1. Academic Validation
  2. Evaluation of the Etest and disk diffusion method for detection of the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in China

Evaluation of the Etest and disk diffusion method for detection of the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in China

  • BMC Microbiol. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s12866-020-01870-z.
Qi Wang 1 Feifei Zhang 1 Zhanwei Wang 1 Hongbin Chen 1 Xiaojuan Wang 1 Yawei Zhang 1 Shuguang Li 1 Hui Wang 2
Affiliations

Affiliations

  • 1 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  • 2 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China. [email protected].
Abstract

Background: Ceftazidime-avibactam was approved in China in 2019 for treating complicated intra-abdominal infections, hospital-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and infections caused by Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for which treatment options are limited. However, no currently available commercial systems have been approved for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of ceftazidime-avibactam in China. Here, we evaluated the Etest and disk diffusion method for detecting the activity of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa in China.

Results: In total, 194 Enterobacterales and 77 P. aeruginosa isolates, which were divided into a random selection group (140 Enterobacterales and 46 P. aeruginosa isolates) and stock group (54 Enterobacterales and 31 P. aeruginosa isolates), were assessed by the Etest, disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods. Minimum inhibitory concentrations and zone diameters were interpreted according to the CLSI supplement M100 30th edition. For all 271 tested isolates, no very major errors were found by using Etest, whereas the overall major error rate was 2.0% (4/203). The overall categorical agreement rates of Etest for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 99.5% (193/194) and 96.1% (74/77), respectively, and the essential agreement rates were 95.9% (186/194) and 94.8% (73/77), respectively. The disk diffusion method showed that the very major error and major error rates were 1.5% (3/204) and 2.5% (5/203), respectively. Overall categorical agreement rates values of the disk diffusion method for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa were 98.5% (191/194) and 93.5% (72/77) compared with broth microdilution, respectively.

Conclusions: For Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa, both the Etest and disk diffusion method showed acceptable performance as alternatives to the standard broth microdilution method for clinical treatment interpretation. Application of the disk diffusion method in Enterobacterales was slightly better than that in P. aeruginosa.

Keywords

Broth microdilution; Ceftazidime-avibactam; Disk diffusion; Etest.

Figures
Products