Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 20:14:1511-1516.
doi: 10.2147/IDR.S289499. eCollection 2021.

Comparative Evaluation of Seven Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Methods for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

Affiliations

Comparative Evaluation of Seven Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Methods for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

Hongling Li et al. Infect Drug Resist. .

Abstract

Purpose: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) strains are extensively resistant to most antibiotics. Tigecycline is one of the few effective drugs that can be used to treat infections caused by CRE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different methods for detecting the susceptibility of CRE to tigecycline.

Methods: Seven commonly used drug susceptibility testing methods were compared and evaluated for the ability to determine CRE tigecycline susceptibility: broth microdilution (BMD), agar dilution method (ADM), disk diffusion method, Etest, MicroScan, Vitek2 COMPACT, and BD Phoenix 100.

Results: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of tigecycline to inhibit 50% and 90% of CRE growth (MIC50 and MIC90, respectively) assessed by ADM and BD Phoenix 100 was the same as that determined by the reference method, BMD. The MIC50 was 2 µg/mL, and the MIC90 was 4 µg/mL. The highest number of susceptible strains was detected by MicroScan, followed by BMD, Etest, ADM, BD Phoenix 100, Vitek2 COMPACT, and disk diffusion method, in descending order. No significant differences were observed among the tigecycline susceptibility results (P > 0.05) obtained from MicroScan, Etest, BD Phoenix 100, and BMD. BMD confirmed that 82.0% of strains were susceptible to tigecycline. ADM, MicroScan, and BD Phoenix 100 yielded the categorical agreement of 96%, 92%, and 93%, respectively. No method was found to present any very major errors (VMEs), and only the Vitek2 COMPACT yielded major errors (MEs) greater than 3%.

Conclusion: Among the seven methods tested, the ADM, MicroScan, and BD Phoenix 100 methods were accurate for determining the tigecycline susceptibility of CRE. MicroScan was acceptable with better performance than other methods.

Keywords: CRE; antibiotic susceptibility test; carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; tigecycline.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

    1. Doi Y. Treatment options for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(Suppl 7):S565–S575. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz830 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. CDC. Diseases and organisms in healthcare settings. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/organisms.html. Accessed October7, 2019.
    1. Van Duin D, Arias CA, Komarow L, et al. Molecular and clinical epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in the USA (CRACKLE-2): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(6):731–741. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30755-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewardson AJ, Marimuthu K, Sengupta S, et al. Effect of carbapenem resistance on outcomes of bloodstream infection caused by Enterobacteriaceae in low-income and middle-income countries (PANORAMA): a multinational prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(6):601–610. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30792-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gutierrez-Gutierrez B, Salamanca E, de Cueto M, et al. Effect of appropriate combination therapy on mortality of patients with bloodstream infections due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (INCREMENT): a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(7):726–734. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30228-1 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources