Tue, Apr 1, 2025
Volume 18, Issue 4 (Jul-Aug 2024)
mljgoums 2024, 18(4): 17-21 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Lall S, Bhat V, Biswas S, Khattry N. Comparative evaluation of in vitro activity of tigecycline using the disc diffusion method and the VITEK-2 COMPACT in clinical isolates at a tertiary care cancer center. mljgoums 2024; 18 (4) :17-21
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1779-en.html
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1779-en.html
1- Department of Microbiology, HBNI ACTREC TMC, NAVI Mumbai, India
2- Department of Microbiology, HBNI ACTREC TMC, NAVI Mumbai, India ,vivekbhat2005@yahoo.com
3- Department of Microbiology, HBNITATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India
4- Department of Medical Oncology HBNI ACTREC, TMC, NAVI Mumbai, India
2- Department of Microbiology, HBNI ACTREC TMC, NAVI Mumbai, India ,
3- Department of Microbiology, HBNITATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India
4- Department of Medical Oncology HBNI ACTREC, TMC, NAVI Mumbai, India
Abstract: (726 Views)
Background: Tigecycline susceptibility testing and reporting remain enigmatic due to the lack of established guidelines. Disc diffusion, as a method of performing susceptibility testing, is more widely accepted worldwide due to its ease of use. Limited published literature is available from India on the utility of this method, especially in a cancer care setting. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the performance characteristics of disc diffusion by comparing its results with those of the VITEK-2 COMPACT, considering the latter as the standard.
Methods: Disc diffusion was performed using Kirby-Bauer’s method on Mueller-Hinton agar with a HiMedia 15 mcg TGC disc, following FDA and EUCAST breakpoints. According to CLSI criteria, disc diffusion breakpoints can be considered acceptable when categorical agreement is ≥ 90%, the very major error is ≤ 1.5%, and the major error is ≤ 3%.
Results: Using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, the kappa value was 0.328, with a p-value of <0.05. The agreement percentage observed was 60.84%. Two strains reported as resistant by VITEK-2 COMPACT were misclassified as sensitive by disc diffusion, resulting in a very major error rate of 0.76%. A major error rate of 9.5% and a minor error rate of 27.7% were noted, as 25 strains reported as susceptible were identified as resistant.
Conclusion: Since poor agreement was observed, exceeding the acceptable performance rate, the disc diffusion method was unacceptable according to CLSI criteria. There is a gap in uniformity and a lack of streamlined, harmonized TST, which might become an alarming cause for concern.
Methods: Disc diffusion was performed using Kirby-Bauer’s method on Mueller-Hinton agar with a HiMedia 15 mcg TGC disc, following FDA and EUCAST breakpoints. According to CLSI criteria, disc diffusion breakpoints can be considered acceptable when categorical agreement is ≥ 90%, the very major error is ≤ 1.5%, and the major error is ≤ 3%.
Results: Using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, the kappa value was 0.328, with a p-value of <0.05. The agreement percentage observed was 60.84%. Two strains reported as resistant by VITEK-2 COMPACT were misclassified as sensitive by disc diffusion, resulting in a very major error rate of 0.76%. A major error rate of 9.5% and a minor error rate of 27.7% were noted, as 25 strains reported as susceptible were identified as resistant.
Conclusion: Since poor agreement was observed, exceeding the acceptable performance rate, the disc diffusion method was unacceptable according to CLSI criteria. There is a gap in uniformity and a lack of streamlined, harmonized TST, which might become an alarming cause for concern.
