Performance comparison of 4 panels for in vitro drug susceptibility test of Streptococcus pneumoniae

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2019.06.016

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the consistency of 4 panels for in vitro drug susceptibility test of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Methods The concentration gradient method was used as a reference method. The in vitro drug susceptibility test was done with the SMIC panels of the American BD company's Phoenix100（BD-SMIC）,the Vitek 2 Compact GP68 panels of French Bio Mérieux（Vitek 2-GP68）,the Streptococcus panels of Zhuhai Deere Bioengineering Co.（DL-STREP） and the Streptococcus panels of Wenzhou Kangtai Biological Technology Co.,Ltd（KT-STREP）. The results were evaluated by 4 parameters,including category agreement（CA）,essential agreement（EA）,very major discrepancy（VMD）and major discrepancy（MD）. Results The MD values of penicillin were influenced by the interpretation criteria. Other drugs（erythromycin,trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole,cefotaxime,ceftriazone,meropenem,clindamycin,levofloxacin,vancomycin and linezolid） involved in the comparison were acceptable（EA≥90%,CA≥90%,VMD<3% and MD<3%）. Conclusions Except penicillin,the in vitro drug susceptibility test results of the 4 panels are consistent.

Key words: Streptococcus pneumoniae, In vitro drug susceptibility test, Consistency

CLC Number:

R378.1

MA Bing, WANG Fangfang, WANG Shanmei, ZHANG Jiangfeng, YAN Wenjuan, JING Nan, LI Yi. Performance comparison of 4 panels for in vitro drug susceptibility test of Streptococcus pneumoniae[J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2019, 34(6): 547-550.

Figures/Tables 3

References 9

[1]	Weiser J N,Ferreira D M,Paton J C.Streptococcus pneumoniae:transmission,colonization and invasion[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol,2018,16(6):355-367.
[2]	DEMURI G P,GERN J E,EICKHOFF J C,et al.Dynamics of bacterial colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae,Haemophilus influenzae,and Moraxella catarrhalis during symptomatic and asymptomatic viral upper respiratory tract infection[J]. Clin Infect Dis,2018,66(7):1045-1053.
[3]	Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing[S]. M100-S28,CLSI,2018.
[4]	Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Verification of commercial microbial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing system[S]. M52,CLSI,2015.
[5]	Mittman S A,Huard R C,Della-Latta P,et al.Comparison of BD phoenix to vitek 2,microscan MICroSTREP,and Etest for Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Streptococcus pneumoniae[J]. J Clin Microbiol,2009,47(11):3557-3561.
[6]	Charles M K,Berenger B M,Turnbull L,et al.Variability of β-lactam susceptibility testing for Streptococcus pneumoniae using 4 commercial test methods and broth microdilution[J]. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis,2016,84(3):240-245.
[7]	Richter S S,Howard W J,WEINSTEIN M P,et al.Multicenter evaluation of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Streptococcus species[J]. J Clin Microbiol,2007,45(9):2863-2871.
[8]	刘亚丽,张戈,徐英春,等. 5种国产和进口E-test药敏条的一致性比较[J]. 临床检验杂志,2016,34(11):827-830.
[9]	Rennie R P,Turnbull L,Brosnikoff C,et al.First comprehensive evaluation of the M.I.C. evaluator device compared to Etest and CLSI broth microdilution for MIC testing of aerobic Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species[J]. J Clin Microbiol,2012,50(4):1147-1152.

CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	MIC折点		敏感		中介		耐药
CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	敏感（μg/mL）	耐药（μg/mL）	菌株数	百分比（%）	菌株数	百分比（%）	菌株数	百分比（%）
A	青霉素（口服）	≤0.06	≥2	12	25.5	33	70.2	2	4.3
	青霉素（注射）	≤2	≥8	47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	红霉素	≤0.25	≥1	0	0.0	0	0.0	47	100.0
	复方磺胺甲噁唑	≤0.5/9.5	≥4/76	37	78.7	2	4.3	8	17.0
B	头孢噻肟	≤1	≥4	42	89.4	5	10.6	0	0.0
	头孢曲松	≤1	≥4	43	91.5	4	8.5	0	0.0
	美罗培南	≤0.25	≥1	44	93.6	3	6.4	0	0.0
	克林霉素	≤0.25	≥1	0	0.0	0	0.0	47	100.0
	左氧氟沙星	≤2	≥8	47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	万古霉素	≤1		47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
C	利奈唑胺	≤2		47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0

CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	MIC折点		敏感		中介		耐药
CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	敏感（μg/mL）	耐药（μg/mL）	菌株数	百分比（%）	菌株数	百分比（%）	菌株数	百分比（%）
A	青霉素（口服）	≤0.06	≥2	12	25.5	33	70.2	2	4.3
	青霉素（注射）	≤2	≥8	47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	红霉素	≤0.25	≥1	0	0.0	0	0.0	47	100.0
	复方磺胺甲噁唑	≤0.5/9.5	≥4/76	37	78.7	2	4.3	8	17.0
B	头孢噻肟	≤1	≥4	42	89.4	5	10.6	0	0.0
	头孢曲松	≤1	≥4	43	91.5	4	8.5	0	0.0
	美罗培南	≤0.25	≥1	44	93.6	3	6.4	0	0.0
	克林霉素	≤0.25	≥1	0	0.0	0	0.0	47	100.0
	左氧氟沙星	≤2	≥8	47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	万古霉素	≤1		47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
C	利奈唑胺	≤2		47	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0

CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	BD-SMIC		Vitek 2-GP68		DL-STREP		KT-STREP
CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	MD	VMD	MD	VMD	MD	VMD	MD	VMD
A	青霉素（口服）	2.1	0	2.1	0
	青霉素（注射）	0	0					2.1	0
	红霉素	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	复方磺胺甲噁唑	2.1	0	0	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
B	头孢噻肟	2.1	0	2.1	0
	头孢曲松			2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
	美罗培南	2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
	克林霉素	0	0			0	0	0	0
	左氧氟沙星	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	万古霉素	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
C	利奈唑胺	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	BD-SMIC		Vitek 2-GP68		DL-STREP		KT-STREP
CLSI 分组	抗菌药物	MD	VMD	MD	VMD	MD	VMD	MD	VMD
A	青霉素（口服）	2.1	0	2.1	0
	青霉素（注射）	0	0					2.1	0
	红霉素	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	复方磺胺甲噁唑	2.1	0	0	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
B	头孢噻肟	2.1	0	2.1	0
	头孢曲松			2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
	美罗培南	2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0	2.1	0
	克林霉素	0	0			0	0	0	0
	左氧氟沙星	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	万古霉素	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
C	利奈唑胺	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

[1]	SU Zhenzhen, ZOU Jihua, WANG Huimin, XU Weifeng, DING Fang, ZHANG Jingmei, WANG Zhanke. Consistency of serum LDL-P and LDL-C determination results [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2023, 38(2): 148-152.
[2]	YANG Xue, XU Chong, SONG Ying, ZHAO Qiang, MIAO Yingbo, WANG Qing, ZHOU Jing. Survey on the consistency of complete blood cell count results in three regions of the Yangtze River Delta,China [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2022, 37(4): 387-391.
[3]	JU Yinghui, MO Huifang, WU Hui, CHEN Pu, GUO Wei, WANG Beili. Performance comparison of lymphocyte subset determination by 6-color flow cytometry with 2 different reagents [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2022, 37(3): 270-273.
[4]	LÜ Xianmin, YU Guoqi, CHEN Zhengzheng, JIANG Lihua, YAN Luwei, FEI Xianming. Consistency of abnormal results before and after re-determinations based on K⁺,Na⁺ and total calcium determinations [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2021, 36(8): 843-846.
[5]	LU Yinhua, ZHU Yuqing, ZHAO Xiaojun, CAO Danru, ZHU Lingfeng, GU Zhidong. Consistency of the results of anti-HCV antibody gray zone samples among different determination systems [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2021, 36(7): 700-704.
[6]	HE Yong, WANG Hui, LI Xiaoling, NIE Xin, JIANG Hong. Establishment and analysis of comparison methods among POCT blood gas analyzers [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2019, 34(8): 758-762.
[7]	ZHU Peichao, WANG Qing, SONG Ying, XU Lei, MIAO Yingbo. Consistency of routine blood items' results in different grades of hospitals in Shanghai [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2018, 33(12): 1140-1143.
[8]	FENG Yuqing, HUANG Susu, LUO Jing, GU Guolong. Consistency rate of UF-1000i automatic urine analyzer bacterial channel and mid-stream urine culturing [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2018, 33(1): 60-62.
[9]	TANG Wenjia, WU Jiong, WANG Beili, GUO Wei, PAN Baishen. Consistency of different systems for determining lipoprotein（a） [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2017, 32(7): 566-569.
[10]	LI Jiayong, LIU Chang, WANG Hongming, ZHANG Rulin. Two enzyme methods for determining drug concentrations in biochemical instruments [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2017, 32(4): 311-315.
[11]	WU Yanli, CHEN Yuxian, GU Hanfu. Role of Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumolysin in the diagnosis of infective pneumonia [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2017, 32(12): 1075-1079.
[12]	WANG Qing, SONG Ying, XU Lei, ZHU Peichao, MIAO Yingbo. Survey on the comparability and consistency of whole blood cell count determination in Shanghai [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2017, 32(12): 1159-1164.
[13]	LIU Yang, PENG Daorong, MA Yueyun, CHENG Xiaodong, ZHANG Tao, WANG Jing, HAO Xiaoke. Consistency of 2 HBsAg quantitation determination systems in different HBV infection phases and different genotypes [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2016, 31(4): 288-292.
[14]	ZHAN Wenli, LI Lixin, HUANG Zhuochun, HU Jing, WU Yongkang. Consistency of 2 systems for the determination of antinuclear antibody profile [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2016, 31(11): 969-973.
[15]	PAN Fen, ZHAO Shengyuan, QIN Huihong, ZHU Junying, XIAO Shuzhen, ZHANG Hong. Evaluation on multiplex PCR for detecting the common serotypes of one kind of Streptococcus pneumoniae [J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2015, 30(6): 599-602.