Combined Use of Phenotypic Screening and of a Novel Commercial Assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen) for the Rapid Molecular Detection of Carbapenemases: A Single-Center Experience
by
, , , ,
Federica Novazzi
1,2,†,
Gabriele Arcari
1,2,†,
Francesca Drago Ferrante
1,
Sara Boutahar
1,
Angelo Paolo Genoni
1,2,
Davide Carcione
3
,
Gianluca Cassani
1,
Paolo Gigante
1,
Mattia Carbotti
1,
Riccardo Capuano
1,
Renée Pasciuta
1 and
Nicasio Mancini
1,2,* 1
Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Virology, University Hospital of Varese, 21100 Varese, Italy
2
Department of Medicine and Technological Innovation, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
3
Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology and Virology, ASST Valle Olona, 21013 Gallarate, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(15), 1599; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151599
Submission received: 18 June 2024
/
Revised: 15 July 2024
/
Accepted: 23 July 2024
/
Published: 25 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Editorial Board Members' Collection Series: Molecular Diagnostics of Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
:Carbapenem resistance is a serious public health threat, causing numerous deaths annually primarily due to healthcare-associated infections. To face this menace, surveillance programs in high-risk patients are becoming a widespread practice. Here we report the performance of the combined use of a recently approved commercial multiplex real-time PCR assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen kit) with conventional phenotypic screening. In this three-month study, 479 rectal swabs from 309 patients across high-risk units were evaluated by combining the two approaches. Although the molecular assay showed a higher positivity rate than phenotypic screening (7.1% vs. 5%), it should be noted that the molecular method alone would have missed eight carbapenem-resistant isolates, while using only phenotypic screening would not have detected sixteen isolates. This demonstrates the complementary strengths of each method. Our study confirms the need for a combined approach to maximize the possible clinical impact of this kind of screening, ensuring a more comprehensive detection of resistant strains.
1. Introduction
Antimicrobial resistance is a major global threat to public health, affecting humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The 2023 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) antimicrobial resistance surveillance report, referring to data from strains isolated in 2021, describes a heterogeneous antimicrobial resistance condition [2]. However, while the spread of resistance varies according to bacterial species, antimicrobial group, and geographical region, carbapenems are typically used as the hallmark for the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Theoretically, all microorganisms have the potential to reach carbapenem resistance. However, considering clinical relevance, the most meaningful carbapenem-resistant microorganisms belong to three orders: Enterobacterales (e.g., Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli), Pseudomonadales (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa), and Moraxellales (e.g., Acinetobacter baumannii).
The European epidemiology is characterized by a significant carbapenem resistance rate, with prevalences which can be over 50% for K. pneumoniae, P. aereuginosa, and A. baumannii in some countries [2]. Resistance rates are exceptionally high in Italy, where the increasing prevalence of carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria causes many deaths each year, mostly due to healthcare-associated infections [3].
Carbapenemases are broad-spectrum beta-lactamases which can hydrolyze carbapenem antibiotics characterized by adaptable hydrolytic capacities which allow them to overcome inhibition by beta-lactam-based beta-lactamases inhibitors (i.e., clavulanic acid, sulbactam, and tazobactam) [4] and have a leading role in the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant microorganisms.
According to their chemical structure, carbapenemases can be assigned to Ambler class A (such as KPC), B (metallo-beta-lactamases such as NDM, VIM, and IMP), and D (further distinguished into Group I carbapenemases [OXA-23-like, OXA-24-like, OXA-51-like, and OXA-58-like] commonly identified in A. baumannii [5] and Group II carbapenemases [OXA-48-like] commonly identified in Enterobacterales [6]).
Being a major threat in hospital settings, routine surveillance programs (e.g., rectal swabs at admission and once a week) are a tool to prevent the spread of resistant microorganisms, especially in high-risk categories of patients [7,8].
Several methods featuring different sensitivity and economic cost values, typically based either on phenotypic or genotypic approaches, are available for routine screening of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria carriage.
