Two-Site Evaluation of the Colistin Broth Disk Elution Test To Determine Colistin In Vitro Activity against Gram-Negative Bacilli.

Limited methods for colistin MIC determination are available to clinical microbiology laboratories. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the colistin broth disk elution (CBDE) test compared to that of broth microdilution (BMD) for identifying colistin MICs. CBDE was compared to colistin BMD using a collection of Gram-negative bacilli tested at two U.S. microbiology laboratories. The isolates tested included 121 retrospective clinical isolates, 45 prospective clinical isolates, and 6 mcr-1-positive Escherichia coli isolates. CBDE was performed with four 10-ml cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth tubes per isolate, to which 0, 1, 2, and 4 colistin 10-µg disks were added, generating final concentrations in the tubes of 0 (growth control), 1, 2, and 4 µg/ml, respectively. MICs were evaluated visually and interpreted using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute breakpoints. Site 2 also compared CBDE to the reference broth macrodilution (BMAD) method (n = 110 isolates). Overall, CBDE yielded a categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) of 98% and 99%, respectively, compared to the results of colistin BMD. Very major errors occurred for mcr-1-producing strains, with MICs fluctuating from 2 to 4 µg/ml on repeat testing. The results for all other isolates were in CA with those of BMD. CBDE versus BMAD had an EA of 100% and a CA of 100%. Compared to currently used techniques, CBDE is an easy and practical method to perform colistin MIC testing. Some mcr-1-producing isolates yielded MICs of 2 µg/ml by CBDE and 4 µg/ml by BMD. As such, the results for isolates with colistin MICs of 2 µg/ml by CBDE should be confirmed by the reference BMD method, and isolates with MICs of ≥2 µg/ml should be evaluated for the presence of mcr genes.

The use of cefepime for treating AmpC ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

BACKGROUND: AmpC ß-lactamase-producing organisms are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Induction of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins after exposure to these agents complicates treatment options and carbapenems are considered optimal therapy. The role of cefepime, however, remains unclear. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes for patients receiving cefepime compared with meropenem for invasive infections caused by organisms expressing AmpC ß-lactamases. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with blood, bronchoalveolar lavage, or intra-abdominal fluid cultures growing Enterobacter spp, Serratia spp, or Citrobacter spp were evaluated using the cefotetan-boronic acid disk test and the cefotetan-cloxacillin Etest to identify organisms with AmpC ß-lactamase production from February 2010 to January 2011. In patients with organisms hyperproducing AmpC ß-lactamases (positive by both methods), clinical outcomes for patients receiving cefepime or meropenem therapy were compared. To minimize the possibility of treatment selection bias, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching was performed prior to regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 399 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 96 (24%) had confirmed infections with AmpC ß-lactamase-producing organisms. Propensity score matching of patients infected with AmpC ß-lactamase-positive organisms treated with cefepime or meropenem yielded 32 well-balanced patient pairs with no difference in 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], .23-2.11; P = .36) or length of hospital stay after infection (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, .79-1.26; P = .56) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime may be a reasonable option for the treatment of invasive infections due to AmpC ß-lactamase-producing organisms, particularly when adequate source control is achieved.