Performance of ceftriaxone susceptibility testing on the Accelerate Pheno® system of ESBL-producing isolates

Bhalodi, Amira A.; Magnano, Paul; Humphries, Romney M.

doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115171

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current knowledge on the prevalence of p-ampC is poor because no commercially available diagnostic tests detect its presence. Detection of p-ampC should be considered in future genotypic platforms because 17% of ceftriaxone nonsusceptible Enterobacterales in the United States harbor both ESBL and p-ampC ( 14 ). This highlights the limitation of using ceftriaxone resistance as a marker of ESBL production because mechanisms other than ESBL production also confer ceftriaxone resistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation between Identification of β-Lactamase Resistance Genes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles in Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Laboratory Data Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is limited literature on corresponding results obtained from rapid molecular diagnostics with the antibiotic susceptibility profile. We reported a correlation between the results obtained from ePlex and the antibiograms against a large collection of Gram-negative bacteria. We reported that there can be a discrepancy in a small number of cases, but the clinical significance of that is unknown.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation between Identification of β-Lactamase Resistance Genes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles in Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Laboratory Data Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As of 2010, laboratories moved to defining extended resistance according to the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Enterobacteriaceae to ceftriaxone. It is generallly accepted that a ceftriaxone MIC of 1 μg/ml or greater is ideal for detecting ESBL producing bacteria [3][4][5] but this method oversetimates ESBL cases as some bacteria have other mechanisms of resistance [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short- and long-term mortality in patients with urosepsis caused by Escherichia coli susceptible and resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporins

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term mortality among patients with urosepsis caused by Escherichia coli susceptibile (EC-SC) and resistant (EC-RC) to 3rd generation cephalosporins. Methods A retrospective cohort study that included all patients with E. coli urosepsis admitted to a 700-bed hospital from January 2014 until December 2019. Mortality up to 30 days, 6 months and 1 year was assessed using logistic multivariate regression analysis and Cox regression analysis. Results A total of 313 adult were included, 195 with EC-SC and 118 patients with EC-RC. 205 were females (74%), mean age was 79 (SD 12) years. Mean Charlson score was 4.93 (SD 2.18) in the EC-SC group and 5.74 (SD 1.92) in the EC-RC group. Appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy was initiated in 245 (78.3%) patients, 100% in the EC-SC group but only 42.5% in the EC-RC group. 30-day mortality occurred in 12 (6.3%) of EC-SC group and 15 (12.7%) in the EC-RC group. Factors independently associated with 30-day mortality were Charlson score, Pitt bacteremia score, fever upon admission and infection with a EC-RC. Appropriate antibiotic therapy was not independently associated with 30-day mortality. Differences in mortality between groups remained significant one year after the infection and were significantly associated with the Charlson co-morbidity score. Conclusions Mortality in patients with urosepsis due to E. coli is highly affected by age and comorbidities. Although mortality was higher in the EC-RC group, we could not demonstrate an association with inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment. Mortality remained higher at 6 months and 1 year long after the infection resolved but was associated mainly with co-morbidity.

show abstract

“…Resistance to ceftazidime was selected as the outcome variable, because it serves as a reliable marker for extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) resistance. [10]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the impact of cefuroxime versus cefazolin and amoxicillin/clavulanate use on future collateral resistance: a retrospective comparison

Chowers

Zehavi

Gottesman

et al. 2022

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Quantitative estimates of collateral resistance induced by antibiotic use are scarce. Objectives To estimate the effects of treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanate or cefazolin, compared with cefuroxime, on future resistance to ceftazidime among hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients with positive bacterial cultures hospitalized in an Israeli hospital during 2016–19 was conducted. Patients were restricted to those treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate, cefazolin or cefuroxime and re-hospitalized with a positive bacterial culture during the following year. Matching was performed using exact, Mahalanobis and propensity score matching. Each patient in the amoxicillin/clavulanate and cefazolin groups was matched to a single patient from the cefuroxime group, yielding 185:185 and 298:298 matched patients. Logistic regression and the g-formula (standardization) were used to estimate the OR, risk difference (RD) and number needed to harm (NNH). Results Cefuroxime induced significantly higher resistance to ceftazidime than amoxicillin/clavulanate or cefazolin; the marginal OR was 1.76 (95% CI = 1.16–2.83) compared with amoxicillin/clavulanate and 1.98 (95% CI = 1.41–2.8) compared with cefazolin and the RD was 0.118 (95% CI = 0.031–0.215) compared with amoxicillin/clavulanate and 0.131 (95% CI = 0.058–0.197) compared with cefazolin. We also estimated the NNH; replacing amoxicillin/clavulanate or cefazolin with cefuroxime would yield ceftazidime resistance in 1 more patient for every 8.5 (95% CI = 4.66–32.14) or 7.6 (95% CI = 5.1–17.3) patients re-hospitalized in the following year, respectively. Conclusions Our results indicate that treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanate or cefazolin is preferable to cefuroxime, in terms of future collateral resistance. The results presented here are a first step towards quantitative estimations of the ecological damage caused by different antibiotics.

show abstract

Performance of ceftriaxone susceptibility testing on the Accelerate Pheno® system of ESBL-producing isolates

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Correlation between Identification of β-Lactamase Resistance Genes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles in Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Laboratory Data Analysis

Correlation between Identification of β-Lactamase Resistance Genes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles in Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Laboratory Data Analysis

Short- and long-term mortality in patients with urosepsis caused by Escherichia coli susceptible and resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporins

Estimating the impact of cefuroxime versus cefazolin and amoxicillin/clavulanate use on future collateral resistance: a retrospective comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About