Phenotypic approaches include the direct inoculation onto MacConkey agar with the addition of carbapenem discs [9] or the use of selective chromogenic media [10]. Carbapenemase production can be inferred through carbapenemase inhibition phenotypic tests (i.e., mCIM and eCIM test [11,12]) or through commercially available lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for the detection of the most common carbapenemases, including OXA-48, KPC, NDM, VIM, and IMP [13]. Conversely, several molecular tests based on the identification of resistance genes (either from culture or directly from biological samples) are commercially available [14]. These assays differ in DNA extraction protocols, levels of process automation, and turnaround times (usually ranging from 1 to 3 h) [15,16,17,18,19].
Colistin (polymyxin E), on the other hand, is a polycationic antimicrobial peptide which serves as a “last-resort antibiotic” for the treatment of multi-drug-resistant infections caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria which fell into disuse owing to the rapid and frequent onset of colistin-induced renal damage [20,21]. The current increase in infections caused by MDR Gram-negative bacteria (above all carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii) prompted the reintroduction of colistin in clinical practice, yielding to an upsurge in colistin resistance [20]. The most frequent mechanisms underlying colistin resistance in carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii are linked to chromosomal mutation resulting in an augmented expression of lipopolysaccharide-modifying genes (i.e., the phoP/phoQ two component system) [20]. However, plasmid-mediated colistin resistance conferred by the mcr genes is an increasing threat [22].
In this study, we report the performance of the combined use of a recently licensed commercial multiplex quantitative real-time PCR assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen kit) with conventional phenotypic screening. Specifically, we aim to underscore the novelty of integrating phenotypic screening with molecular assays. This combined approach enhances the rapid molecular detection of carbapenemases, improves diagnostic accuracy, and impacts clinical decision-making. By leveraging the strengths of both phenotypic and molecular methods, our study presents a novel strategy that could set a new standard for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of carbapenemase-producing organisms in clinical settings.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients and Samples
The study was conducted over a three-month period from August 2023 to October 2023 at the University Hospital of Varese, in North-West Italy close to the Swiss border, and included 479 rectal swabs from 309 patients admitted to several high-risk units (intensive care units, infectious disease unit, neonatal pathology, pediatrics, hematology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery). The patients were sampled at admission and every 5–7 days during hospitalization.
All rectal swabs that arrived in the three-month period at our laboratory for multi-drug-resistant screening were included in this study. However, molecular screening tests were carried out on leftovers samples; hence, this testing did not influence clinical practice.
2.2. Phenotypic Screening of Carbapenem Resistance
All swabs were directly inoculated onto MacConkey agar (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France) plates supplemented with an MEM 10 μg disc, and the plates were incubated for up to 48 h at 35 °C [23]. The results were interpreted according to the current European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests (EUCAST) breakpoint guidelines [24]. Testing for carbapenemases was warranted whenever the zone diameter of MEM was <25 mm in all potential carbapenemase producers including K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli. All resistant isolates were identified at the species level through MALDI-TOF using VITEK MS (bioMerieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France).
2.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
All carbapenem-resistant isolates were tested by the VITEK®2 compact system (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France). To perform the test, a homogeneous suspension of microorganisms at 0.5 McFarland standard density was prepared from pure culture. The VITEK®2 AST-N397 card was used which includes amikacin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, cefotaxime, cefepime, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin–tazobactam, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, ceftazidime–avibactam, and ceftolozane–tazobactam. The MIC values were interpreted according to EUCAST clinical breakpoints (v 13.0) [24].
2.4. Molecular Test: REALQUALITY Carba-Screen Kit AB ANALITICA Multiplex Quantitative Real-Time PCR
DNA was extracted directly from all rectal swabs with the Microlab STARlet IVD platform (Hamilton Company, Reno, NV, USA) using the STARMag 96 × 4 Universal Cartridge Kit (Seegene, Seoul, Republic of Korea) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The extracted DNA was amplified by REALQUALITY Carba-Screen kit (AB ANALITICA, Padua, Italy) using the QuantStudio 5™ qPCR, 96 well, 0.2 mL instrument (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
The kit includes a first screening step (Mix Carba-Screen) to identify samples positive for class A, B, and D carbapenemases, including Acinetobacter spp.-related OXA genes (blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-24-like, blaOXA-51-like with promoter ISAba1, and blaOXA-58-like, henceforth defined as AcOXA). The positive samples undergo a second step (Mix Carba B and Mix Carba A + D) to identify the specific resistance gene involved.
Molecular analyses were performed a posteriori on leftovers samples, hence did not influence clinical practice.
