessing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. A total of 57 genotypically confirmed KPC-possessing K. pneumoniae isolates with varying carbapenem MICs were examined. To measure the specificity of the tests, 106 non-KPC-possessing isolates (89 K. pneumoniae and 17 Escherichia coli isolates) were randomly selected among those exhibiting reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin, expanded-spectrum cephalosporins, or carbapenems. As many as 56, 53, and 40 of the non-KPC- possessing isolates harbored extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, metallo-beta-lactamases, and plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamases, respectively. By use of CLSI methodology and disks containing imipenem, meropenem, or cefepime, either alone or in combination with 400 mu g of boronic acid, all 57 KPC producers gave positive results (sensitivity, 100%) whereas all 106 non-KPC producers were negative (specificity, 100%). The meropenem duplicate disk with or without boronic acid demonstrated the largest differences in inhibition zone diameters between KPC producers and non-KPC producers. By use of disks containing ertapenem, all isolates were correctly differentiated except for five AmpC producers that gave false-positive results (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 95.3%). These practical and simple boronic acid disk tests promise to be very helpful for the accurate differentiation of KPC-possessing K. pneumoniae isolates, even in regions where different broad-spectrum beta-lactamases are widespread.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据