Combining VITEK® 2 with colistin agar dilution screening assist timely reporting of colistin susceptibility

ObjectivesThe rise in carbapenem resistance among Gram-negative bacteria has renewed interest in colistin. Recently, the EUCAST-CLSI Polymyxin Breakpoints Working Group declared that broth microdilution (BMD) is the only valid method for colistin susceptibility testing. BMD is not easily incorporated into the routine work of clinical laboratories, and usually this test is incorporated serially, resulting in delayed susceptibility reporting. We tested a strategy of combining VITEK^® 2 with a 2 μg/mL colistin agar dilution (VITEK^® 2/AD) screening plate to improve performance and time to reporting of colistin susceptibility.MethodsColistin susceptibility for 364 clinical isolates was determined by VITEK^® 2/AD and compared with the reference standard BMD according to the ISO 20776-1:2007 and CLSI guidelines. The EUCAST colistin susceptibility breakpoint of ≤2 μg/mL was used. Escherichia coli NCTC 13846 served as quality control strain. Agreement, very major error (VME) and major error rates were determined using ISO 20776-2:2007.ResultsThe VME rate for VITEK^® 2 alone was 30.6% (15/49, 95% CI 18.3–45.4%), and was reduced to 10.2% (5/49, 95% CI 3.4–22.2%) using the VITEK^® 2/AD combined testing. The combined testing had categorical agreement with BMD of 97% (354/364, 95% CI 95.0–98.7%), and a major error (ME) rate of 1.6% (5/315, 95% CI 0.5–3.7%). Using the combined testing, even against challenging strains, 349 (95.8%, 95% CI 93.3–97.7%) colistin susceptibility results could be reported, and only 15 isolates required further analysis by BMD.DiscussionOur method is simple to apply and allows rapid reporting of colistin susceptibility.     

Fluoroquinolones versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundFluoroquinolones are a popular alternative to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections.ObjectivesTo compare the effects of fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole on mortality of S. maltophilia infections.Data sourcesPubMed and EMBASE.Study eligibility criteriaClinical studies reporting mortality outcomes of S. maltophilia infections.ParticipantsPatients with clinical infections caused by S. maltophilia.InterventionsFluoroquinolone monotherapy in comparison with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole monotherapy.MethodsSystematic review with meta-analysis technique.ResultsSeven retrospective cohort and seven case–control studies were included. Three cohort studies were designed to compare the two drugs, whereas others had other purposes. A total of 663 patients were identified, 332 of which were treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (50.1%) and 331 with fluoroquinolones (49.9%). Three cohort studies were designed to compare the effect of the two drugs, whereas the others had other purposes. Levofloxacin was most frequently used among fluoroquinolones (187/331, 56.5%), followed by ciprofloxacin (114/331, 34.4%). The overall mortality rate was 29.6%. Using pooled ORs for the mortality of each study, fluoroquinolone treatment (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.99) was associated with survival benefit over trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole treatment, with low heterogeneity (I² = 18%). Specific fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17–1.12) and levofloxacin (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48–1.26) did not show a significant difference in comparison with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In the sub-group analyses of adult and bacteraemic patients, significant differences in mortality were not observed between fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.ConclusionsBased on a meta-analysis of non-randomized studies, fluoroquinolones demonstrated comparable effects on mortality of S. maltophilia infection to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, supporting the use of fluoroquinolones in clinical S. maltophilia infections. Although the pooled analysis of overall studies favoured fluoroquinolones over trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, the studies included were observational, and sub-group analyses of certain fluoroquinolone agents did not show statistical differences with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Randomized clinical studies are needed to address these issues.