Keywords: Tigecycline, Disk diffusion antimicrobial tests, Microbial drug resistance, Multiple drug resistance, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Broth microdilution test
Research Article: Research Article |
Subject:
Microbiology
Received: 2024/01/30 | Accepted: 2024/07/17 | Published: 2025/03/11 | ePublished: 2025/03/11
Received: 2024/01/30 | Accepted: 2024/07/17 | Published: 2025/03/11 | ePublished: 2025/03/11
References
1. Petersen PJ, Jacobus NV, Weiss WJ, Sum PE, Testa RT. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of a novel glycylcycline, the 9-t-butylglycylamido derivative of minocycline (GAR-936). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999; 43(4): 738-44. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). The Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, M100-S29. 2023. [View at Publisher]
3. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 13.0, 2023. http://www.eucast.org. [View at Publisher]
4. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA-Identified Interpretive Criteria for Tigecycline-Injection products; 2019. [View at Publisher]
5. Clinical and laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Verification of Commercial Microbial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Systems M52-1st Edition. 2015. [View at Publisher]
6. Livermore DM. Tigecycline: what is it, and where should it be used? J AntimicrobChemother. 2005; 56(4): 611-4. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Yaghoubi S, Zekiy AO, Krutova M, Gholami M, Kouhsari E, Sholeh M, et al. Tigecycline antibacterial activity, clinical effectiveness, and mechanisms and epidemiology of resistance: narrative review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022; 41(7): 1003-1022. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1007/s10096-020-04121-1] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
8. Anyanwu MU, Nwobi OC, Okpala COR, Ezeonu IM. Mobile Tigecycline Resistance: An Emerging Health Catastrophe Requiring Urgent One Health Global Intervention. Front Microbiol. 2022; 13: 808744. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. Rodvold KA, Gotfried MH, Cwik M, Korth-Bradley JM, Dukart G, Ellis-Grosse EJ. Ellis-Grosse, Serum, tissue and body fluid concentrations of tigecycline after a single 100 mg dose. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 58(6): 1221-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
10. Hooper LV, Littman DR, Macpherson AJ. Interactions between the microbiota and the Immune System. Science. 2012; 336(6086): 1268-1273. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
11. Veenemans J, Mouton JW, Kluytmans JA, Donnely R, Verhulst C, van Keulen PH. Effect of manganese in test media on in vitro susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter baumannii to tigecycline Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50(9): 3077-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
12. Fass RJ, Barnishan J. Effect of divalent cation concentrations on the antibiotic susceptibilities of non-fermenters other than Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979; 16(4): 434-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. Reller LB, Schoenknecht FD, Kenny MA, Sherris JC. Antibiotic susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: selection of a control strain and criteria for magnesium and calcium content in media. J Infect Dis. 1974; 130(5): 454-63. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. D'amato RF, Thornsberry C, Baker CN, Kirven LA. Effect of calcium and magnesium ions on the susceptibility of Pseudomonas species to tetracycline, gentamicin polymyxin B, carbenicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975; 7(5): 596-600. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
15. Washington JA 2nd, Snyder RJ, Kohner PC, Wiltse CG, Ilstrup DM, McCall JT. Effect of cation content of agar on the activity of gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Dis. 1978; 137(2): 103-11. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
16. Fernández-Mazarrasa C, Mazarrasa O, Calvo J, del Arco A, Martínez-Martínez L. High concentrations of manganese in Mueller-Hinton agar increase MICs of tigecycline determined by Etest. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47(3): 827-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
17. Thamlikitkul V, Tiengrim S. Effect of different Mueller-Hinton agars on tigecycline disc diffusion susceptibility for Acinetobacter spp. J AntimicrobChemother. 2008; 62(4): 847-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
18. Fernández-Mazarrasa C, Mazarrasa O, Calvo J, del Arco A, Martínez-Martínez L. High concentrations of manganese in Mueller-Hinton agar increase MICs of tigecycline determined by Etest. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47(3): 827-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
19. Rahelić D, Kujundzić M, Romić Z, Brkić K, Petrovecki M. Serum concentration of zinc, copper, manganese and magnesium in patients with liver cirrhosis. Coll Antropol. 2006; 30(3): 523-8. [View at Publisher] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
20. Rükgauer M, Klein J, Kruse-Jarres JD. Reference values for the trace elements copper, manganese, selenium, and zinc in the serum/plasma of children, adolescents, and adults. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 1997; 11(2): 92-8 [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
