Evaluation of the BD Phoenix M50 Automated Microbiology System for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing with Clinical Isolates in Korea

Hong, Jun; Kim, Dokyun; Kang, D. Y.; Park, Byeol Yi; Yang, Sunmi; Yoon, Euisik; Lee, Hyukmin; Jeong, Seok Hoon

doi:10.1089/mdr.2018.0370

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In prior studies, the BD Phoenix NMIC-500 and NMIC-203 panels have been reported for the performance evaluation of negative bacilli, and PMIC-84 panel has reported for positive cocci (15,23), including identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing evaluation (24). In this study, the performance of the BD Phoenix NMIC-413 system used for CRE testing was compared with the traditional disk diffusion method, while BMD was used as the reference method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Panel for Imipenem, Meropenem, and Ertapenem Against Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant and Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The infection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) has become a major clinical and healthcare problem worldwide. The screening methods of CRE have been extensively developed but still need improving [e.g., tests with accurate and simple minimum inhibitory (MICs)]. In this study, the performance of the BD Phoenix NMIC-413 AST panel was evaluated against clinical CRE and carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE) in China. The panel was first evaluated in the Chinese clinical lab.Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 303 clinical Enterobacterales isolates were conducted by broth microdilution (BMD), Phoenix NMIC-413 AST panel, and disk diffusion method for imipenem, ertapenem, and meropenem. Considering BMD is a gold standard, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), minor error (MIE), major error (ME), and very major error (VME) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. CA and EA > 90%, ME <3%, and VME <1.5% were considered as acceptable criteria. Polymerase chain reaction and sanger sequencing were performed to determine the β-lactamase genotypes of CRE isolates.Results: Three hundred and three isolates included 195 CREs and 108 CSEs were enrolled according to the BMD-MIC values of three carbapenems. Tested CREs showing 100 blaKPC−2-positive organisms, 31 blaIMP-positive organisms, 28 blaNDM-positive organisms, 5 blaVIM-positive organisms, 2 both blaIMP and blaVIM-positive organisms, 2 blaOXA−48-positive organisms, and 27 isolates without carbapenemase genes. For the Phoenix NMIC-413 method, CA and EA rates >93%, MIE rates <5%, ME rates <1.75%, and VME rates were 0%, across the three drugs. For the disk diffusion method, the CA rates for three drugs were all >93%, while the MIE and ME rates were all <5 and <3%, respectively. VME rate was 3.28% for imipenem, exceeded the cut-off value specified by CLSI M52, 0 and 0.56% for ertapenem and meropenem, separately.Conclusion: Based on the genomic data, the detection of CRE and CSE was more reliable using the BD Phoenix NMIC-413 panel compared to the BMD and disk approaches. Therefore, our study supports the use of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 panel as a suitable alternative to BMD for the detection of carbapenem resistant isolates in a clinical setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Panel for Imipenem, Meropenem, and Ertapenem Against Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant and Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the BD Phoenix 100 system failed to detect colistin-resistant isolates that may have hetero-resistance; the BD Phoenix M50 had 5.7% MEs, all of which were within twofold dilutions, as compared to the reference BMD 35, 37, 38 . Notably, the BD Phoenix M50 has not been evaluated on strains that exhibit heteroresistance; hence, its evaluation is limited compared to BD Phoenix 100 (Table 1) 35 .…”

Section: Phenotypic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and emerging polymyxin resistance diagnostics: a systematic review of established and novel detection methods

