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 Picão, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gales, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Picão, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gales, A. C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2008, p. 2028-2037, Vol. 46, No. 6
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00818-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Metallo-β-Lactamase Detection: Comparative Evaluation of Double-Disk Synergy versus Combined Disk Tests for IMP-, GIM-, SIM-, SPM-, or VIM-Producing Isolates {triangledown}

Renata C. Picão,1* Soraya S. Andrade,2 Adriana Gianinni Nicoletti,1 Eloiza H. Campana,1 Gabriela C. Moraes,1 Rodrigo E. Mendes,1 and Ana C. Gales1,2

Laboratório ALERTA, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,1 Laboratório Especial de Microbiologia Clínica, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil2

Received 17 April 2007/ Returned for modification 22 January 2008/ Accepted 28 February 2008


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
The emergence of metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing isolates is a challenge to routine microbiology laboratories, since there are no standardized methods for detecting such isolates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different phenotypic methods to detect MBL production among Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and enterobacterial isolates, including GIM, IMP, SIM, SPM, and VIM variants. A total of 46 genetically unrelated Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas putida, Acinetobacter sp., and enterobacterial strains producing distinct MBLs were tested. Nineteen strains were included as negative controls. The inhibition of bacterial growth and β-lactam hydrolysis caused by MBL inhibitors (IMBL) also were evaluated. The isolates were tested for MBL production by both a double-disk synergy test (DDST) and a combined disk assay (CD) using imipenem and ceftazidime as substrates in combination with distinct IMBL. One hundred percent sensitivity and specificity were achieved by DDST using 2-mercaptopropionic acid in combination with ceftazidime and imipenem for the detection of MBL production among P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species isolates, respectively. The CD test showed the same results for detecting MBL-producing enterobacteria by combining imipenem and EDTA, with a 5.0-mm-breakpoint increase in the size of the inhibition zone. Our results indicate that both phenotypic methods to detect MBL-producing isolates should be based on the genera to be tested, regardless of the enzyme produced by such isolates, as well as on the local prevalence of MBL producers.


arrow
INTRODUCTION
 
Since the early 1990s, new metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-encoding genes have been reported all over the world in clinically important pathogens, such as Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and members of the Enterobacteriaceae family (19, 27, 35, 40). The emergence of MBL-encoding genes is worrisome, since they usually are carried by mobile genetic structures with great ability to spread (3, 5, 18, 24, 36). Moreover, increased mortality rates have been documented for patients infected with MBL-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa, especially due to inadequate empirical therapy (39). Therefore, early detection of MBL-producing organisms is crucial to establish appropriate antimicrobial therapy and to prevent their inter- and intrahospital dissemination (10, 35).

Several phenotypic methods based on MBL inhibition by EDTA or thiol-based compounds have been published. Although they are simple to perform and cheaper than genotypic methods, they have shown discordant results depending on the employed methodology, β-lactam substrates, MBL inhibitors (IMBL), and bacterial genus tested (11, 14, 17, 21, 26). In addition, SPM-, GIM-, and SIM-producing pathogens rarely have been evaluated by these studies.

The high diversity and prevalence of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and Enterobacteriaceae isolates have motivated the search for an accurate MBL screening test. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the double-disk synergy test (DDST) and the combined disk (CD) assay to screen for MBL-producing isolates among P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and selected Enterobacteriaceae isolates that are producers of either IMP, GIM, SIM, SPM, or VIM enzymes.


arrow
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 
Bacterial isolates. All strains tested in this study are described in Table 1.


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

  		TABLE 1. MBL-producing isolates and non-MBL-producing isolates used in this study as positive and negative controls, respectively

MBL-positive controls. A total of 46 MBL-producing isolates, including Acinetobacter spp. (n = 10), P. aeruginosa (n = 28), Pseudomonas putida (n = 1), and enterobacterial isolates (n = 7), were selected as positive controls. All 46 isolates previously had their genotypes characterized by PCR and sequencing. When applicable, these isolates were molecularly typed again to ensure that they were genetically unrelated. Additionally, all isolates showed resistance or reduced susceptibility to imipenem and resistance to ceftazidime according to CLSI breakpoints (9).