2.5. Statistical Analyses
Positivity rate was calculated by dividing the number of positive cases detected by phenotypic testing, molecular testing, or both approaches combined by the total number of samples tested and it was expressed as a percentage.
2.6. Ethical Aspects
This work was performed in agreement with the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration.
3. Results
Among the 309 patients involved in the study, the median age was 65 years (IQR 0–91), and 119 (38.5%) were female. A total of 479 swabs were tested, of which 26 (5.1%) grew possible carbapenem-resistant isolates by disc diffusion screening, later confirmed by VITEK® 2 testing (Figure 1A). The carbapenem-resistant isolates included twelve (44.4%) K. pneumoniae, nine (33.3%) P. aeruginosa, three (11.1%) A. baumannii, and one (3.7%) Acinetobacter junii. In a single case (3.7%), a multiple colonization by carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and A. baumannii was detected (isolates 376k and 376a, Table 1 and Table 2).
The same swabs were processed in parallel using the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen AB ANALITICA qPCR kit, and carbapenemase genes were detected in 34 (6.7%) samples. More in detail, eighteen swabs (52.9%) were positive using both the culture-based and the molecular assay, with the detection of nine (50.0%) blaKPC, five (27.8%) blaNDM, four (22.2%) AcOXA, three (16.7%) blaVIM, and one (5.5%) blaOXA-48 (Figure 1A,B, Table 1). In three rectal swabs, multiple resistance genes were co-detected: in one case blaVIM + blaKPC, in one case blaVIM + blaNDM, and in one case blaKPC + blaNDM. Analyzing the swabs positive in both the molecular and phenotypic assays, K. pneumoniae was the most represented isolate, being identified in twelve rectal swabs with the detection of seven (58.3%) blaKPC, three (25.0%) blaNDM, one (8.3%) blaOXA-48, one (8.3%) blaNDM in association with blaVIM, and one (8.3%) blaKPC in association with blaNDM.
Sixteen additional swabs were positive only using the molecular assay, whereas no carbapenem-resistant isolates were detected in culture. More in detail, eight samples (50%) were positive for blaOXA-48, seven (38.9%) for blaKPC, two (11.1%) for blaVIM, two (11.1%) for blaNDM, and one for AcOXA (6.2%, Figure 1, Table 1). Multiple genes were co-detected in three cases, including blaKPC and blaOXA-48 in two (12.5%) swabs and blaNDM and blaVIM in one (6.25%).
Finally, eight swabs (30.8%) were positive for carbapenem-resistant isolates only in the culture-based assay, of which seven (87.5%) were P. aeruginosa and one (12.5%) was K. pneumoniae (Figure 1A,B, Table 1 and Table 2). In the present study, the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen AB ANALITICA qPCR featured a positivity rate of 7.1% (34/479) for the identification of carbapenemase genes in all sample swabs, while the culture-based screening method demonstrated a positivity rate of 5% (24/479). A combination of both the molecular assay to identify carbapenemase genes and of the culture-based screening method to identify carbapenem resistance would have yielded the highest positivity rate (8.7%).
Microbial colonization by MDR pathogens occurring 8 to 30 days after hospitalization was reported in 7/309 (2.3%) of the patients included in the surveillance. In this context, P. aeruginosa was the most significant pathogen as it was identified as the causative agent of 5/7 (71.4%) of the hospital colonization cases, whereas A. baumannii (carrying an AcOXA) and A. junii (carrying blaNDM) were the other identified pathogens. Only one patient was already colonized with MDR P. aeruginosa upon ICU admission. This highlights the importance of timely and accurate detection of MDR colonization for effective infection control and patient management in high-risk settings.
4. Discussion
Carbapenems play a crucial role against MDR Gram-negative pathogens. While there is no univocal consensus about the epidemiological impact of different mechanisms of carbapenem resistance [25,26,27], rectal carriage of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative microorganisms is an important risk factor for developing carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections [28], which pose a greater risk of death for the patient [29]. For this reason, the present spread of MDR pathogens, especially in hospital settings, makes compelling the prompt and early identification of resistance especially in at-risk categories of patients.
In this study, we evaluated the performance of the combined use of a novel commercially available molecular-based assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen kit) for the screening of carbapenemase genes and of a conventional phenotypic assay. As of today, phenotypic testing strategies to identify carbapenem-resistant isolates are still more cost-effective and widely used [30]. However, these may suffer from several drawbacks which may lead to the failure in detecting carbapenem-resistant microorganisms, such as for example when their load is very low. To address this issue, incorporating a pre-enrichment step for rectal swabs could be beneficial. However, a step forward could be made by integrating the culture-based screening with a molecular-based assay, such as the one used in this study. Some studies have already addressed this point in the literature, evidencing the advantage offered by the combined approach [11,31]. More in detail, the molecular assay used in this study is characterized by two potential further advantages, namely the detection of mcr and of the AcOXA genes, a feature laying the groundwork for future comparative analyses among different molecular assays which were not carried out in the present study.
Coherently with studies analyzing the performances of molecular-based antimicrobial-resistance screening platforms, the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen was able to identify a higher number of potential carbapenemase-producing isolates than the phenotypic culture-based screening (Figure 1A,B) [32]. This characteristic is of note in blaOXA-48-positive swabs (six identified only by REALQUALITY Carba-Screen), plausibly owing to the minor carbapenem hydrolytic activity of the encoded enzyme [33]. Moreover, the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen was able to identify blaKPC in five swabs testing negative for phenotypic screening. This inconsistency could be a consequence of a low blaKPC gene load in the swab, leading to an inexact phenotypic screening, or to the presence of one of the ceftazidime–avibactam-resistant meropenem-susceptible KPC variants [34]. Under this perspective, several approaches were proposed to improve performance in the carbapenemase detection method by standard culture such as, for example, that at least 30 µL of flocked buffer (Liquid Amies Elution) is sown after vortexing [35].
Another potential feature of improvement in the phenotypic screening lies in the correct choice of the combination medium antibiotic to be used, such as MacConkey agar + two antimicrobial disks (a 10 µg meropenem disc and a 10 + 4 µg ceftazidime–avibactam disc) coupled with a chromogenic agar. This phenotypic approach could broaden the landscape of identifiable microorganisms, allowing to search for carbapenem-resistant microorganisms, for bacteria with reduced susceptibility to carbapenems, and for carbapenem-susceptible ceftazidime–avibactam-resistant KPC variants [36,37]. While this study was not conducted in a real-life setting, the implementation of the molecular assay in the screening algorithm could bring several advantages in a laboratory routine, such as a decrease in the turnaround time and a higher sensitivity [32]. These features make molecular screening for MDR pathogen colonization a strong support to MDR outbreak control.
However, while molecular screening tests show promise, they are still burdened by some notable limitations. For instance, relying on amplification rather than on whole-genome sequencing, they cannot detect every resistance determinant. This limit mainly arises in P. aeruginosa, since in this species, carbapenem resistance is typically a multi-factorial phenomenon [38]. In our evaluation, the molecular assay was able to identify only two carbapenem-resistant strains, as compared to nine identified by phenotypic screening (Figure 1B). Additionally, if not properly carried out, molecular assays can lead to ambiguous conclusions. For instance, during this evaluation, we identified two peculiar occurrences: one A. junii strain carrying the blaNDM gene, and one P. aeruginosa carrying both blaVIM and blaKPC, with the latter only anecdotally reported. These two events are emblematic of how phenotypic and molecular assays should be combined to produce solid and meaningful results.
Additionally, molecular tests cannot accurately determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for antibiotics and, while their reliability in demonstrating effectiveness with certain antimicrobial molecules (i.e., carbapenems) is high, there remains significant room for improvement in other settings, such as in the case of novel beta-lactam–non-beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations.
5. Conclusions
This study, while highlighting that molecular assays are more sensitive and specific than culture for the detection of carbapenemase genes in clinical samples, confirms that as of today, phenotypic antimicrobial-susceptibility testing cannot be left out of consideration. Phenotypic methods remain crucial for providing comprehensive information on the antimicrobial resistance profile, which is essential for guiding appropriate therapeutic strategies.
Here, by highlighting the novelty of the integrative approach combing phenotypic screening with the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen assay, we aim to prompt a novel way to perform screening for MDR microorganisms. This combined approach enhances rapid molecular detection of carbapenemases, improves diagnostic accuracy, and impacts clinical decision-making. By leveraging the strengths of both phenotypic and molecular methods, our study presents a novel strategy that could set a new standard for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of carbapenemase-producing organisms in clinical settings.
