SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ahi Evran Tıp Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Detection of Colistin Susceptibility in Klebsiella Pneumoniae and Acinetobacter Baumannii Strains: Method Comparison

Klebsiella Pneumoniae ve Acinetobacter Baumannii Suşlarında Kolistin Duyarlılığının Saptanması: Yöntem Karşılaştırması

İpek Koçer(SANKO ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0631-6415
Hadiye Demirbakan(SANKO ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4180-8201
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-08-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The low level of agreement in Acinetobacter isolates indicates that new methods that can be applied in the routine laboratory as an alternative to the gold standard BMD method, are needed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the broth microdilution method (BMD)-based commercial system and colistin broth disk elution method (CBDE) for colistin susceptibility in multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacteria.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: 112 K. pneumoniae and 62 A. baumannii isolates which were isolated from various clinical specimens between March 2020 and June 2022 were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The low level of agreement in Acinetobacter isolates indicates that new methods that can be applied in the routine laboratory as an alternative to the gold standard BMD method, are needed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:antibiotic sensitivity · broth microdilution · colistin

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the broth microdilution method (BMD)-based commercial system and colistin broth disk elution method (CBDE) for colistin susceptibility in multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Materials and methods: 112 K. pneumoniae and 62 A. baumannii isolates which were isolated from various clinical specimens between March 2020 and June 2022 were included in the study. The colistin susceptibilities of the strains were compared with BMD-based commercial system and CBDE methods. Results: For K. pneumoniae isolates, a very good agreement was found between the results of the KSDE test and those of the commercially available SMD-based kit (κ=0.88). However, for A. baumannii isolates, there was a negligible level of agreement between the results of the KSDE test and the commercially available SMD-based kit (κ=0.11). Conclusions: The CBDE method is highly compatible in determining the colistin susceptibility of Klebsiella species. The low level of agreement in Acinetobacter isolates indicates that new methods that can be applied in the routine laboratory as an alternative to the gold standard BMD method, are needed.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile çok ilaca dirençli Gram negatif bakterilerde kolistin duyarlılığı için sıvı mikrodilüsyon (SMD) temelli ticari sistem ile kolistin sıvı disk elüsyon (KSDE) yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araçlar ve Yöntem: Mart 2020 - Haziran 2022 tarihleri arasında çeşitli klinik örneklerden izole edilen 112 K. pneumoniae ve 62 A. baumannii izolatı çalışmaya alınmıştır. Suşların kolistin duyarlılıkları SMD temelli ticari sistem ve KSDE yöntemleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: K. pneumoniae izolatlarının KSDE test sonuçları ile SMD temelli ticari kit sonuçları arasında çok iyi uyum bulunmuştur (κ=0.88). A. baumannii izolatlarının KSDE test sonuçları ile SMD temelli ticari kit sonuçları karşılaştırıldığında ise önemsiz düzeyde uyum bulunmuştur (κ=0.11). Sonuç: Klebsiella izolatlarında KSDE yönteminin kolistin duyarlılığının belirlenmesinde uyumu yüksektir. Acinetobacter izolatlarında ise uyum düzeyinin düşük olması altın standart SMD yöntemine alternatif, rutin laboratuvarda uygulanabilir yöntemlere ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koçer, İ., Demirbakan, H. (2024). Detection of Colistin Susceptibility in Klebsiella Pneumoniae and Acinetobacter Baumannii Strains: Method Comparison. Ahi Evran Tıp Dergisi, Volume: 8 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.46332/aemj.1320170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Biswas S, Brunel JM, Dubus JC, Reynaud-Gaubert M, Rolain JM. Colistin: an update on the antibiotic of the 21st century. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012;10(8):917-934.
  2. Binsker U, Käsbohrer A, Hammerl JA. Global colistin use: a review of the emergence of resistant Enterobacterales and the impact on their genetic basis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2021;46(1):49.
  3. Uzairue LI, Rabaan AA, Adewumi FA, et al. Global Prevalence of Colistin Resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae from Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pathogens. 2022;11(10): 1092.
  4. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.Recommendations for MIC determination of colistin (polymyxin E) as recommended by the joint CLSI-EUCAST Polymyxin Breakpoints Working Group. 2016.
  5. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters.
  6. Simner PJ, Bergman Y, Trejo M, et al. Two-Site Evaluation of the Colistin Broth Disk Elution Test To Determine Colistin In Vitro Activity against Gram-Negative Bacilli. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(2):10-1128.
  7. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. (EUCAST) Version7.1. http://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/previous_versions_of_documents. Erişim tarihi 10 Temmuz, 2023.
  8. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33 (1):159-174.
  9. Akobeng AK. Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):840-844.
  10. Rojas LJ, Salim M, Cober E, et al. Colistin Resistance in Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: Laboratory Detection and Impact on Mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(6):711-718.
  11. Ezadi F, Ardebili A, Mirnejad R. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Polymyxins: Challenges, Issues, and Recommendations. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(4):10-1128.
  12. Bell DT, Bergman Y, Kazmi AQ, Lewis S, Tamma PD, Simner PJ. A Novel Phenotypic Method To Screen for Plasmid-Mediated Colistin Resistance among Enterobacteriales. J Clin Microbiol. 2019; 57(5):10-1128.
  13. Koyuncu Özyurt Ö, Özhak B, Öğünç D, et al. Evaluation of the BD Phoenix100 System and Colistin Broth Disk Elution Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Colistin Against Gram-negative Bacteria. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2019;53(3):254-261.
  14. Humphries RM, Green DA, Schuetz AN, et al. Multicenter Evaluation of Colistin Broth Disk Elution and Colistin Agar Test: a Report from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(11):10-1128.
  15. Főldes A, Székely E, Voidăzan ST, Dobreanu M. Comparison of Six Phenotypic Assays with Reference Methods for Assessing Colistin Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales: Challenges and Opportunities. Antibiotics. 2022;11(3):337.
  16. Butt T, Butt A, Yasmin S, Taj S, Tariq N, Bano S. Antibiotic Disk Elution Method to Determine the Colistin Susceptibility against Enterobacterales and Non-fermenter Bacteria. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2022;32(6):820-822.
  17. Sarıkaya A, Mumcuoğlu İ, Baran I, Aksoy A, Dinç B. Comparision of Colistin Broth Disc Elution, Rapid Resapolymyxin NP and Broth Microdilution Methods in Determining Colistin Sensitivity in Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas and Enterobacterales species. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2022;56(3):404-415.