MBL-negative controls. Nineteen non-MBL producers, previously screened for the presence of MBL genes (blaIMP, blaGIM, blaSIM, blaSPM, and blaVIM), were included as negative controls (23). In addition, to exclude the possible presence of other not-yet-described MBL enzymes, the imipenemase activity of cell sonicates from overnight broth cultures were determined by spectrophotometric assays using a BioMate 5 UV-visible spectrophotometer. This experiment was carried out with 150 µM imipenem as the substrate at 299 nm. All selected negative control isolates also showed reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and/or imipenem and were genetically unrelated by random amplification of polymorphic DNA (data not shown).

IMBL growth inhibition activity. The bacterial growth inhibition initially was evaluated by disk diffusion testing 5 µl of different concentrations of each MBL inhibitor (IMBL) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853. The IMBLs used were EDTA (Sigma, Steinheim Germany), mercaptopropionic acid (MPA; Sigma); mercaptoacetic acid (MAC; Sigma); mercaptoethanol (MET; Gibco, New York, NY); and phenanthroline (PHEN; Sigma). The tested IMBL concentrations were the following: (i) EDTA, 50, 100, 300, and 500 mM; (ii) MPA, 11.2 (undiluted), 5.6 (1:2), 2.8 (1:4), and 1.4 mM; (iii) MET, 55 (undiluted), 27.5 (1:2), 13.2 (1:4), and 7.0 mM (1:8); (iv) MAC, 14.4 (undiluted), 7.2 (1:2), 3.6 (1:4), 1.2 (1:12); and (v) PHEN, 8, 4, 2, and 1 mM.

Five microliters of the IMBL solution presenting the smallest inhibition zone in the absence of β-lactam agents was selected to perform the DDST. Different amounts of the same solution were employed to perform the CD test, ranging from 2 to 10 µl of each IMBL.

The evaluation of the interference of IMBL itself on the growth of each one of the isolates used in this study also was performed by dropping the same volumes of each IMBL employed for the CD assay on a blank disk. The inhibition zones were measured after overnight incubation at 35°C, and the means of inhibition zones were calculated.

Hydrolysis tests. To assess the β-lactam hydrolysis by each IMBL, the hydrolysis rates of β-lactams were measured with a BioMate 5 UV-visible spectrophotometer. The antimicrobial powder was diluted to obtain 1.8 to 2.0 U of absorbance. Briefly, 100 µl of each selected IMBL solution was added to 900 µl of antimicrobial solution. Experiments were carried out at 299 and 260 nm for imipenem and ceftazidime, respectively.

Phenotypic detection of MBL. (i) DDST. The phenotypic tests were performed by following the CLSI recommendations for the disk diffusion method (9). Briefly, a 0.5 McFarland bacterial suspension was inoculated on a Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar plate (Oxoid, Basingstoke, England). Imipenem and ceftazidime disks were aligned around blank filter disks, which contained 5 µl of the chosen inhibitor solution added directly on the disk and already placed on the MH agar plate. The following distances between the inhibitor and the substrates were tested: 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 cm (from center to center). The appearance of either an enhanced or a phantom zone between the antimicrobial agents and the inhibitor disk was considered a positive result and indicative of MBL production. The best substrate, IMBL, and distance between the antimicrobial agent and the IMBL disks to detect MBL producers were selected according to the highest sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) results.

(ii) CD assay. For the CD assay, ceftazidime and imipenem disks initially were placed on the inoculated MH plates with a 0.5 McFarland bacterial suspension, and 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 µl of each inhibitor solution was added directly to the disks (1). The amounts of each IMBL solution added to the disks corresponding to 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-µl volumes, respectively, were the following: (i) EDTA, 74, 148, 222, 297, and 370 µg; (ii) MPA, 0.295, 0.592, 0.888, 1.184, and 1.48 µg; (iii) MET, 8.58, 17.16, 25.74, 34.32, and 42.92 µg; (iv) MAC, 0.221, 0.441, 0.662, 0.883, and 1.104 µg; and (v) PHEN, 3.17, 6.34, 9.51, 12.68, and 15.85 µg. After an 18- to 24-h incubation period at 35°C, the increase in the size of the inhibition zone obtained with the CD compared to that of the antimicrobial disk alone was measured. The positive criteria for classifying an isolate as an MBL producer is described below.

Statistical analysis. The inhibition zone (in millimeters) produced by each IMBL alone was measured for each tested concentration, and the differences among means (positive and negative controls) were assessed by the Student's t test.

SN, SP, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were calculated for the DDST for each β-lactam/IMBL combination for the five distances evaluated: 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 cm. PCR results for each MBL were considered the gold standard, and isolates were considered true MBL producers if they were positive for blaIMP, blaGIM, blaSIM, blaSPM, or blaVIM.

SN, SP, PPV, and NPV were calculated with the formulas a/(a + c), d/(b + d), a/(a + b), and d/(c + d), respectively, where a represents the number of isolates correctly identified as MBL producers by the DDST, c is the number of true MBL producers (positive controls) that were incorrectly assigned as non-MBL producers by DDST, d is the number of true isolates that are non-MBL producers (negative controls) that were correctly identified by DDST, and b is the number of isolates that were incorrectly identified as MBL producers.

Results from the CD phenotypic method were characterized by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to choose the best cutoff values for indicating MBL production. For each IMBL, the SN and SP of all five concentrations were calculated successively according to the variation of inhibition zones of MBL-producing and non-MBL-producing isolates. The resulting SN values then were plotted against the corresponding values of 1 – SP, producing an ROC curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) and its standard error were calculated, and its statistical significance then was evaluated by the nonparametric method. Differences between variables' AUCs were evaluated through a comparison of the 95% confidence intervals of the corresponding areas.

CD and DDST analyses also were stratified into seven groups according to pathogen species and MBL type produced, as follows: (i) general group, including all isolates tested; (ii) Acinetobacter spp. group; (iii) P. aeruginosa group; (iv) enterobacterial group; (v) IMP-producing isolate group; (vi) VIM-producing isolate group; and (vii) SPM-producing isolate group. For the analysis of the MBL type groups (IMP, VIM, and SPM), all 19 negative controls were included. On the other hand, only negative controls representative of the same genus/species or bacterial family were selected for the pathogen (groups ii to iv) analysis. For example, the analysis of P. aeruginosa included all 28 MBL-producing P. aeruginosa isolates and the 6 non-MBL-producing P. aeruginosa isolates.

The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 10.0 for Windows and Epi Info (CDC), version 6.04. All reported P values were two sided, and values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.


arrow
RESULTS
 
IMBL growth inhibition activity. PHEN and MET showed no growth inhibition activity on P. aeruginosa ATCC 27583 at all tested concentrations. On the other hand, EDTA, MPA, and MAC inhibited the bacterial growth of P. aeruginosa ATCC 27583 differently. The IMBL concentrations of 100 mM EDTA, 1.4 mM MPA, 55 mM MET, 1.2 mM MAC, and 8 mM PHEN were chosen to be tested against the 65 genetically unrelated isolates, since they showed the lowest level of inhibition of bacterial growth (Table 2). Overall, EDTA, PHEN, and MET presented weak bactericidal activity, with an increase in the size of inhibition zones of 0 to 2 mm. In contrast, MPA produced a larger increase in the size of the inhibition zones, from 0.3 to 12.4 mm (Table 2). Despite increasing the IMBL volumes applied to the blank disks, the mean sizes of the inhibition zones were similar among MBL-producing and non-MBL-producing strains (P < 0.05), except for MAC at 10 µl (P = 0.05). Therefore, the bactericidal effect of IMBL was not influenced by the production of IMP, VIM, SPM, GIM, or SIM, making no difference to the calculation of SN and SP values.


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

  		TABLE 2. Inhibition of bacterial growth due to MBL inhibitors

Hydrolysis tests. Hydrolysis test results showed that EDTA and PHEN were not able to hydrolyze the antimicrobial agents tested, while MAC, MET, and MPA demonstrated hydrolytic activity against imipenem but not against ceftazidime (data not shown). The hydrolysis of imipenem, ceftazidime, ampicillin, and aztreonam by MPA has been observed already (14); however, the ability of other IMBLs to hydrolyze β-lactam agents has not been seen previously.

