Breakpoint beware: reliance on historical breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae leads to discrepancies in interpretation of susceptibility testing for carbapenems and cephalosporins and gaps in detection of carbapenem-resistant organisms
- 32 Downloads
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are an important public health and infection prevention threat. CRE are typically detected via phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), for which interpretive standards were modified in recent years. Our objective was to measure the impact of breakpoint changes on AST interpretation for CRE. Zone sizes from disk diffusion AST for Enterobacteriaceae isolates recovered from clinical cultures over a 1-year period (n = 10,183) and CRE from clinical and environmental sources from the USA and Pakistan (n = 342) were evaluated. Results were interpreted according to historical (CLSI M100-S19) and current (CLSI M100-S29) breakpoints. Interpretive errors were calculated according to the FDA definitions. Using current breakpoints as the reference standard, 56 (17%) very major (false susceptibility) errors occurred for cefepime and 13 (45%) very major errors for meropenem interpretation using historical breakpoints in clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, corresponding to 12 carbapenemase-producing CRE that would have been missed during the 1-year period. For confirmed blaKPC CP-CRE clinical and environmental isolates (n = 149), the very major error rate for historic breakpoints was 8%, 30%, 63%, and 0% for cefepime, meropenem, imipenem, and ertapenem, respectively. For blaKPC isolates, the use of historical breakpoints would have led to 42 (28%) reports of false susceptibility to meropenem. Failure to adopt updated AST breakpoints may lead to reports of false susceptibility for antimicrobials commonly used to treat Gram-negative infections and preclude recognition of CRE. Such errors could negatively impact patient care and hamper infection control and public health efforts.
KeywordsCarbapenemase-producing CRE KPC Breakpoint Enterobacteriaceae
This work is supported in part by awards to G.D. through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01AI123394 and R01HD092414, respectively. R.F.P. was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences training grant through award T32 GM007067 and the Monsanto/Bayer Excellence Fund graduate fellowship. A.W.D. was supported by the Institutional Program Unifying Population and Laboratory-Based Sciences Burroughs Welcome Fund grant to Washington University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
M.L.Y., M.A.W., R.F.P., A.W.D., and G.D. have nothing to disclose. C-A.D.B. serves as an advisor on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.
No informed consent was needed for this study since no personal data were involved.
Approval by the institutional review board was not required for this study.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
- 2.Zhang Y, Wang Q, Yin Y, Chen H, Jin L, Gu B, Xie L, Yang C, Ma X, Li H, Li W, Zhang X, Liao K, Man S, Wang S, Wen H, Li B, Guo Z, Tian J, Pei F, Liu L, Zhang L, Zou C, Hu T, Cai J, Yang H, Huang J, Jia X, Huang W, Cao B, Wang H (2018) Epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections: report from the China CRE network. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62(2)Google Scholar
- 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare-associated Infections: Tracking CRE. http://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/TrackingCRE.html. Cited February 16, 2019
- 6.Lee BY, Bartsch SM, Wong KF, McKinnell JA, Slayton RB, Miller LG, Cao C, Kim DS, Kallen AJ, Jernigan JA, Huang SS (2016) The potential trajectory of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, an emerging threat to health-care facilities, and the impact of the centers for disease control and prevention toolkit. Am J Epidemiol 183(5):471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.CLSI (2010) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; nineteenth informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S20. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- 9.CLSI (2014) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-fourth informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- 10.Humphries RM, Hindler JA, Epson E, Horwich-Scholefield S, Miller LG, Mendez J, Martinez JB, Sinkowitz J, Sinkowtiz D, Hershey C, Marquez P, Bhaurla S, Moran M, Pandes L, Terashita D, McKinnell JA (2018) Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae detection practices in California: what are we missing? Clin Infect Dis 66(7):1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.McKinnell JA, Bhaurla S, Marquez-Sung P, Pucci A, Baron M, Kamali T, Bugante J, Schwartz B, Balter S, Terashita D, Butler-Wu S, Gunzenhauser J, Hindler J, Humphries RM (2018) Public health efforts can impact adoption of current susceptibility breakpoints, but closer attention from regulatory bodies is needed. J Clin MicrobiolGoogle Scholar
