Annals of Clinical Microbiology, The official Journal of the Korean Society of Clinical Microbiology

6

Weeks in Review

2

Weeks to Publication
Indexed in KCI, KoreaMed, Synapse, DOAJ
Open Access, Peer Reviewed
pISSN 2288-0585 eISSN 2288-6850

Evaluation of MicroScan Neg Combo Panel Type 21 to Detect ESBL

Original article

Annals of Clinical Microbiology (Ann Clin Microbiol) 1999 December Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 158-166.

Evaluation of MicroScan Neg Combo Panel Type 21 to Detect ESBL

Yoon Hee Kang, M.D., Soo Jin Choi, M.D., Sang Hyun Hwang, M.D., Young Wook Cho, M.D., Duck-Hee Kim, M.T.*, Mi-Na Kim, M.D. and Chik Hyun Pai, M.D.

Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

Background: Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporin have been reported with increasing frequency in tertiary-care hospital in Korea. MicroScan Neg Combo Panel Type 21 (Type 21) contains a 1 µg/mL cepfoxodime (POD) in addition to other screen wells containing ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam, which are designed for detecting extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli and Klebsiella species. We evaluated the Type 21 panel for its ability to detect ESBL.

Methods: From November to December in 1998, 496 E. coli and 326 K. pneumoniae strains isolated from clinical specimens were tested with Type 21 panel. The isolates flagged as ESBL producers by the panel were confirmed by the double disk synergy test (DDS). To evaluate the specificity of POD, β-lactamases of 54 E. coli and 20 K. pneumoniae strains that were flagged by POD only from January to May 1999 were analyzed by isoelectric focusing(IEF).

Results: 75/496 (15%) E. coli and 68/326 (21%) K. pneumoniae were flagged as ESBL producers by Type 21 panel. Of those, 94 isolates including 38/75 (51%) of E. coli and 56/68 (82%) of K. pneumoniae were positive for DDS. Among the 94 ESBL producers, all were detected by POD, 84% by cefotaxime, 85% by ceftazidime, 84% by ceftriaxone, and 86% by aztreonam. The 74 strains that were flagged as ESBL producers by POD screen well only were mostly DDS-negative, cefoxitin- resistant and showed β-lactamases with pIs of 5.4 and 7.6 or no band, which could be interpreted as the presence of TEM-1 or SHV-1 type β-lactamases and/or basal AmpC β-lactamases, not ESBL.

Conclusion: MicroScan Neg Combo Panel Type 21 was able to detect a greater number of ESBL producers by inclusion of POD in its screening well. However, the specificity of POD was compromised by flagging a significant number of DDS negative strains. We conclude that the isolates with reduced susceptibility to 3rd generation cephalosporins as well as POD can be reported as ESBL-producers and those resistant to POD only should be confirmed by DDS. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 1999;2:158-166)

Keywords

MicroScan Neg Combo Panel Type 21, ESBL, Cefoxodime, Double disk synergy test