Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of Vitek 2 Meropenem-Vaborbactam for Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The carbapenem/beta-lactamase inhibitor meropenem-vaborbactam (MEV) used to treat complicated urinary tract infections and pyelonephritis in adults was approved in 2017 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Here, we evaluated Vitek 2 MEV (bioMérieux, Durham, NC) compared to the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method. Of 449 Enterobacterales isolates analyzed per FDA/CLSI breakpoints, the overall performance was 98.2% essential agreement (EA), 98.7% category agreement (CA), and 0% very major errors (VME) or major errors (ME). For 438 FDA intended-for-use Enterobacterales isolates, performance was 98.2% EA, 98.6% CA, and 0% VME or ME. Evaluable EA was 81.0%, but with only 42 on-scale evaluable results. Individual species demonstrated EA and CA rates of ≥90% without any VME or ME. When evaluated using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, overall Vitek 2 MEV performance for Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa demonstrated 97.3% EA, 99.2% CA, 2.3% VME, and 0.6% ME (after error resolution: 97.3% EA, 99.4% CA, 2.2% VME, and 0.4% ME) compared to the reference BMD method. Performance for P. aeruginosa included 92.2% EA, 97.4% CA, 0% VME, and 3.0% ME (after error resolution: 92.2% EA, 98.7% CA, 0% VME, and 1.5% ME). Performance for Enterobacterales included 98.2% EA, 99.6% CA, 3.0% VME, and 0.2% ME. Evaluable EA was 80.6% but was based on only 67 evaluable results. These findings support Vitek 2 MEV as an accurate automated system for MEV susceptibility testing of Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa and could be an alternate solution to the manual-labor-intensive reference BMD method.

Multicenter Evaluation of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on the Vitek 2 System.

In this multisite study, Vitek 2 AST-Gram-Negative Ceftazidime/Avibactam test results for 1,073 isolates (866 Enterobacterales and 207 Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were compared to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method. The results were analyzed for essential agreement (EA), category agreement (CA), major error rates, and very major error rates following FDA/ISO performance criteria using the FDA-recognized CLSI/EUCAST breakpoints (sensitive [S], ≤8/4 µg/ml; resistant [R], ≥16/4 µg/ml). The overall EA was 94.5% (1,014/1,073) and CA was 98.7% (1,059/1,073). No very major errors were reported. The major error rate was 1.4% (14/998). Out of 14 major errors, 9 were within EA. Based on the EA and lack of an intermediate category for ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), the adjusted major error rate for FDA criteria was 0.5% (5/998). The performance for ISO criteria after error resolutions included EA of 94.5% (1,014/1,073), CA of 98.9% (1,061/1,073), major error of 1.2% (12/998), and no very major error. Vitek 2 met the ISO and FDA criteria of ≥95% reproducibility and ≥95% quality control (QC) results within acceptable ranges for QC organisms. Vitek 2 overall performance for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa met or exceeded the FDA and ISO performance criteria; thus, it is a reliable alternative to the BMD reference method for routine CZA susceptibility testing.

Performance evaluation of cefoxitin screen test on two different automated antimicrobial susceptibility test systems: a comparative study.

Reliable detection of mecA and mecC-mediated beta-lactam resistance using automated antimicrobial susceptibility test systems is critical for patient care. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the new cefoxitin screen test (oxsf02n) on the Vitek 2 card (Vitek 2) and BD Phoenix PMC-100 Gram-Positive AST Panel (Phoenix) against the reference method for the detection of mecA (and mecC)-mediated beta-lactam resistance. Two hundred fifty clinical fresh and stock Staphylococcus spp. isolates were included. There were 120 mecA-positive, 10 mecC-positive, and 120 mecA and mecC-negative isolates. Cefoxitin screen and oxacillin tests were performed on Vitek 2 and Phoenix and by their respective reference methods (disk diffusion for the cefoxitin screen test and broth microdilution for oxacillin) for all isolates. PCR testing was also performed to confirm the presence of mecA and/or mecC genes. Results from each system were compared to the reference methods. Statistical hypotheses were evaluated both for Vitek 2 compared to the reference methods and Vitek 2 compared to the Phoenix. Compared to the reference method, the Vitek 2 cefoxitin screen test had 100% sensitivity/98% specificity and the Phoenix cefoxitin screen test had 84% sensitivity/100% specificity for the detection of mecA (and mecC)-mediated beta-lactam resistance. When the oxacillin test was combined with the cefoxitin screen for Vitek 2, the sensitivity and specificity were unchanged. However, when the oxacillin and cefoxitin screen tests were combined for the Phoenix, the sensitivity increased to 100% and the specificity remained unchanged (100%). When considering cefoxitin alone, the Vitek 2 screen test showed a higher sensitivity than the Phoenix for the detection of mecA and mecC-mediated beta-lactam resistance. However, currently, both systems use a combination of the cefoxitin and oxacillin tests to interpret the final result, and both reached a high level of performance when cefoxitin and oxacillin results were combined.IMPORTANCEThis research marks the inaugural evaluation of the revamped cefoxitin screen test version in Vitek 2, juxtaposing it against reference methods and a primary competitor BD Phoenix.