- 12.Bartsch SM, Huang SS, Wong KF, Slayton RB, McKinnell JA, Sahm DF, Kazmierczak K, Mueller LE, Jernigan JA, Lee BY (2016) Impact of delays between Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and Food and Drug Administration revisions of interpretive criteria for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol 54(11):2757–2762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.CLSI (2015) Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests; approved standard—twelfth edition. CLSI document M02-A12. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- 14.CLSI (2019) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-ninth informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S29. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PAGoogle Scholar
- 16.Potter RF, D’Souza AW, Wallace MA, Shupe A, Patel S, Gul D, Kwon JH, Andleeb S, Burnham CA, Dantas G (2017) Draft genome sequence of the blaOXA-436- and blaNDM-1-harboring Shewanella putrefaciens SA70 isolate. Genome Announc 5(29)Google Scholar
- 17.Potter RF, D’Souza AW, Wallace MA, Shupe A, Patel S, Gul D, Kwon JH, Beatty W, Andleeb S, Burnham CD, Dantas G (2018) Superficieibacter electus gen. nov., sp. nov., an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase possessing member of the Enterobacteriaceae family, isolated from intensive care unit surfaces. Front Microbiol 9:1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.CLSI (2009) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; nineteenth informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- 21.U.S. Food and Drug Administration Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems, https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm080564.htm. Cited February 16, 2019
- 22.Chea N, Bulens SN, Kongphet-Tran T, Lynfield R, Shaw KM, Vagnone PS, Kainer MA, Muleta DB, Wilson L, Vaeth E, Dumyati G, Concannon C, Phipps EC, Culbreath K, Janelle SJ, Bamberg WM, Guh AY, Limbago B, Kallen AJ (2015) Improved phenotype-based definition for identifying carbapenemase producers among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis 21(9):1611–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Infectious Diseases Society of America (2011) Altert: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. https://wwwidsocietyorg/public-health/antimicrobial-resistance/antimicrobial-resistance/antimicrobial-susceptibility-testing/. Cited February 16 2019
- 24.CLSI (2016) Verification of commercial microbial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- 28.Brown D, Canton R, Dubreuil L, Gatermann S, Giske C, MacGowan A, Martinez-Martinez L, Mouton J, Skov R, Steinbakk M, Walton C, Heuer O, Struelens MJ, Diaz Hogberg L, Kahlmeter G (2015) Widespread implementation of EUCAST breakpoints for antibacterial susceptibility testing in Europe. Euro Surveill 20(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Sahu C, Jain V, Mishra P, Prasad KN (2018) Clinical and laboratory standards institute versus European committee for antimicrobial susceptibility testing guidelines for interpretation of carbapenem antimicrobial susceptibility results for Escherichia coli in urinary tract infection (UTI). J Lab Phys 10(3):289–293Google Scholar
- 32.Humphries RM, Kircher S, Ferrell A, Krause KM, Malherbe R, Hsiung A, Burnham CA (2018) The continued value of disk diffusion for assessing antimicrobial susceptibility in clinical laboratories: report from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Methods Development and Standardization Working Group. J Clin Microbiol 56(8)Google Scholar
- 34.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf. Cited March 20 2019
- 35.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Antibiotic resistance lab network. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. https://wwwcdcgov/drugresistance/solutions-initiative/ar-lab-networkshtml. Cited February 16, 2019
- 36.Humphries RM, Abbott AN, Hindler JA (2019) Understanding and addressing CLSI breakpoint revisions - a primer for clinical laboratories. J Clin Microbiol 00203-00219Google Scholar
- 37.O’Neill J (2016) Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/160518_Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf. Cited March 20 2019
- 38.World Health Organization (WHO) (2014) Antimicrobial resistance: a global report on surveillance. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar