This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Juretschko, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Juretschko, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2007, p. 1339-1342, Vol. 45, No. 4
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01716-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Accuracies of ß-Lactam Susceptibility Test Results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Four Automated Systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2){triangledown}

Stefan Juretschko,1* Vincent J. LaBombardi,2 Stephen A. Lerner,3 Paul C. Schreckenberger,4 and and the Pseudomonas AST Study Group{dagger}

Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202,1 St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan, New York, New York 10011,2 Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan 48201,3 Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 601534

Received 18 August 2006/ Returned for modification 7 November 2006/ Accepted 5 January 2007


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
Contemporary clinical isolates and challenge strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by four automated susceptibility testing systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2; two laboratories with each) against six broad-spectrum ß-lactams, and the results were compared to reference broth microdilution (BMD) and to consensus results from three validated methods (BMD, Etest [AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden], and disk diffusion). Unacceptable levels of error (minor, major, and very major) were detected, some with systematic biases toward false susceptibility (piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem) and others toward false resistance (aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime). We encourage corrective action by the system manufacturers to address test biases, and we suggest that clinical laboratories using automated systems should consider accurate alternative methods for routine use.


arrow
TEXT
 
Concern about the accuracy of commercial automated systems when testing Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been long-standing and is featured in two contemporary presentations (14, 16). Highly elevated rates of error have been reported for ß-lactam agents tested by the MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2 instruments (1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 17) compared to results with reference methods (6, 7); errors ranged from false resistance (major error) to false susceptibility (very major error) results. The most recent comprehensive study (16) also described unacceptable levels (15) of minor interpretive errors for aztreonam (28 to 31%) and cefepime (18 to 32%) when testing the three commonly used commercial automated systems (MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2). The most serious very major errors were detected for piperacillin-tazobactam (19 to 27%) (16), confirmed by results (10.0% very major errors) reported by Jorgensen et al. (14), in which a minor error rate of 23.6% for cefepime when testing 55 P. aeruginosa isolates was also noted.

Studies of the BD Phoenix system (BD Diagnostic Systems [BDDS], Sparks, MD) have included relatively few P. aeruginosa strains (only 63), and most evaluations used interpretive criteria other than those of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards [NCCLS]) (8, 10-12). Thus, our knowledge of the ability of the BD Phoenix to accurately predict resistance among P. aeruginosa isolates remains incomplete. For these reasons and concerns, a multicenter investigation was organized to evaluate the accuracies of four automated susceptibility testing methods for testing P. aeruginosa. The study was performed in seven laboratories as follows: for BD Phoenix, Arkansas Children's Hospital and St. Luke's Regional Laboratories; for MicroScan WalkAway, Wayne State University Detroit Medical Center and Medical University of South Carolina; for Vitek, Emory University-Centers for Disease Control and Loyola University Medical Center; and for Vitek 2, St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan and Emory University-Centers for Disease Control.

These participating laboratories processed 30 strains of P. aeruginosa, representing local contemporary clinical isolates (15 strains) and a selected challenge set (15 strains) that included approximately equal distributions of isolates that were susceptible and resistant to the antipseudomonal ß-lactams. The antimicrobial susceptibilities of this challenge set were not revealed to the participating laboratories, and testing was performed in a blinded fashion. The antimicrobial agents tested included aztreonam, cefepime, ceftazidime, imipenem, piperacillin, and piperacillin-tazobactam. The organisms were tested at the laboratories using their routine automated system according to procedures and reporting protocols recommended by the manufacturers (bioMerieux, Durham, NC; Dade MicroScan Inc., West Sacramento, CA; and BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD). The specific product cards or panels/software programs utilized were NMIC-107 and 112/V5.15A for BD Phoenix, NEGMIC30 or NC32/LabPro 2.01 for MicroScan WalkAway, GNS-122/WSVTK-R10.01 for Vitek, and AST-GN09/WSVT2-R04.02 for Vitek 2. The comparison methods, also tested at each participating location, used reference frozen-form panels produced under good manufacturing practices by TREK Diagnostics (Cleveland, OH), Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden), and the disk diffusion method (BDDS, Sparks, MD) using the CLSI reference method or the method recommended by the manufacturer (6-8, 15). The agar diffusion method (disk diffusion and Etest) results have previously been validated by Burns et al. for testing P. aeruginosa (3). Quality control was assured via concurrent testing of CLSI-recommended strains, and all presented results were associated with acceptable quality-control test results (8).

