Publication:
Comparative assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility testing for tigecycline and colistin against Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates, including multidrug-resistant isolates

dc.contributor.authorPipat Piewngamen_US
dc.contributor.authorPattarachai Kiratisinen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-09T02:35:12Z
dc.date.available2018-11-09T02:35:12Z
dc.date.issued2014-08-04en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2014 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. Acinetobacter baumannii has become a serious concern in clinical practice owing to its multiple resistance to antimicrobial agents. Tigecycline and colistin may be used as alternative therapies, although they lack practical susceptibility testing guidelines. This study assessed the reliability of commonly used methods (disc diffusion, Etest and VITEK®2) for testing sensitivity to both agents compared with the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method against 290 A. baumannii clinical isolates, including multidrug-resistant isolates. For tigecycline, essential agreement and categorical agreement (CA) of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing were most correlated with BMD when using a breakpoint of susceptible (S) 1/resistant (R) 2 mg/L; 94.8% and 84.5% (Etest) and 99.3% and 75.5% (VITEK 2), respectively. A disc diffusion zone diameter breakpoint of S 17/R 12 mm showed good agreement. All three methods did not show major errors or very major errors. For colistin, a BMD MIC breakpoint of S 2/R 4 mg/L was proposed. The disc diffusion method was highly reproducible with a zone diameter breakpoint of S 12/R 9 mm. However, Etest results showed a different MIC range, and the MIC breakpoint should be modified to S 0.5/R 2 mg/L, whilst a similar MIC breakpoint to BMD could be applied for VITEK 2. Both Etest and VITEK 2 showed a high CA for isolates with colistin-susceptible and -resistant results. We recommend that disc diffusion, Etest and VITEK 2 may be used with caution for testing tigecycline and colistin based on our proposed breakpoints. The reliability of individual methods will be discussed.en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. Vol.44, No.5 (2014), 396-401en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.06.014en_US
dc.identifier.issn18727913en_US
dc.identifier.issn09248579en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84908450129en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/34218
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84908450129&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleComparative assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility testing for tigecycline and colistin against Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates, including multidrug-resistant isolatesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84908450129&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections