4.7 Article

Use of Faropenem as an Indicator of Carbapenemase Activity in the Enterobacteriaceae

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 1881-1886

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00720-13

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the ability of a disc susceptibility test using faropenem (10 mu g) to predict carbapenemase activity in Enterobacteriaceae. A collection of 166 isolates of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and 82 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae that produced other beta-lactamases was compiled from diverse sources. Disc susceptibility testing was performed using the CLSI/EUCAST methodology with discs of faropenem (10 mu g), temocillin (30 mu g), and four carbapenems (each 10 mu g). A further prospective evaluation of the faropenem disc susceptibility test was performed using 205 consecutive isolates referred to a United Kingdom reference laboratory in parallel with molecular methods for carbapenemase detection. Of 166 isolates of CPE, 99% showed growth up to the edge of a 10-mu g faropenem disc compared with only 6% of other beta-lactamase producers (sensitivity, 99%; specificity, 94%). A double zone around 10-mu g faropenem discs was frequently associated with OXA-48 producers. Of the carbapenems, the most useful agent was imipenem, where a zone diameter of <= 23mm as a predictor of carbapenemase activity had a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 85%. The presence of no zone of inhibition around a 30-mu g temocillin disc was a consistent feature of strains producing OXA-48 carbapenemase. For 205 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae referred to a United Kingdom reference laboratory, growth up to a 10-mu g faropenem disc correctly identified 84 of 86 carbapenemase producers (98% sensitivity), with a specificity of 87%. Disc susceptibility testing using faropenem (10 mu g) is a simple, convenient, and highly predictive screening test for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

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