Phenotypic MBL detection by DDST. Table 3 shows the results of SN, SP, PPV, and NPV for DDST. According to the statistical analysis, PHEN and MET demonstrated a very poor ability to detect the tested MBL-producing strains, providing SN results for less than 20% of all 46 MBL-producing isolates (data not shown). Surprisingly, four isolates (GIM, IMP-18 [isolate 3489], a VIM-1-producing P. aeruginosa, and an SIM-1-producing Acinetobacter sp.) were categorized as MBL producers by MET, even when the distance between MET and the β-lactam disks was 3.0 cm. Further studies that included an increasing number of SIM- and GIM-producing isolates would be important to confirm the MET capability for MBL phenotypic detection.


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

  		TABLE 3. MBL detection by DDST: results of SN, SP, PPV, and NPV stratified into seven groups according to pathogen species and MBL type produced

When all 46 MBL-producing isolates (the general group) were analyzed, MPA provided the best results by using imipenem as the substrate. The SN, SP, PPV, and NPV at 1.5 cm were 93.5, 89.5, 95.6, and 85.0%, respectively. However, better SN and SP were achieved after stratifying the results into groups. The Acinetobacter sp. group had SP, SN, PPV, and NPV of 100% when imipenem was placed at 1.5 or 2.0 cm from the MPA disks. For the P. aeruginosa group, DDST results identical to those for the Acinetobacter sp. group were obtained using ceftazidime as a substrate and MPA as the IMBL at 2.0 or 2.5 cm. Figure 1 illustrates the DDST results for MBL-producing P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. isolates, using EDTA and MPA in combination with both imipenem and ceftazidime at a 2.0-cm distance between disks. Among the enterobacterial isolates, identical SN (100.0%), SP (85.7%), PPV (85.7%), and NPV (100.0%) were detected with either EDTA/imipenem or MAC/imipenem at 1.5 and 2.0 cm, respectively, by DDST (Table 3). SP results did not reach 100% due to the occurrence of false-positive DDST results, as illustrated in Fig. 1.


Figure 1
View larger version (133K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 1. Phenotypic tests to detect MBL production. (A and B) DDST results using EDTA and MPA as the IMBL for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. at a distance of 2.0 cm (center to center) between disks. (A) Imipenem presented the best results for screening for Acinetobacter spp. (B) Ceftazidime increased the test SN for screening for MBL production among P. aeruginosa strains. (C and D) DDST and CD assays performed with a non-MBL-producing K. pneumoniae strain. (C) The DDST yielded an inhibition zone with distortion toward the EDTA disk. (D) The CD assay yielded a negative result.

Distinct results for EDTA and MPA were observed for the IMP and VIM groups (Table 3). For the IMP group, SN and SP results close to 90% were achieved only for MPA/imipenem at 1.5 cm. For VIM, 100% SN was achieved only by using EDTA/imipenem at 1.5 cm. SPM group results were similar to those for the P. aeruginosa group, for which MPA/ceftazidime provided 100% SN and nearly 90% SP by using a 2.5-cm distance. The same values also were achieved for detecting SPM using the MPA/imipenem combination at 1.5 cm (Table 3). Since many SPM, VIM, and IMP isolates are P. aeruginosa, we also performed a second analysis, including only P. aeruginosa as the positive and negative controls for each MBL subgroup. For SPM-, VIM-, and IMP-producing P. aeruginosa isolates, 100% SN and SP were obtained for 2.0- and 2.5-cm distances by using MPA/ceftazidime (data not shown).

We also selected all IMP-producing Acinetobacter spp. to perform a stratified analysis. Compared to the results for non-MBL-producing Acinetobacter spp., SN and SP results reached 100% using MPA/imipenem at 1.5 and 2.0 cm (data not shown). These results were identical to those for the Acinetobacter sp. group (Table 3).

