Biomedicines (Sep 2024)

Comparison of Multiple Carbapenemase Tests Based on an Unbiased Colony-Selection Method

  • Hsin-Yao Wang,
  • Yi-Ju Tseng,
  • Wan-Ying Lin,
  • Yu-Chiang Wang,
  • Ting-Wei Lin,
  • Jen-Fu Hsu,
  • Marie Yung-Chen Wu,
  • Chiu-Hsiang Wu,
  • Sriram Kalpana,
  • Jang-Jih Lu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12092134
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 9
p. 2134

Abstract

Read online

Carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) present a major threat to public health, demanding precise diagnostic techniques for their detection. Discrepancies among the CPO tests have raised concerns, partly due to limitations in detecting bacterial diversity within host specimens. We explored the impact of an unbiased colony selection on carbapenemase testing and assessed its relevance to various tests. Using the FirstAll method for unbiased colony selection to reduce bias, we compared the results from different methods, namely the modified carbapenem inactivation method/EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM/eCIM), the Carba5, the CPO panel, and the multiplex PCR (MPCR). We compared the FirstAll method to the conventional colony selection for MPCR with seven CPO species. In addition, we evaluated the test performance on seven CPO species using MPCR as a reference and the FirstAll method as the colony-selection method. The results revealed that the selections from the FirstAll method have improved rates of carbapenemase detection, in comparison to approximately 11.2% of the CPO isolates that were noted to be false negatives in the conventional colony-selection methods. Both the Carba5 test and the CPO panel showed suboptimal performance (sensitivity/specificity: Carba5 74.6%/89.5%, CPO panel 77.2%/74.4%) in comparison to the FirstAll method. The Carba5 test provided specific carbapenemase class assignments, but the CPO panel failed in 18.7% of the cases. The Carba5 test and the CPO panel results correlated well with ceftazidime–avibactam minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs). The concordance for Class A/D with MICs was 94.7% for Carba5 and 92.7% for the CPO panel; whereas for Class B, it was 86.5% for Carba5 and 75.9% for the CPO panel. In conclusion, FirstAll, as the unbiased colony-selection method, was shown to impact carbapenemase testing. With FirstAll, the diagnostic performance of both the Carba5 and the CPO panel was found to be lower. Furthermore, the utilization of ceftazidime–avibactam guided by either the CPO panel or Carba5 was appropriate.

Keywords