Less Is More: When to Repeat Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

This study investigated the frequency of change of the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern when the same isolate was found in the same patient in various situations. We used laboratory data collected over a period of 8 years (January 2014 to December 2021) at the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary hospital for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. ABSTRACT This study investigated the frequency of change of the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern when the same isolate was found in the same patient in various situations. We used laboratory data collected over a period of 8 years (January 2014 to December 2021) at the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary hospital for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST) were performed using Vitek 2 automated system. We determined essential agreement and categorical agreement, and introduced the new terms essential MIC increase and change from nonresistant to resistant to present changes in antimicrobial susceptibility over time. During the study period, 18,501 successive AST were included. The risk for S. aureus to be resistant to any antibiotic upon repeated culture was <10% during a follow-up of 30 days. For Enterobacterales, this risk was approximately 10% during a follow-up of 7 days. For P. aeruginosa, this risk was higher. The longer the follow-up period, the higher the risk that the bacteria would show phenotypic resistance. We also found that some drug-bug combinations were more likely to develop phenotypical resistance (i.e., E. coli/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and E. coli/cefuroxime). A potential consequence of our finding is that if we regard a risk of resistance below 10% as acceptable, it may be feasible to omit follow-up AST within 7 days for the microorganisms investigated in this study. This approach saves money, time, and will reduce laboratory waste. Further studies are needed to determine whether these savings are in balance with the small possibility of treating patients with inadequate antibiotics.