Detection of rare carbapenemases in Enterobacterales-comparison of two colorimetric and three CIM-based carbapenemase assays.

Rapid and reliable detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is crucial for prompt treatment and infection control. Most assays target the primary four enzymes (KPC, OXA-48-like, VIM, and NDM), often missing less common variants (e.g., GES, IMI, OXA-23, and OXA-58). Therefore, assays based on the hydrolysis of carbapenems are recommended in addition to differentiation tests such as PCR or immunochromatographic assays. The aim of this study was to compare the currently Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)-recommended tests mCIM (modified carbapenem inactivation method) and Carba NP with new colorimetric tests (NitroSpeed-Carba NP) and novel variations of the carbapenem inactivation method (CIM) such as simplified CIM (sCIM) or modified zinc-supplemented CIM (mzCIM). The challenge collection included 205 clinical isolates, 139 CPE vs 66 non-CPE. Among all 205 isolates, the sensitivity/specificity of mCIM was 81.3%/98.5%, Carba NP 76.3%/100%, NitroSpeed-Carba NP 86.3%/78.8%, sCIM 100%/94%, and mzCIM 97.8%/98.5%. For rare carbapenemases (n = 48), the sensitivity of mzCIM (98.3%) and sCIM (100%) was higher than that of mCIM (60.4%), Carba NP (50%), or NitroSpeed-Carba NP (70.2%). Most indeterminate results occurred for mCIM (14.4%), Carba NP (8.2%), and sCIM (6.3%). The detection of rare carbapenemases remains challenging with the currently recommended assays. The CIM-based tests demonstrated superior sensitivity, with sCIM and mzCIM outperforming the currently recommended mCIM and Carba NP, especially among isolates with weakly hydrolyzing carbapenemases (e.g., OXA-23 and OXA-58). Although colorimetric assays provide more rapid results, laboratories have to be aware of the low sensitivity for rare carbapenemases. Both sCIM and the new mzCIM performed well, are cost-effective, and can easily be implemented in any laboratory.IMPORTANCEDetection of so-called rare carbapenemases (e.g., GES, IMI, OXA-23, and OXA-58) in Enterobacterales is challenging, and data on the performance of currently available assays are scarce. This study systematically assessed the performance of currently recommended and novel hydrolysis-based assays on a set of molecularly characterized isolates. It demonstrates that the currently recommended assays mCIM and Carba NP perform well on isolates producing common carbapenemases such as KPC, VIM, NDM, and OXA-48, but have only a moderate sensitivity in the detection of rare carbapenemases. In contrast, the newer CIM-based variants, sCIM and mzCIM, are equally capable of detecting frequent and uncommon carbapenemases. These assays could potentially help to improve our knowledge on the epidemiology of these "rare" enzymes.

Proteus mirabilis - analysis of a concealed source of carbapenemases and development of a diagnostic algorithm for detection.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse carbapenemases in Proteus mirabilis and assess the performance of carbapenemase detection assays. METHODS: Eighty-one clinical P. mirabilis isolates with high-level resistance at least to ampicillin (>32 mg/L) or previous detection of carbapenemases were selected and investigated by three susceptibility testing methods (microdilution, automated susceptibility testing, and disk diffusion), six phenotypic carbapenemase assays (CARBA NP, modified carbapenemase inactivation method [CIM], modified zinc-supplemented CIM, simplified CIM, faropenem, and carbapenem-containing agar), two immunochromatographic assays, and whole-genome sequencing. RESULTS: Carbapenemases were detected in 43 of 81 isolates (OXA-48-like [n = 13]; OXA-23 [n = 12]; OXA-58 [n = 12]; New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase (NDM) [n = 2]; Verona integron-encoded metallo-ß-lactamase (VIM) [n = 2]; Imipenemase (IMP) [n = 1]; Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) [n = 1]). Carbapenemase-producing Proteus were frequently susceptible to ertapenem (26/43; 60%), meropenem (28/43; 65%), ceftazidime (33/43; 77%), and some even to piperacillin-tazobactam (9/43; 21%). Sensitivity/specificity of phenotypic tests were 30% (CI: 17-46%)/89% (CI: 75-97%) for CARBA NP, 74% (CI: 60-85%)/82% (CI: 67-91%) for faropenem, 91% (CI: 78-97%)/82% (CI: 66-92%) for simplified CIM, and 93% (CI: 81-99%)/100% (CI: 91-100%) for modified zinc-supplemented CIM. An algorithm for improved detection was developed, which demonstrated sensitivity/specificity of 100% (CI: 92-100%)/100% (CI: 91-100%) on the 81 isolates, and 100% (CI: 29-100%)/100% (CI: 96-100%) in a prospective analysis of additional 91 isolates. Interestingly, several OXA-23-producing isolates belonged to the same clonal lineage reported previously from France. DISCUSSION: Current susceptibility testing methods and phenotypic tests frequently fail to detect carbapenemases in P. mirabilis, which could result in inadequate antibiotic treatment. In addition, the non-inclusion of blaOXA-23/OXA-58 in many molecular carbapenemase assays further impedes their detection. Therefore, the prevalence of carbapenemases in P. mirabilis is likely underestimated. With the herein proposed algorithm, carbapenemase-producing Proteus can be easily identified.

Systematic Comparison of Three Commercially Available Combination Disc Tests and the Zinc-Supplemented Carbapenem Inactivation Method (zCIM) for Carbapenemase Detection in Enterobacterales Isolates.

Detection of carbapenemases in Enterobacterales is crucial for patient treatment and infection control. Among others, combination disc tests (CDTs) with different inhibitors (e.g., EDTA) and variations of the carbapenem inactivation method (CIM) are recommended by EUCAST or the CLSI and are used by many laboratories as they are relatively inexpensive. In this study, we compare three commercially available CDTs, faropenem disc testing (FAR), and the zinc-supplemented CIM (zCIM) test for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE). The Rosco KPC/MBL and OXA-48 Confirm kit (ROS-CDT), the Liofilchem KPC&MBL&OXA-48 disc kit (LIO-CDT), Mastdiscs Combi Carba plus (MAST-CDT), FAR, and zCIM were challenged with 106 molecularly characterized CPE and 47 non-CPE isolates. The sensitivities/specificities were 86% (confidence interval [CI], 78 to 92%)/98% (CI, 89 to 100%) for MAST-CDT and ROS-CDT, 96% (CI, 91 to 99%)/87% (CI, 74 to 95%) for LIO-CDT, and 99% (CI, 95 to 100%)/81% (CI, 67 to 91%) for FAR compared to 98% (CI, 93 to 100%)/100% (CI, 92 to 100%) for zCIM. The CDTs showed great performance differences depending on the carbapenemase class, with MAST-CDT and LIO-CDT best detecting class B, ROS-CDT best detecting class A, and LIO-CDT best detecting class D carbapenemases. The overall performance of commercially available CDTs was good but varied greatly for different carbapenemases and between manufacturers, compared with FAR and zCIM, which performed well for all carbapenemase types. For reliable carbapenemase detection, CDTs should preferably not be used as the sole test but can be part of a diagnostic strategy when combined with other assays (e.g., CIM-based, immunochromatographic, or molecular tests).