In the near future, a combined use of molecular and phenotypic screening is foreseeable, and their combination needs to be assessed according to the specific clinical need addressed and available economic resources. Integrating these methods can enhance diagnostic accuracy, improve patient outcomes, and optimize infection control measures. Overall, the REALQUALITY Carba-Screen assay (CE-IVD marked test) represents a possible option to be integrated into clinical screening of the major carbapenemases. This integration can help in early detection and appropriate management of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms, ultimately contributing to better healthcare outcomes.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, F.N. and N.M.; methodology, F.N., G.A., F.D.F., S.B., and A.P.G.; formal analysis, F.N., G.A., and F.D.F.; investigation, F.N., G.A., F.D.F., S.B., and A.P.G.; data curation, G.A., G.C., P.G., M.C., R.C., and R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.N. and N.M.; writing—review and editing, F.N., G.A., D.C., and N.M.; visualization, G.A.; supervision, N.M.; project administration, F.N. and N.M.; funding acquisition, N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance (accessed on 3 May 2024).
- Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Europe 2023–2021 Data. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2023-2021-data (accessed on 3 May 2024).
- Boattini, M.; Bianco, G.; Bastos, P.; Comini, S.; Corcione, S.; Almeida, A.; Costa, C.; De Rosa, F.G.; Cavallo, R. Prevalence and Mortality of Ceftazidime/Avibactam-Resistant KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Bloodstream Infections (2018–2022). Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2024, 43, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Queenan, A.M.; Bush, K. Carbapenemases: The Versatile β-Lactamases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 20, 440–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pitout, J.D.D.; Peirano, G.; Kock, M.M.; Strydom, K.-A.; Matsumura, Y. The Global Ascendency of OXA-48-Type Carbapenemases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 33, e00102-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naas, T.; Dortet, L.; Iorga, B.I. Structural and Functional Aspects of Class A Carbapenemases. Curr. Drug Targets 2016, 17, 1006–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cantón, R.; Akóva, M.; Carmeli, Y.; Giske, C.G.; Glupczynski, Y.; Gniadkowski, M.; Livermore, D.M.; Miriagou, V.; Naas, T.; Rossolini, G.M.; et al. Rapid Evolution and Spread of Carbapenemases among Enterobacteriaceae in Europe. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adler, A.; Navon-Venezia, S.; Moran-Gilad, J.; Marcos, E.; Schwartz, D.; Carmeli, Y. Laboratory and Clinical Evaluation of Screening Agar Plates for Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Surveillance Rectal Swabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 2239–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laboratory Detection of Imipenem or Meropenem Resistance in Gram-Negative Organisms |HAI| CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/settings/lab/lab_imipenem.html (accessed on 3 May 2024).
- Cohen Stuart, J.; Leverstein-Van Hall, M.A. Guideline for Phenotypic Screening and Confirmation of Carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 36, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tamma, P.D.; Simner, P.J. Phenotypic Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms from Clinical Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01140-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eucast: Screening for R-Mechanisms. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/screening_for_resistance_mechanisms_with_rast (accessed on 3 May 2024).