21. Lat A, Clock SA, Wu F, Whittier S, Della-Latta P, Fauntleroy K, et al. Comparison of polymyxin B, tigecycline, cefepime, and meropenem MICs for KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae by broth microdilution, Vitek 2, and Etest. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49(5): 1795-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
22. Behera B, Das A, Mathur P, Kapil A, Gadepalli R, Dhawan B. Tigecycline susceptibility report from an Indian tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Res. 2009; 129(4): 446-50. [View at Publisher] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
23. Manoharan A, Chatterjee S, Madhan S, Mathai D. Evaluation of tigecycline activity in clinical isolates among Indian medical centers. Indian J PatholMicrobiol. 2010; 53 (4): 734-7. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
24. Kumar S, Bandyopadhyay M, Mondal S, Pal N, Ghosh T, Bandyopadhyay M, et al. Tigecycline activity against metallo-β-lactamase-producing bacteria. Avicenna J Med. 2013; 3(4): 92-6. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
25. Veeraraghavan B, Poojary A, Shankar C, Bari AK, Kukreja S, Thukkaram B, et al. In-vitro activity of tigecycline and comparator agents against common pathogens: Indian experience. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2019; 13(3): 245-250. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
26. Hoban DJ, Reinert RR, Bouchillon SK, Dowzicky MJ. Global in vitro activity of tigecycline and comparator agents: Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial 2004-2013. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2015; 14: 27. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
27. Fernández-Canigia L, Dowzicky MJ. Susceptibility of important Gram-negative pathogens to tigecycline and other antibiotics in Latin America between 2004 and 2010. Ann Clin MicrobiolAntimicrob. 2012; 11: 29. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
28. Elnasser Z, Elsamarneh R, Obeidat H, Amarin Z, Jaradat S, Kaplan N. In-vitro activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant Gram negative bacteria: The experience of a university hospital. J Infect Public Health. 2021; 14(4): 478-483. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
29. Kenza El Bazi. Tigecycline susceptibility among multi -drug resistant bacteria: A 7-year retrospective study. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews. 2022; 11(01): 079-083 [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30. He F, Fu Y, Chen Q, Ruan Z, Hua X, Zhou H, et al. Tigecycline susceptibility and the role of efflux pumps in tigecycline resistance in KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3): e0119064. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
31. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. Version 8.0; 2018. [View at Publisher]
32. Li H, Zhou M, Chen X, Zhang Y, Jian Z, Yan Q, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Seven Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Methods for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Drug Resist. 2021; 14: 1511-1516. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
33. Saleh M. Evaluation of Colistin and Tigecycline Susceptibility Testing Methods for Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii Clinical Isolates. Egyptian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2021; 30(2): 35-42. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34. Bedenić B, Cavrić G, Vranić-Ladavac M, Barišić N, Karčić N, Tot T, et al. COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS FOR TIGECYCLINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII. Acta Clin Croat. 2018; 57(4): 618-623. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
35. Grandesso S, Sapino B, Amici G, Mazzucato D. Solinas M, Gion M. Are E-test and Vitek 2 good choices for tigecycline susceptibility testing when comparing broth microdilution for MDR and XDR Acinetobacter baumannii? New Microbiol. 2014; 37: 503-8. [View at Publisher] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
36. Zarkotou O, Pournaras S, Altouvas G, Pitiriga V, Tziraki M, Mamali V, et al. Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for expanded-spectrum cephalosporin- and carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50(11): 3747-50. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
37. Marchaim D et al.Major variation in MICs of tigecycline in Gram-negative bacilli as a function of testing method Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52(5):1617-21. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
38. Zhang J, Zhao C, Chen H, Wang X, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for Acinetobacter baumannii and Enterobacteriaceae. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2015; 3(2): 75-79. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
39. Idelevich EA, Freeborn DA, Seifert H, Becker K. Comparison of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease. 2018; 91(4):360-362. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
40. Simsek M, Demir C. Determination of Colistin and Tigecycline Resistance Profile of Acinetobacter Baumannii Strains from Different Clinical Samples in a Territory Hospital in Turkey. Journal of Health Science and Medical Research. 2020; 38(2):81-91. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
41. Huang TD, Berhin C, Bogaerts P, Glupczynski Y. In vitro susceptibility of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates to tigecycline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012; 67(11): 2696-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Enamad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.