Phenotypic MBL detection by CD test. All of the CD test results were applied in the construction of ROC curves to establish the best breakpoint (increase in millimeters) for MBL detection. Table 4 shows selected CD results. Since the study's priority was to select a screening test that yielded the lowest number of false-negative results, only SN results greater than 80% were included in Table 4. In analyzing the general group, the CD test resulted in SN values greater than 80% for EDTA/imipenem and EDTA/MPA/ceftazidime. However, SP results varied greatly, from 31.6 to 89.5%.


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

  		TABLE 4. MBL detection by CD: results of SN, SP, PPV, and NPV stratified into seven groups according to pathogen species and MBL type produced

The Acinetobacter sp. group was not accurately classified by the CD test (Fig. 2 and Table 4). The best SN and SP results were 80.0 and 100.0%, respectively, for 2 µl of MPA associated with imipenem, using a breakpoint of 0.5 mm (AUC = 0.9). However, the increase of 0.5 mm is considered a nondiscriminatory cutoff, since it cannot be adequately measured by visual inspection. All other AUCs displayed results from 0.24 to 0.54.


Figure 2
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 2. ROC curve from different volumes of MPA in combination with imipenem for Acinetobacter spp.

The P. aeruginosa group showed SN results close to 100% and SP results of 100% (Table 4) for ceftazidime in combination with EDTA or MPA, using 8 mm as breakpoint. Figure 3 shows the ROC graphs for ceftazidime in combination with EDTA and MPA. The best AUC (0.98) was achieved by testing 8 µl of MPA. All AUC results for EDTA and MPA were statistically significant (P < 0.05) (data not shown).


Figure 3
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 3. ROC curve from different volumes of EDTA (A) and MPA (B) in combination with ceftazidime for P. aeruginosa.

Surprisingly, the CD results for the enterobacterial group achieved 100% SN and 100% SP for several of the breakpoints analyzed by the ROC curve for the imipenem/EDTA combination (AUC = 1.0) (Table 4). Figure 1 shows an example of a negative CD assay for a non-MBL producer, Klebsiella pneumoniae, which was misclassified as an MBL producer by DDST.

Among the MBL groups, the combination of ceftazidime associated with EDTA (6 and 8 µl) or MPA (2 to 8 µl) resulted in 100% SN and 100% SP for detecting the SPM-producing isolates (Table 4).


arrow
DISCUSSION
 
The detection of MBL-producing isolates by PCR is expensive, requires specialized technicians and instruments, and, more importantly, is able to detect only previously described MBL-encoding genes. In addition, the cost of implementing this technique might not be justified in medical centers that have a low prevalence of MBL producers. These factors make the implementation of such tests by routine clinical microbiology laboratories difficult. However, the detection of the MBL phenotype of resistance is of crucial importance for selecting the most appropriate therapy and applying infection control measures. For these reasons, an accurate and easy-to-perform phenotypic test is desirable and urgently necessary in hospitals with a high prevalence of MBL-producing isolates (10, 35).

Many authors have published distinct phenotypic techniques for screening MBL-producing isolates; however, these studies have important limitations, such as the following: (i) the inclusion of a small number of MBL-producing isolates, sometimes harboring the same type of enzyme (2, 36); (ii) the absence of molecular typing to exclude the influence of a single clone in the interpretation of their results (28); (iii) a lack of tests for evaluating the inhibitory effect of IMBL activity on bacterial growth and β-lactam hydrolysis (2, 11, 26, 34, 37); (iv) no inclusion of SPM- or GIM-producing P. aeruginosa isolates or SIM-producing Acinetobacter spp. isolates (11, 14, 17, 21, 25); (v) a lack of results stratified according to pathogen/species, in which the SN and SP values reflect the overall performance of all isolates (2, 14, 17); and (vi) accurate statistical analysis usually is not carried out to interpret and validate their results (2, 11, 21, 37, 38).

