Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods
<b>Background:</b> Fosfomycin (FOS) is an older antimicrobial agent newly rediscovered as a possible treatment for infections with limited therapeutic options (e.g., Gram-negative bacteria with difficult-to-treat resistance, DTR), especially in intravenous form. However, for correct usag...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Antibiotics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/11/1049 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850267425818279936 |
|---|---|
| author | Jan Závora Gabriela Kroneislová Marie Kroneisl Václava Adámková |
| author_facet | Jan Závora Gabriela Kroneislová Marie Kroneisl Václava Adámková |
| author_sort | Jan Závora |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background:</b> Fosfomycin (FOS) is an older antimicrobial agent newly rediscovered as a possible treatment for infections with limited therapeutic options (e.g., Gram-negative bacteria with difficult-to-treat resistance, DTR), especially in intravenous form. However, for correct usage of FOS, it is necessary to have a reliable susceptibility testing method suitable for routine practice and robust interpretation criteria. <b>Results:</b> The results were interpreted according to 2023 interpretation criteria provided by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). DTR Gram-negatives were more likely to be resistant to FOS (45% in Enterobacterales and 20% in <i>P. aeruginosa</i>) than non-DTR (10% and 6.7%, resp.). All isolates of <i>S. aureus</i> were susceptible to FOS. In Gram-negatives, all agreement values were unacceptable. Etest<sup>®</sup> performed better in the DTR cohort (categorical agreement, CA, 80%) than in the non-DTR cohort (CA 45.7%). There were no very major errors (VREs) observed in <i>P. aeruginosa</i>. <i>S. aureus</i> had surprisingly low essential agreement (EA) rates (53% for MRSA and 47% for MSSA) for Etest<sup>®</sup>, but categorical agreement was 100%. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 130 bacterial isolates were tested and compared using the disc diffusion method (DD) and gradient strip method (Etest<sup>®</sup>) with the reference method (agar dilution, AD). The spectrum of isolates tested was as follows: 40 Enterobacterales (20 DTR vs. 20 non-DTR), 30 <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> (15 DTR vs. 15 non-DTR), and 60 <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (30 methicillin-susceptible, MSSA, vs. 30 methicillin-resistant, MRSA). <b>Conclusions:</b> Neither one of the tested methods was identified as a suitable alternative to AD. It would be beneficial to define more interpretation criteria, at least in some instances. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d06bf24dddf447b1addbf57bb07e2600 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2079-6382 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Antibiotics |
| spelling | doaj-art-d06bf24dddf447b1addbf57bb07e26002025-08-20T01:53:48ZengMDPI AGAntibiotics2079-63822024-11-011311104910.3390/antibiotics13111049Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing MethodsJan Závora0Gabriela Kroneislová1Marie Kroneisl2Václava Adámková3Clinical Microbiology and ATB Centre, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech RepublicClinical Microbiology and ATB Centre, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech RepublicDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 Groningen, The NetherlandsClinical Microbiology and ATB Centre, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic<b>Background:</b> Fosfomycin (FOS) is an older antimicrobial agent newly rediscovered as a possible treatment for infections with limited therapeutic options (e.g., Gram-negative bacteria with difficult-to-treat resistance, DTR), especially in intravenous form. However, for correct usage of FOS, it is necessary to have a reliable susceptibility testing method suitable for routine practice and robust interpretation criteria. <b>Results:</b> The results were interpreted according to 2023 interpretation criteria provided by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). DTR Gram-negatives were more likely to be resistant to FOS (45% in Enterobacterales and 20% in <i>P. aeruginosa</i>) than non-DTR (10% and 6.7%, resp.). All isolates of <i>S. aureus</i> were susceptible to FOS. In Gram-negatives, all agreement values were unacceptable. Etest<sup>®</sup> performed better in the DTR cohort (categorical agreement, CA, 80%) than in the non-DTR cohort (CA 45.7%). There were no very major errors (VREs) observed in <i>P. aeruginosa</i>. <i>S. aureus</i> had surprisingly low essential agreement (EA) rates (53% for MRSA and 47% for MSSA) for Etest<sup>®</sup>, but categorical agreement was 100%. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 130 bacterial isolates were tested and compared using the disc diffusion method (DD) and gradient strip method (Etest<sup>®</sup>) with the reference method (agar dilution, AD). The spectrum of isolates tested was as follows: 40 Enterobacterales (20 DTR vs. 20 non-DTR), 30 <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> (15 DTR vs. 15 non-DTR), and 60 <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (30 methicillin-susceptible, MSSA, vs. 30 methicillin-resistant, MRSA). <b>Conclusions:</b> Neither one of the tested methods was identified as a suitable alternative to AD. It would be beneficial to define more interpretation criteria, at least in some instances.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/11/1049fosfomycindifficult-to-treatsusceptibilityagar dilutionEtestdisc diffusion |
| spellingShingle | Jan Závora Gabriela Kroneislová Marie Kroneisl Václava Adámková Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods Antibiotics fosfomycin difficult-to-treat susceptibility agar dilution Etest disc diffusion |
| title | Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods |
| title_full | Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods |
| title_fullStr | Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods |
| title_short | Fosfomycin—Overcoming Problematic In Vitro Susceptibility Testing and Tricky Result Interpretation: Comparison of Three Fosfomycin Susceptibility Testing Methods |
| title_sort | fosfomycin overcoming problematic in vitro susceptibility testing and tricky result interpretation comparison of three fosfomycin susceptibility testing methods |
| topic | fosfomycin difficult-to-treat susceptibility agar dilution Etest disc diffusion |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/11/1049 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT janzavora fosfomycinovercomingproblematicinvitrosusceptibilitytestingandtrickyresultinterpretationcomparisonofthreefosfomycinsusceptibilitytestingmethods AT gabrielakroneislova fosfomycinovercomingproblematicinvitrosusceptibilitytestingandtrickyresultinterpretationcomparisonofthreefosfomycinsusceptibilitytestingmethods AT mariekroneisl fosfomycinovercomingproblematicinvitrosusceptibilitytestingandtrickyresultinterpretationcomparisonofthreefosfomycinsusceptibilitytestingmethods AT vaclavaadamkova fosfomycinovercomingproblematicinvitrosusceptibilitytestingandtrickyresultinterpretationcomparisonofthreefosfomycinsusceptibilitytestingmethods |