Data were analyzed by comparing the results from each automated system to those produced by the reference broth microdilution test (6, 8, 15) as well as to the consensus categorical results of the reference broth microdilution and agar diffusion (Etest and disk diffusion) methods (3, 6-8, 15, 18). The origins of the errors (laboratory or organism subset) were also assessed, and acceptable performance was defined by intermethod error criteria found in CLSI M23-A2 (15). A significant bias toward susceptibility or resistance was defined as a shift of ≥10% in the perceived rate of susceptibility of the entire population (60 results per method or system) when using the commercial product compared to results from the categorical consensus (16).

Table 1 lists the results (error rates) after comparing the automated system categorical test results to the results of the CLSI reference test (6) and the consensus of three validated methods (3, 6-8). Unacceptable levels of intermethod error (15) were encountered using both applied comparative analyses (Table 1). In testing the BD Phoenix system, one participant did not test piperacillin (panel NMIC-112), so only 30 of 60 test results were recorded for that agent tested alone, but 60 results were available for analysis for piperacillin-tazobactam, a carbapenem, two cephalosporins, and the one monobactam tested. Unacceptably (15) elevated rates of minor errors (16.7 to 36.7%) were identified with aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime, regardless of the reference result utilized for analysis. These results were consistent between the laboratories and the organism subsets (recent clinical or challenge strains; data not shown). Previous publications evaluating automated systems have also reported very high minor error rates for the ß-lactams and low overall "categorical agreement" (75.8 to 84.8%) when these systems were tested against P. aeruginosa (10, 11). For the results of aztreonam (not approved for testing in this instrument by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and cefepime testing, the minor error level was combined with a systematic trend toward false resistance (Table 2). In contrast, imipenem and piperacillin with or without tazobactam had error rates that were generally acceptable or were only marginally elevated (>3% major errors [false resistance]) (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Types of intermethod errors produced when testing 30 P. aeruginosa isolates by four commercial automated systems in seven laboratoriesa


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Analyses of error trends for systematic bias in four automated systems when testing six broad-spectrum ß-lactams against contemporary P. aeruginosa isolates (60 total test results for each agent/system)

For the MicroScan WalkAway system, the errors also occurred equally between the two participant centers and between the tested organism populations (challenge and clinical strains). Markedly elevated rates of minor errors were observed for aztreonam (21.7 to 23.3%), cefepime (45.0 to 48.3%), and ceftazidime (20.0 to 23.3%), regardless of the reference result selected for comparative analysis (Table 1). More-serious errors of false resistance were also noted for the same agents with the MicroScan WalkAway system, and false-susceptible results were detected at rates of 5.0 to 15.0% for piperacillin with or without tazobactam. Among the antimicrobials showing unacceptable levels of minor or serious interpretive errors, a net systemic trend toward false-resistance MicroScan WalkAway results was detected for aztreonam (10.0%), cefepime (48.3%), and ceftazidime (16.7%) (Table 2). The skew toward resistance is particularly pronounced for cefepime (threefold greater than for ceftazidime), and this example of bias is illustrated in Table 3. In contrast, the piperacillin and piperacillin-tazobactam results for the MicroScan WalkAway trended toward false susceptibility at a net level of 10.0 to 11.7% (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Example of a systematic trend toward resistance as observed for the MicroScan WalkAway when testing P. aeruginosa strains against cefepime (60 results from two medical centersa)

The results for both Vitek systems are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. High minor error levels (ideal limit of ≤10%) were noted for both automated systems when testing aztreonam (18.3 to 33.3%), cefepime (13.3 to 36.7%), ceftazidime (16.7 to 23.3%), and imipenem (13.3 to 26.7%). More-serious very major errors (false-susceptible) were detected at rates severalfold greater than the acceptable limit (15) (≤1.5%) for piperacillin-tazobactam when using the Vitek (15.0%) and Vitek 2 (20.0 to 21.7%) systems, while lesser rates of serious errors (false susceptibility or resistance) were encountered with Vitek and Vitek 2 when testing piperacillin alone (5.0 to 8.3%). High very-major-error rates were also encountered for both Vitek systems when testing imipenem (5.0 to 8.3%). The error rates for each Vitek system were comparably distributed between tested organism populations and testing centers (data not shown). Elevated minor error rates can be considered acceptable for organism populations having MICs distributed near the breakpoint concentrations. However, the analysis of the minor errors in such cases should reflect equal variations of 1 log2 dilution step toward susceptibility and resistance, e.g., without systematic unidirectional bias. Table 2 shows the trends toward greater susceptibility or resistance for Vitek or Vitek 2 categorical interpretations among the strains having intermethod errors. Clear trending toward false resistance was observed for Vitek (aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime) and Vitek 2 (aztreonam); this was most marked for nearly one-third of the aztreonam and cefepime results. In contrast, a false susceptibility bias for ≥10% of the tested strains was noted for imipenem (8 to 18 occurrences) and piperacillin-tazobactam (9 to 12 occurrences) with both systems.