- Song, W.; Park, M.-J.; Jeong, S.; Shin, D.H.; Kim, J.-S.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, N.; Hong, J.S.; Jeong, S.H. Rapid Identification of OXA-48-like, KPC, NDM, and VIM Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae From Culture: Evaluation of the RESIST-4 O.K.N.V. Multiplex Lateral Flow Assay. Ann. Lab. Med. 2020, 40, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, S.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, J.Y.; Jeon, M.J. Xpert Carba-R Assay for Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms in Patients Admitted to Emergency Rooms. Medicine 2020, 99, e23410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girlich, D.; Laguide, M.; Dortet, L.; Naas, T. Evaluation of the Revogene Carba C Assay for Detection and Differentiation of Carbapenemase-Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 58, e01927-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Girlich, D.; Bernabeu, S.; Grosperrin, V.; Langlois, I.; Begasse, C.; Arangia, N.; Creton, E.; Cotellon, G.; Sauvadet, A.; Dortet, L.; et al. Evaluation of the Amplidiag CarbaR+MCR Kit for Accurate Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing and Colistin-Resistant Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, e01800-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oueslati, S.; Girlich, D.; Dortet, L.; Naas, T. Evaluation of the Amplidiag CarbaR + VRE Kit for Accurate Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01092-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nijhuis, R.; Samuelsen, Ø.; Savelkoul, P.; Van Zwet, A. Evaluation of a New Real-Time PCR Assay (Check-Direct CPE) for Rapid Detection of KPC, OXA-48, VIM, and NDM Carbapenemases Using Spiked Rectal Swabs. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013, 77, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García-Fernández, S.; Morosini, M.-I.; Marco, F.; Gijón, D.; Vergara, A.; Vila, J.; Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Cantón, R. Evaluation of the Eazyplex® SuperBug CRE System for Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases and ESBLs in Clinical Enterobacteriaceae Isolates Recovered at Two Spanish Hospitals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 1047–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olaitan, A.O.; Morand, S.; Rolain, J.-M. Mechanisms of Polymyxin Resistance: Acquired and Intrinsic Resistance in Bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gai, Z.; Samodelov, S.L.; Kullak-Ublick, G.A.; Visentin, M. Molecular Mechanisms of Colistin-Induced Nephrotoxicity. Molecules 2019, 24, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leangapichart, T.; Stosic, M.S.; Hickman, R.A.; Lunha, K.; Jiwakanon, J.; Angkititrakul, S.; Magnusson, U.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Järhult, J.D.; Sunde, M. Exploring the Epidemiology of Mcr Genes, Genetic Context and Plasmids in Enterobacteriaceae Originating from Pigs and Humans on Farms in Thailand. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2023, 78, 1395–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Calvo, M.; Migliorisi, G.; Maugeri, G.; Bongiorno, D.; Bonomo, C.; Nicitra, E.; Scalia, G.; Stefani, S. The Molecular Detection of Carbapenem Markers with a Two-Levels Amplification Screening Protocol: Epidemiological and Resistome Insights. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1346442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eucast: Previous Versions of Documents. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/previous_versions_of_documents (accessed on 3 May 2024).
- Baek, M.S.; Kim, J.H.; Park, J.H.; Kim, T.W.; Jung, H.I.; Kwon, Y.S. Comparison of Mortality Rates in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Bacteremia According to Carbapenemase Production: A Multicenter Propensity-Score Matched Study. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamma, P.D.; Goodman, K.E.; Harris, A.D.; Tekle, T.; Roberts, A.; Taiwo, A.; Simner, P.J. Comparing the Outcomes of Patients With Carbapenemase-Producing and Non-Carbapenemase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Bacteremia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hovan, M.R.; Narayanan, N.; Cedarbaum, V.; Bhowmick, T.; Kirn, T.J. Comparing Mortality in Patients with Carbapenemase-Producing Carbapenem Resistant Enterobacterales and Non-Carbapenemase-Producing Carbapenem Resistant Enterobacterales Bacteremia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 101, 115505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palacios-Baena, Z.R.; Giannella, M.; Manissero, D.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Viale, P.; Lopes, S.; Wilson, K.; McCool, R.; Longshaw, C. Risk Factors for Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: A Systematic Review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, R.; Fang, X.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, X.; Shangguan, S.; Chen, S.; Shen, Y.; Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Zhang, R.; et al. Impact of Carbapenem Resistance on Mortality in Patients Infected with Enterobacteriaceae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e054971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rabaan, A.A.; Eljaaly, K.; Alhumaid, S.; Albayat, H.; Al-Adsani, W.; Sabour, A.A.; Alshiekheid, M.A.; Al-Jishi, J.M.; Khamis, F.; Alwarthan, S.; et al. An Overview on Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterisation of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales. Medicina 2022, 58, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rood, I.G.H.; Li, Q. Review: Molecular Detection of Extended Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in a Clinical Setting. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 89, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kamel, N.A.; Tohamy, S.T.; Yahia, I.S.; Aboshanab, K.M. Insights on the Performance of Phenotypic Tests versus Genotypic Tests for the Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Gram-Negative Bacilli in Resource-Limited Settings. BMC Microbiol. 2022, 22, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dabos, L.; Oueslati, S.; Bernabeu, S.; Bonnin, R.A.; Dortet, L.; Naas, T. To Be or Not to Be an OXA-48 Carbapenemase. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobson, C.A.; Pierrat, G.; Tenaillon, O.; Bonacorsi, S.; Bercot, B.; Jaouen, E.; Jacquier, H.; Birgy, A. Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase Variants Resistant to Ceftazidime-Avibactam: An Evolutionary Overview. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0044722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linee Di Indirizzo per Lo Screening Dei Pazienti Colonizzati Da Enterobatteri (Enterobacterales) Produttori Di Carbapenemasi (CPE). Available online: https://www.amcli.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/U027-2024_ScreeningCPE-2024-combinato.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- Viau, R.; Frank, K.M.; Jacobs, M.R.; Wilson, B.; Kaye, K.; Donskey, C.J.; Perez, F.; Endimiani, A.; Bonomo, R.A. Intestinal Carriage of Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms: Current Status of Surveillance Methods. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 29, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, J.D. A Decade of Development of Chromogenic Culture Media for Clinical Microbiology in an Era of Molecular Diagnostics. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 30, 449–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pang, Z.; Raudonis, R.; Glick, B.R.; Lin, T.-J.; Cheng, Z. Antibiotic Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Mechanisms and Alternative Therapeutic Strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the results. Panel (A) Distribution of tested samples categorized by assay outcomes. The dotted circle contains swabs negative to both phenotypic and molecular assays. Numbers within the green and pink sets of the Venn diagram represent swabs positive in the molecular and phenotypic assays, respectively. The cyan intersection displays swabs positive in both assays. Panel (B) Breakdown of positive samples by detection assay. †: two microorganisms identified from the same rectal swab; * AcOXA: blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-24-like, blaOXA-51-like, and blaOXA-58-like.
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the results. Panel (A) Distribution of tested samples categorized by assay outcomes. The dotted circle contains swabs negative to both phenotypic and molecular assays. Numbers within the green and pink sets of the Venn diagram represent swabs positive in the molecular and phenotypic assays, respectively. The cyan intersection displays swabs positive in both assays. Panel (B) Breakdown of positive samples by detection assay. †: two microorganisms identified from the same rectal swab; * AcOXA: blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-24-like, blaOXA-51-like, and blaOXA-58-like.
Table 1.
Detailed description of the microorganisms identified in this study. Specification of data from analyzed samples testing positive in the molecular REALQUALITY Carba-Screen assay, in the phenotypic assay, or both. Bold Ps in columns display the observation of an antimicrobial resistance gene in the sample. ND: Not Detected, * AcOXA: blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-24-like, blaOXA-51-like, and blaOXA-58-like.
Table 1.
Detailed description of the microorganisms identified in this study. Specification of data from analyzed samples testing positive in the molecular REALQUALITY Carba-Screen assay, in the phenotypic assay, or both. Bold Ps in columns display the observation of an antimicrobial resistance gene in the sample. ND: Not Detected, * AcOXA: blaOXA-23-like, blaOXA-24-like, blaOXA-51-like, and blaOXA-58-like.
| Sample Id | REALQUALITY Carba-Screen | AcOXA * | mcr | blaKPC | blaOXA-48 | blaNDM | blaIMP | blaVIM | Phenotypic Screening | Microorganism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 274 | Positive | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | A. baumannii |
| 376a | Positive | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | A. baumannii |
| 416 | Positive | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | A. baumannii |
| 465 | Positive | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | A. baumannii |
| 484 | Positive | P | - | - | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 188 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 200 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 249 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 398 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 21 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 102 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 180 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 432 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae | |
| 455 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae | |
| 358 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 379 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 64 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 191 | Positive | - | - | P | - | - | - | P | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 376k | Positive | - | - | P | - | P | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 434 | Positive | - | - | P | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 447 | Positive | - | - | P | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 452 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 479 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 489 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 429 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 291 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 293 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 294 | Positive | - | - | - | P | - | - | - | Negative | ND |
| 359 | Positive | - | - | - | - | P | - | - | Positive | A. junii |
| 30 | Positive | - | - | - | - | P | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 56 | Positive | - | - | - | - | P | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 3 | Positive | - | - | - | - | P | - | P | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 70 | Positive | - | - | - | - | P | - | P | Negative | ND |
| 6 | Positive | - | - | - | - | - | - | P | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 104 | Positive | - | - | - | - | - | - | P | Negative | ND |
| 25 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | K. pneumoniae |
| 71 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 115 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 139 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 320 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 375 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 466 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
| 506 | Negative | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Positive | P. aeruginosa |
Table 2.