Leshaba¹,

Mbelle²,

Sekyere³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The escalation of colistin resistance, due to transferable mcr-genes, threatens public and animal health as there are limited therapeutic options. Given that colistin is a last-line antibiotic, there is a need to contain the spread of its resistance to conserve its efficacy. Herein, current and emerging colistin resistance diagnostics are described to inform faster clinical diagnostic choices. Methods. A literature search in Pubmed, between 2016 and 2020, was performed. English articles evaluating colistin resistance methods/diagnostics were included. Results. Screening resulted in the inclusion of 89 journal articles. Current colistin resistance diagnostics are either phenotypic or molecular. Broth microdilution (BMD) is currently the only golden standard for determining colistin MIC values. However, other methods have been developed to overcome the challenges associated with the BMD. Phenotypic methods comprise agar-based methods i.e. ChromAgar Col-APSE, SuperPolymyxin, ChromID Colistin R etc., MIC-determiners i.e. Microscan, BD Phoenix, Sensitest colistin, Sensititre, Micronaut etc., MCR-detectors i.e. lateral flow immunoassay (LFI), chelator based assays i.e. EDTA- and DPA-based tests as well as biochemical colorimetric tests i.e. Rapid Polymyxin NP test, Rapid ResaPolymyxin NP test etc. Molecular methods only characterize mobile colistin resistance; they include PCR, LAMP, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) etc. Conclusion. Considering the efficiency (sensitivity, specificity, turnaround time) of the Rapid ResaPolymyxin NP test, it is recommended for the initial screening of colistin-resistant isolates. This can be followed by chelator-based tests or the LFI for the rapid screening of mcr-genes. However molecular assays such as LAMP, PCR may be considered for use in well-equipped clinical laboratories.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the BD Phoenix 100 system failed to detect colistin‐resistant isolates that may have hetero‐resistance; the BD Phoenix M50 had 5.7% MEs, all of which were within twofold dilutions, as compared to the reference BMD (Hong et al, 2019; Jayol, Nordmann, Lehours, et al, 2018; Rodriguez, Traglia, et al, 2019). Notably, the BD Phoenix M50 has not been evaluated on strains that exhibit hetero‐resistance; hence, its evaluation is limited compared to BD Phoenix 100 (Table 1) (Hong et al, 2019).…”

Section: Phenotypic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated AST systems are of particular interest for colistin susceptibility testing due to their ease of use than the reference BMD (Jayol, Nordmann, Andre, et al, 2018; Matuschek et al, 2018). Several studies have shown that some automated AST systems can achieve results that are relatively similar to those of the reference BMD (Chew et al, 2017; Hong et al, 2019; Jayol, Nordmann, Andre, et al, 2018, 2017; Matuschek et al, 2018). The Sensititre recorded a high rate of agreement with the reference BMD in several studies, particularly demonstrating the highest potential for detecting mcr ‐1‐producing Enterobacterales together with MicroScan in one study (Chew et al, 2017; Jayol, Nordmann, Andre, et al, 2018; Matuschek et al, 2018).…”

Section: Phenotypic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and emerging polymyxin resistance diagnostics: A systematic review of established and novel detection methods

Leshaba

Mbelle

Sekyere

2021

J of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tweet: "Colistin resistance is a global threat to bacterial infections' management. Being a last-resort antibiotic for treating of MDR Gram-negative infections, it is important to establish an efficient diagnostic method for routine use in clinical microbiology laboratories. Herein, current & emerging diagnostics for detecting colistin resistance are described to inform clinical diagnostic options." Author summary/highlights/importance  Polymyxin resistance is rapidly increasing, threatening public and veterinary healthcare.  As one of the last-line antibiotics, polymyxin must be conserved by containing the spread of polymyxin resistance.  Detecting colistin resistance relies on determining colistin MIC values by standard broth microdilution, which is labour-intensive with longer turnaround time (TAT).

show abstract

Evaluation of the BD Phoenix M50 Automated Microbiology System for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing with Clinical Isolates in Korea

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 publications

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Panel for Imipenem, Meropenem, and Ertapenem Against Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant and Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales

Performance Evaluation of BD Phoenix NMIC-413 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Panel for Imipenem, Meropenem, and Ertapenem Against Clinical Carbapenem-Resistant and Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales

Current and emerging polymyxin resistance diagnostics: a systematic review of established and novel detection methods

Current and emerging polymyxin resistance diagnostics: A systematic review of established and novel detection methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About