This is the first study to assess the accuracy of phenotypic methods to detect all of the major types of mobile MBLs described (GIM, IMP, SIM, SPM, and VIM) that are produced by diverse bacterial genera with distinct imipenem susceptibility patterns. The inclusion of genetically unrelated strains isolated on three distinct continents suggests that these results would be useful for regions in which such a resistance mechanism is frequent. Depending on the tested concentration, IMBLs may possess their own bactericidal activity, which may result in expanded inhibition zones not associated with true MBL production (8). This finding may lead to the false-positive detection of MBL by both CD assay and DDST, and it has been considered a disadvantage to employ EDTA and MPA as IMBL (16). To exclude the effect of such interference on the phenotypic detection of MBL, we have tested the activity of distinct dilutions of IMBL with respect to the growth of P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853. In addition, the influence of IMBL inhibitory activity on the substrate was taken into consideration in the analysis of SN and SP results for screening MBL-producing isolates. False-negative results might arise from the imipenem hydrolysis caused by thiol derivatives (14). Many studies have performed phenotypic MBL detection using Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and/or enterobacterial isolates, but some of them did not present SP and SN results stratified by pathogen/species, reflecting the global performance of all isolates and not for a specific pathogen (11). Other studies did stratify according to species, but it is not clear if only negative controls from the same pathogen/species were included to calculate SN and SP results (21, 37). This is a very important issue that must be taken into consideration when selecting an MBL phenotypic test, as in this study we have observed different SP and SN values according to the group analyzed. Moreover, a rigorous statistical analysis of our data was performed.

In this study, PHEN and MET showed poor results for detecting MBL producers under the tested conditions. The IMBL derivatives of thiol compounds may possess anionic, cationic, or neutral functional groups at neutral pH. MAC and MPA are classified in the anionic group, while MET belongs to the neutral group. Siemann et al. have shown that the inhibition of MBL activity by the anionic IMBL starts immediately. In contrast, neutral IMBLs have a pronounced lag prior to the start of inhibitory activity; i.e., the best inhibitory results are achieved after preincubating the IMBL with MBL before adding the substrate. In this manner, the weakest activity of MET in this study could be explained by the absence of the preincubation step in the performance of the phenotypic detection (28).

The standardization of a phenotypic method to screen MBL-producing isolates is of crucial importance (10). Most previous studies that evaluated MBL phenotypic detection were performed under distinct experimental conditions, jeopardizing the comparison of their results to those of others (2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26). The sizes of inhibition zones produced by β-lactam/IMBL combinations may vary according to the way that the IMBL is incorporated into the β-lactam disks (1). Since the selection of an appropriate breakpoint for screening MBL-producing isolates is directly influenced by the size of the inhibition zone, the methodology used for preparing the CDs should always be described in such phenotypic reports. In the current study, we have added the IMBL solutions directly on β-lactam disks already placed on the agar plate (1), while some authors previously prepare and freeze IMBL/β-lactams disks; thus, the results of our CD assay may be comparable to those of other studies that use the same methodology.

In addition, a number of authors also have raised concerns about the influence of the bactericidal effect of IMBL alone, claiming that it could not be distinguished from the antimicrobial effect of β-lactam/IMBL (2, 8, 14, 16). Fortunately, we have addressed this issue, since we have documented that the best SN and SP results for CD assays were achieved by establishing breakpoints that were greater than the mean sizes of the inhibition zones produced by all of the IMBL themselves. When choosing the best MPA volume, we should take into consideration the inhibitory effect of MPA itself on the bacterial growth. According to Table 2, the mean increase in the size of the of the inhibition zone caused by MPA itself (excluding the diameter of the blank disk [6 mm]) varied from 1.3 (2 µl) to 12.4 mm (10 µl). We recommend the addition of 2 µl of MPA to the ceftazidime disk, since this volume produced a significant increase in the size of the inhibition zone (13 mm) while exerting the minimal amount of inhibitory effect of MPA itself during the bacterial growth when testing SPM-producing isolates.