Antibiotic susceptibility and MIC to meropenem of the strains identified by phenotypic screening.
Table 2.
Antibiotic susceptibility and MIC to meropenem of the strains identified by phenotypic screening.
| Sample Id | Microorganism | AK | CM | CIP | AMC | CAZ | CTX | FEP | MEM | IMI | P/T | CZA | C/T | SXT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 274 | A. baumannii | R | R | R | NA | NA | NA | NA | R | >8 | R | NA | NA | NA | R |
| 376a | A. baumannii | R | R | R | NA | NA | NA | NA | R | >8 | R | NA | NA | NA | R |
| 416 | A. baumannii | NA | R | R | NA | NA | NA | NA | R | >8 | R | NA | NA | NA | R |
| 465 | A. baumannii | R | R | R | NA | NA | NA | NA | R | >8 | R | NA | NA | NA | R |
| 359 | A. junii | R | S | I | NA | NA | NA | NA | I | 8 | I | NA | NA | NA | S |
| 3 | K. pneumoniae | NA | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 25 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | S | NA | R |
| 30 | K. pneumoniae | NA | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 56 | K. pneumoniae | NA | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | R | R | R |
| 64 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | S | R | S |
| 188 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 200 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 249 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 376k | K. pneumoniae | NA | R | R | NA | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 398 | K. pneumoniae | NA | R | R | NA | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | R |
| 429 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | S | R | NA | R | NA | R | >8 | R | R | S | NA | S |
| 432 | K. pneumoniae | NA | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | S | R | R |
| 455 | K. pneumoniae | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
| 6 | P. aeruginosa | NA | NA | R | NA | R | NA | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
| 71 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | I | NA | R | NA | I | I | 4 | R | I | NA | NA | NA |
| 115 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | I | NA | R | NA | R | I | 8 | R | R | R | R | NA |
| 139 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | I | NA | R | NA | I | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
| 191 | P. aeruginosa | NA | NA | R | NA | R | NA | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
| 320 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | R | NA | I | NA | I | I | 8 | R | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 375 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | R | NA | R | NA | R | I | 8 | R | I | R | S | NA |
| 466 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | R | NA | I | I | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
| 506 | P. aeruginosa | S | NA | I | NA | R | NA | R | R | >8 | R | R | NA | NA | NA |
S: Susceptible, standard dosing regimen, I: Susceptible, increased exposure, R: Resistant, NA: not assessed, AK: amikacin, CM: gentamycin, CIP: ciprofloxacin, AMC: amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, CAZ: ceftazidime, CTX: cefotaxime, FEP: cefepime, MEM: meropenem, IMI: imipenem, P/T: piperacillin–tazobactam, CZA: ceftazidime–avibactam, C/T: ceftolozane–tazobactam, SXT: trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Novazzi, F.; Arcari, G.; Drago Ferrante, F.; Boutahar, S.; Genoni, A.P.; Carcione, D.; Cassani, G.; Gigante, P.; Carbotti, M.; Capuano, R.; et al. Combined Use of Phenotypic Screening and of a Novel Commercial Assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen) for the Rapid Molecular Detection of Carbapenemases: A Single-Center Experience. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151599
AMA Style
Novazzi F, Arcari G, Drago Ferrante F, Boutahar S, Genoni AP, Carcione D, Cassani G, Gigante P, Carbotti M, Capuano R, et al. Combined Use of Phenotypic Screening and of a Novel Commercial Assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen) for the Rapid Molecular Detection of Carbapenemases: A Single-Center Experience. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(15):1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151599
Chicago/Turabian StyleNovazzi, Federica, Gabriele Arcari, Francesca Drago Ferrante, Sara Boutahar, Angelo Paolo Genoni, Davide Carcione, Gianluca Cassani, Paolo Gigante, Mattia Carbotti, Riccardo Capuano, and et al. 2024. "Combined Use of Phenotypic Screening and of a Novel Commercial Assay (REALQUALITY Carba-Screen) for the Rapid Molecular Detection of Carbapenemases: A Single-Center Experience" Diagnostics 14, no. 15: 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151599
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
