Susceptibility of Meropenem-Resistant and/or Carbapenemase-Producing Clinical Isolates of <i>Enterobacterales</i> (<i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>) and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> to Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Ceftolozane-Tazobactam as Assessed by In Vitro Testing Methods

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the comparability of in vitro susceptibility testing methods to ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T). Meropenem-resistant and/or carbapenemase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (Enterobacteriaceae) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by both bioMérieux ETEST and VITEK-2 AST-N397 card and compared with a Micronaut AST-system broth microdilution (BMD) method. CZA and C/T MICs were interpreted using EUCAST breakpoints. Of the 153 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 55.6% and 0.0% (VITEK 2) and 56.9% and 0.0% (ETEST and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. Of 52 P. aeruginosa isolates, 50.0% and 40.4% (VITEK 2, ETEST, and BMD) were susceptible to CZA and C/T, respectively. The essential agreement (EA) was 96.1% (197/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 95.6% (196/205; ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas EA was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 96.6% (198/205; ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. The categorical agreement (CA) was 98.0% (201/205; VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for CZA testing, whereas CA was 100% (VITEK 2 versus BMD) and 100% (ETEST versus BMD) for C/T testing. Categorical errors regarded four Enterobacteriaceae isolates. VITEK 2 and ETEST yielded equivalent CZA and C/T susceptibility testing results, compared to the BMD method, in such a clinical context.

Keywords

• susceptibility testing
• ceftazidime-avibactam
• ceftolozane-tazobactam
• VITEK 2
• ETEST
• broth microdilution method