Evaluation of the Vitek system to accurately test the susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates against cefepime.

A total of 300 recent blood stream and pneumonia isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from 32 different medical centers in the United States were used to assess the accuracy of the Vitek System (GNS-107 card) for cefepime, a new "fourth-generation" cephalosporin. The Vitek System test result was compared to the consensus of the three other methods (reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden)); and 271 of 300 consensus category of susceptibility sets were unanimous. The Vitek System produced a 25.3% error rate (5.3% false resistance, 20.0% minor errors). A consistent trend toward higher MIC results with the Vitek System was observed that produced a 15.3 to 21.3% lower susceptible rate compared with the other susceptibility test methods. The consensus cefepime resistance rate was only 4.3% compared to 14.0% for the Vitek GNS-107 card. The error was reproducible on triplicate repeat testing. These results indicate an unacceptable rate of false resistance being produced by the Vitek System when testing cefepime against P. aeruginosa strains. Alternative methods are suggested for this broad-spectrum antipseudomonal cephalosporin.

[1]  Ronald N. Jones,et al.  Antimicrobial Activity and Spectrum Investigation of Eight Broad-Spectrum β-Lactam Drugs: A 1997 Surveillance Trial in 102 Medical Centers in the United States , 1998 .

[2]  R. Jones.  Impact of changing pathogens and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in the treatment of serious infections in hospitalized patients. , 1996, The American journal of medicine.

[3]  McAllister Ck,et al.  Randomized Comparison of Cefepime and Ceftazidime for Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Gram-Negative Bacteremia , 1995 .

[4]  R. Ramphal,et al.  Clinical experience with single agent and combination regimens in the management of infection in the febrile neutropenic patient. , 1996, The American journal of medicine.

[5]  Ellen Jo Baron,et al.  Manual of clinical microbiology , 1975 .

[6]  R N Jones,et al.  Interpretive errors using an automated system for the susceptibility testing of imipenem and aztreonam. , 1995, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[7]  R. Kessler,et al.  Susceptibility of bacterial isolates to beta-lactam antibiotics from U.S. clinical trials over a 5-year period. , 1996, The American journal of medicine.

[8]  R. Jones,et al.  Microbiologic and pharmacodynamic principals applied to the antimicrobial susceptibility testing of ampicillin/sulbactam: analysis of the correlations between in vitro test results and clinical response. , 1997, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[9]  M. Ferraro,et al.  Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: general principles and contemporary practices. , 1998, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[10]  Ronald N. Jones,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of antimicrobial resistance to six broad-spectrum β-lactams in Colombia using the Etest method , 1997 .

[11]  Ronald N. Jones,et al.  Multicenter Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity for Six Broad-Spectrum β-Lactams in Venezuela Using the Etest Method , 1998 .