A ROC curve consists of a graph containing the relationship between the SN and SP of a test, which are calculated for all possible cutoff values. Thus, in this case, each curve plots the true-positive rate against the false-positive rate for each volume of the IMBL/β-lactam combinations. Since the ROC graph is a result of SN versus 1 – SP, the most accurate test to discriminate between MBL- and non-MBL-producing isolates would pass through the upper left corner of the graph. On the other hand, the closer the curve comes to the 45-degree diagonal, the less accurate is the test. Additionally, the AUC is a measure of the test's accuracy and is useful for comparing different tests. For example, an area of 1 represents an ideal test (SN and SP of 100%), while an area of 0.5 reflects poor SN and SP results (20). The greatest advantage of using ROC curves in this case was the possibility of visualizing a wide range of breakpoints for each IMBL/β-lactam combination by the CD test. In studies of different IMBL, many authors do not consider testing a wide range of breakpoints. SN and SP results usually are calculated only for a narrow range of breakpoints that are chosen randomly or according to previously published results (38). Moreover, many studies have established the best breakpoints only by observing inhibition zones produced by the IMBL/β-lactam (11, 38). Thus, SN and SP values of all possible and different breakpoints may not be presented and are not known by the readers. In our study, a wide range of results were documented and chosen based on ROC curve results, ranging from 3 (for Enterobacteriaceae/imipenem/EDTA) to 18 mm (for SPM/MPA/ceftazidime). If we had tested only the breakpoint of 7 mm, for example, we would have obtained less accurate results for enterobacterial isolates (SN of 71.4% instead of 100%) and SPM-producing isolates (SP of 31.6% instead of 100%). Since higher SP results can be obtained only by jeopardizing SN values, researchers should always consider their main objective when selecting a screening method to detect MBLs. However, due to the possible clinical implications of false-negative MBL results, microbiology laboratories should always favor the selection of more sensitive methods.

As summarized in Table 5, our results show that the DDST was the most accurate phenotypic test to detect MBL production in P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. when 1.4 mM MPA was used as the IMBL and was positioned 2 cm from the β-lactam disk. However, the choice of the best substrate depended upon the bacterial species tested: ceftazidime and imipenem for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp., respectively. By the CD assay, no breakpoint achieved 100% SN and SP for the nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli. In contrast, among the enterobacterial isolates, the CD test showed identical results (100% SN, 100% SP, and an AUC of 1) for different EDTA volumes combined with imipenem. Thus, we suggest that 10 µl of 100 mM EDTA applied to the imipenem disk is a good option to discriminate MBL-producing isolates, since it produced the largest increase in the size of the inhibition zone (5 mm). Due to the paucity of MBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, only seven positive controls were included, and we believe that further studies that evaluate an increased number of MBL isolates are needed to corroborate our results.


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

  		TABLE 5. Optimal conditions described in this study to perform phenotypic detection of MBL production among P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates

Concluding remarks. By DDST, MPA proved to be an excellent IMBL choice for detecting MBL among both P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Although the best distance varied depending on the bacterial species, a distance of 2.0 cm could be standardized, since 100% SN and 100% SP were achieved for both pathogens. Since bacterial identification is determined before susceptibility testing by routine clinical laboratories and the type of MBL is yet unknown, the same solution of MPA could be applied on a blank disk at 2.0 cm from imipenem (for Acinetobacter spp.) or ceftazidime (for P. aeruginosa). Among enterobacterial isolates, the CD test with imipenem associated with 10 µl of 100 mM EDTA was the most accurate combination for detecting MBL production with a breakpoint of 5.0 mm.

We believe that the interpretation of DDST results is more subjective than those of the CD assay (37), because the DDST depends upon the technician's expertise to discriminate true synergism from the intersection of inhibition zones. However, the CD assay did not show a good performance for screening MBL-producing Acinetobacter spp.

The DDST is simple to perform and can be incorporated into the existing workflow of clinical microbiology laboratories that routinely employ disk diffusion as their preferential antimicrobial susceptibility testing method. An MPA disk could be easily placed at 2 cm from the imipenem or ceftazidime disk during the performance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing after the identification of Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. In our opinion, the detection of MBL-producing isolates is of crucial importance not only for institutions with a high prevalence of such isolates but also in those in which the phenotype of resistance has never been detected. In a scenario of a high frequency of MBL-producing isolates, the detection of such strains would be important for the adjustment of empirical antimicrobial therapy and, probably, the reduction of mortality rates for patients infected with MBL-producing isolates. The early detection of MBL-producing isolates in institutions in which these strains have never been detected would be important to avoid the intrahospital dissemination of such strains, since most of the MBL-encoding genes reside on class 1 integrons and/or plasmids that usually confer high mobility to these genetic elements. However, clinical microbiology laboratories that usually perform susceptibility testing by using automated systems would have an increase in their work burden if an additional test was implemented for the detection of this phenotype of resistance. In this manner, the screening of MBL-producing isolates should be an individual decision best made by each clinical laboratory in consultation with the infectious disease practitioners and infection control committees.