Concerns about the accuracy of antimicrobial susceptibility testing for P. aeruginosa have been long-standing and have recently been highlighted by intermethod comparisons of commercial automated systems (14, 16, 17) and the piperacillin-tazobactam false-susceptibility results reported to external quality assurance programs such as those of the College of American Pathologists (9). Automated systems have not performed at acceptable levels of accuracy with some antimicrobial agents (1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14), while manually read reference tests (broth microdilution or agar dilution) and agar diffusion methods have functioned as reliable tests producing comparable categorical results (3, 6-8, 18). The data from a multicenter experiment presented here illustrate the high level of discord between the challenged automated systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2) and the recommended/validated susceptibility methods (3, 6, 18). These systematic errors of automated system origin result in documented false-susceptibility or -resistance trends among the ß-lactam antipseudomonal agents, thereby leading to choices of inappropriate therapeutic agents for individual patients and also, potentially, to misdirected empirical treatment guidelines or formulary decisions by medical centers.

Clinical laboratories should be aware of these interpretive problems with the automated systems in testing P. aeruginosa and seek alternative, validated methods for routine use (3, 4). Agar diffusion methods (disk diffusion and Etest) (3, 7) are accurate when compared to the results generated by the CLSI (6) reference methods with MIC endpoints read manually (18). An appropriate choice of method for P. aeruginosa testing may differ from methods used for other commonly tested pathogen groups (Enterobacteriaceae, staphylococci, enterococci, etc). Furthermore, these intermethod discords for the automated systems may be more widespread and not limited to the results for P. aeruginosa, as noted by Tenover et al. (19) in testing the rapidly emerging, epidemic, KPC-enzyme-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank the following individuals for technical and organizational contributions or the provision of the challenge strains: H. S. Sader, D. J. Biedenbach, and N. O'Mara-Morrissey.

The study was funded by an educational/research collaborative grant from JMI Laboratories (North Liberty, IA) and Elan Pharmaceuticals.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Arkansas Children's Hospital, 800 Marshall Street, Little Rock, AR 72202. Phone: (501) 364-4246. Fax: (501) 364-3155. E-mail: JuretschkoSM{at}archildrens.org Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 17 January 2007. Back

