scholarly journals Comparison of MIC COL, Sensititre™ and Colistin Agar Screening Plate Methods with Broth Microdilution Reference Method for Detection of Colistin Susceptibility in Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-negative Bacteria

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-191
Author(s):  
Mervenur Demir-Çuha ◽  
Gulsen Hazırolan
Keyword(s):  
Reference Method ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Broth Microdilution ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant

scholarly journals An overview of carbapenem, its resistance and therapeutic options for infections caused by carbapenem resistant bacteria

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 1454
Author(s):  
Hari P. Nepal ◽  
Rama Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Carbapenem Resistance ◽  
Therapeutic Options ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Penicillin Binding Proteins ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
The World

Carbapenems are beta-lactam drugs that have broadest spectrum of activity. They are commonly used as the drugs of last resort to treat complicated bacterial infections. They bind to penicillin binding proteins (PBPs) and inhibit cell wall synthesis in bacteria. Important members that are in clinical use include doripenem, ertapenem, imipenem, and meropenem. Unlike other members, imipenem is hydrolyzed significantly by renal dehydropeptidase; therefore, it is administered together with an inhibitor of renal dehydropeptidase, cilastatin. Carbapenems are usually administered intravenously due to their low oral bioavailability. Most common side effects of these drugs include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, skin rashes, and reactions at the infusion sites. Increasing resistance to these antibiotics is being reported throughout the world and is posing a threat to public health.  Primary mechanisms of carbapenem resistance include expulsion of drug and inactivation of the drug by production of carbapenemases which may not only hydrolyze carbapenem, but also cephalosporin, penicillin, and aztreonam. Resistance especially among Gram negative bacteria is of much concern since there are only limited therapeutic options available for infections caused by carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Commonly used drugs to treat such infections include polymyxins, fosfomycin and tigecycline.

scholarly journals Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

scholarly journals Clinical Validation of SensiTest Colistin, a Broth Microdilution-Based Method To Evaluate Colistin MICs

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edoardo Carretto ◽  
Flavia Brovarone ◽  
Giuseppe Russello ◽  
Paola Nardini ◽  
Maisra M. El-Bouseary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Room Temperature ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Clinical Validation ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Broth Microdilution ◽  
Bacterial Strains ◽  
Global Spread ◽  
Severe Infections

ABSTRACT The global spread of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has led to the return of colistin for treating severe infections. Recently, different plasmid-mediated genes conferring resistance to this drug were described and reported worldwide. International committees (EUCAST/CLSI) reevaluated inconsistencies surrounding colistin antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), concluding that broth microdilution (BMD) should serve as the reference method for AST. The development of an accurate, reproducible commercial test based on BMD is therefore highly desirable. SensiTest Colistin (STC), a BMD-based compact 4-test panel containing the lyophilized antibiotic in 7 2-fold dilutions (0.25 to 16 μg/ml) was here compared with the EUCAST-CLSI standard reference method (BMD) and, for some isolates, with the automated Phoenix 100 system (PHX). A total of 353 bacterial strains were evaluated by two different laboratories; 137 isolates were resistant to colistin (19 were intrinsically resistant, 83 harbored the mcr-1 gene). Essential agreement (EA) between STC and BMD was obtained for 339 out of the 353 strains tested (96.0%). Overall categorical agreement was obtained for 349 out of the 353 strains analyzed (98.9%). Two major errors (MEs; 0.93%) and two very major errors (VMEs; 1.46%) were documented. STC appeared to be a simple but highly reliable test with good reproducibility even with panels stored at room temperature or at 35°C. Moreover, STC showed a good performance with strains carrying the mcr-1 gene, with a 98.8% EA. As the secondary endpoint of our study, VMEs for PHX were documented for 6 isolates (10%).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document