4.7 Article

Comparative Evaluation of Four Phenotypic Tests for Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 510-518

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01853-16

关键词

Acinetobacter; CPE; Pseudomonas; antibiotic resistance; carbapenem hydrolysis; carbapenemase screening

资金

  1. Belgian Ministry of Social Affairs through a fund within the health insurance system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four screening assays aimed for rapid detection of carbapenemase production from Gram-negative bacterial isolates, i.e., the Neo-Rapid Carb kit (Rosco Diagnostica A/S), the Rapidec Carba NP test (bioMerieux SA), the beta Carba test (Bio-Rad Laboratories N.V.), and a homemade electrochemical assay (BYG Carba test) were evaluated against a panel comprising 328 clinical isolates (Enterobacteriaceae [n = 198] and nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli [n = 130]) with previously characterized resistance mechanisms to carbapenems. Among Enterobacteriaceae isolates, the BYG Carba test and the beta Carba test showed excellent sensitivities (respectively, 100% and 97.3%) and specificities (respectively, 98.9% and 97.7%). The two other assays yielded poorer performances with sensitivity and specificity of 91.9% and 83.9% for the Rapidec Carba NP test and of 89.2% and 89.7% for the Neo-Rapid Carb kit, respectively. Among Pseudomonas spp., sensitivities and specificities ranged, respectively, from 87.3% to 92.7% and from 88.2% to 94.1%. Finally, all tests performed poorly against Acinetobacter spp., with sensitivities and specificities, respectively, ranging from 27.3% to 75.8% and from 75 to 100%. Among commercially available assays, the beta Carba test appeared to be the most convenient for routine use and showed the best overall performances, especially against OXA-48-like producers. The excellent performance of the BYG Carba test against Enterobacteriaceae was confirmed (100% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据