{dagger} The study group includes J. E. McGowan, Jr., F. C. Tenover, and P. P. Williams at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; G. Pipia at St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan, New York, NY; V. Rekasius at Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; C. E. Essmyer and J. Yates at St. Luke's Regional Laboratories, Kansas City, MO; T. Beavers-May at Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR; T. Painter at Wayne State University Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI; L. L. Steed and J. A. Bosso at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; and R. N. Jones at JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Biedenbach, D. J., and R. N. Jones. 1995. Interpretive errors using an automated system for the susceptibility testing of imipenem and aztreonam. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 21:57-60.[CrossRef][Medline]
    2. 2
  2. Biedenbach, D. J., S. A. Marshall, and R. N. Jones. 1999. Accuracy of cefepime antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa tested on the MicroScan WalkAway system. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 33:305-307.[CrossRef][Medline]
    3. 3
  3. Burns, J. L., L. Saiman, S. Whittier, D. Larone, J. Krzewinski, Z. Liu, S. A. Marshall, and R. N. Jones. 2000. Comparison of agar diffusion methodologies for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:1818-1822.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    4. 4
  4. Burns, J. L., L. Saiman, S. Whittier, J. Krzewinski, Z. Liu, D. Larone, S. A. Marshall, and R. N. Jones. 2001. Comparison of two commercial systems (Vitek and MicroScan-WalkAway) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 39:257-260.[CrossRef][Medline]
    5. 5
  5. Chandler, L. J., M. Poulter, B. Reisner, and G. Woods. 2002. Clinical evaluation of the Vitek automated system with cards GNS 122 and 127 and VTK-R07.01 software for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 42:71-73.[CrossRef][Medline]
    6. 6
  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Document M7-A7. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
    7. 7
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests, 9th ed. Approved standard M2-A9. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
    8. 8
  8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 16th informational supplement M100-S16. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
    9. 9
  9. College of American Pathologists. 2004. Surveys 2004: D-C bacteriology final critique. Specimen D-17. College of American Pathologists, Chicago, IL.
    10. 10
  10. Donay, J. L., D. Mathieu, P. Fernandes, C. Pregermain, P. Bruel, A. Wargnier, I. Casin, F. X. Weill, P. H. Lagrange, and J. L. Herrmann. 2004. Evaluation of the automated Phoenix system for potential routine use in the clinical microbiology laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:1542-1546.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    11. 11
  11. Eigner, U., A. Schmid, U. Wild, D. Bertsch, and A. M. Fahr. 2005. Analysis of the comparative workflow and performance characteristics of the VITEK 2 and Phoenix systems. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:3829-3834.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. Funke, G., and P. Funke-Kissling. 2004. Use of the BD PHOENIX automated microbiology system for direct identification and susceptibility testing of gram-negative rods from positive blood cultures in a three-phase trial. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:1466-1470.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    13. 13
  13. Jones, R. N., D. J. Biedenbach, S. A. Marshall, M. A. Pfaller, and G. V. Doern. 1998. Evaluation of the Vitek system to accurately test the susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates against cefepime. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32:107-110.[CrossRef][Medline]
    14. 14
  14. Jorgensen, J. H., S. A. Crawford, M. Masterson, M. K. Mansell, M. L. McElmeel, and L. C. Fulcher. 2006. Abstr. 106th Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., abstr. C-118.
    15. 15
  15. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2001. Approved guideline M23-A2. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality controls parameters, 2nd ed. NCCLS, Wayne, PA.
    16. 16
  16. Sader, H. S., T. R. Fritsche, and R. N. Jones. 2006. Accuracy of three automated systems (MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2) for susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa against five broad-spectrum ß-lactam agents. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:1101-1104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    17. 17
  17. Saegeman, V., P. Huynen, J. Colaert, P. Melin, and J. Verhaegen. 2005. Susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by the Vitek 2 system: a comparison with Etest results. Acta Clin. Belg. 60:3-9.[Medline]
    18. 18
  18. Saiman, L., J. L. Burns, S. Whittier, J. Krzewinski, S. A. Marshall, and R. N. Jones. 1999. Evaluation of reference dilution test methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:2987-2991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    19. 19
  19. Tenover, F. C., R. K. Kalsi, P. P. Williams, R. B. Carey, S. Stocker, D. Lonsway, J. K. Rasheed, J. W. Biddle, J. E. McGowan, Jr., and B. Hanna. 2006. Carbapenem resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae not detected by automated susceptibility testing. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12:1209-1213.[Medline]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2007, p. 1339-1342, Vol. 45, No. 4
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01716-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Gordon, N. C., Wareham, D. W. (2009). Failure of the MicroScan WalkAway System To Detect Heteroresistance to Carbapenems in a Patient with Enterobacter aerogenes Bacteremia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 3024-3025 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Pena, C., Suarez, C., Tubau, F., Juan, C., Moya, B., Dominguez, M. A., Oliver, A., Pujol, M., Ariza, J. (2009). Nosocomial Outbreak of a Non-Cefepime-Susceptible Ceftazidime-Susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strain Overexpressing MexXY-OprM and Producing an Integron-Borne PSE-1 ss-Lactamase. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2381-2387 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Torres, E., Villanueva, R., Bou, G. (2009). Comparison of different methods of determining {beta}-lactam susceptibility in clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Med Microbiol 58: 625-629 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Eiland, E. H. III, Dunne, C. R., Lindgren, W. (2008). Pitfalls Associated With Antibiograms. Journal of Pharmacy Practice 21: 319-323 [Abstract]  
  • Mazzariol, A., Aldegheri, M., Ligozzi, M., Lo Cascio, G., Koncan, R., Fontana, R. (2008). Performance of Vitek 2 in Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates with Different Mechanisms of {beta}-Lactam Resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 2095-2098 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Juretschko, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Juretschko, S.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»