It is desirable that the selection of the appropriate MBL tests to be performed is based upon studies providing SN and SP results for that specific pathogen. Thus, we suggest that the selection of the best MBL screening method should be based on the isolated species, the local prevalence of MBL producers, and the ability of specialized technicians to correctly interpret MBL inhibition.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We are grateful to Ana Lúcia S. Andrade for assistance in the study design. We also thank Timothy R. Walsh, Mark A. Toleman, Yoshichika Arakawa, and Yunsop Chong for kindly providing some of the MBL-harboring clinical isolates included in this study.

The study was financially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP; process number 2006/07197-0). A.C.G. is a researcher of CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico; process number 307714/2006-3), Brasília, Brazil.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Rua Pedro de Toledo, 781, São Paulo, SP 04039-032, Brazil. Phone and fax: 55-11-5084-6538. E-mail: renata.picao{at}lemc.com.br Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 5 March 2008. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Andrade, S. S., R. C. Picao, E. H. Campana, A. G. Nicoletti, A. C. Pignatari, and A. C. Gales. 2007. Influence of disk preparation on detection of metallo-β-lactamase-producing isolates by the combined disk assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:2058-2060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. 2
  2. Arakawa, Y., N. Shibata, K. Shibayama, H. Kurokawa, T. Yagi, H. Fujiwara, and M. Goto. 2000. Convenient test for screening metallo-β-lactamase-producing gram-negative bacteria by using thiol compounds. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:40-43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Castanheira, M., R. N. Jones, H. S. Sader, R. C. Picao, and A. C. Gales. 2005. Inter-species dissemination of an integron carrying blaVIM-1 between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae, abstr. C1-84, p. 64. Abstr. 45th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
    4. 4
  4. Castanheira, M., R. E. Mendes, R. C. Picao, F. P. Pinto, A. M. O. Machado, T. R. Walsh, and A. Gales. 2006. Genetic analysis of a multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacter cloacae producing IMP-1 metallo-β-lactamase (MBL), abstr. C1-63, p. 72. Abstr. 46th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
    5. 5
  5. Castanheira, M., R. C. Picao, R. E. Mendes, A. C. Pignatari, H. S. Sader, and A. Gales. 2006. Discrepancy in the metallo-beta-lactamase phenothypic tests results associated with diversity in the promoter region of class 1 integrons, abstr. P-933. Abstr. 16th Eur. Cong. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. European Society of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Nice, France.
    6. 6
  6. Castanheira, M., M. Toleman, T. R. Walsh, H. S. Sader, A. C. Pignatari, and A. C. Gales. 2005. Metallo-beta-lactamase gene blaSPM-1 evaluation of its vicinities in unrelated Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from distinct Brazilian hospitals, abstr. P-932. Abstr. 16th Eur. Cong. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. European Society of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Nice, France.
    7. 7
  7. Castanheira, M., M. A. Toleman, R. N. Jones, F. J. Schmidt, and T. R. Walsh. 2004. Molecular characterization of a β-lactamase gene, blaGIM-1, encoding a new subclass of metallo-β-lactamase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:4654-4661.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    8. 8
  8. Chu, Y. W., T. K. Cheung, J. Y. Ngan, and K. M. Kam. 2005. EDTA susceptibility leading to false detection of metallo-beta-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Etest and an imipenem-EDTA disk method. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 26:340-341.[CrossRef][Medline]
    9. 9
  9. CLSI. 2006. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 16th informational supplement, M100-S16. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
    10. 10
  10. Cornaglia, G., M. Akova, G. Amicosante, R. Canton, R. Cauda, J. D. Docquier, M. Edelstein, J. M. Frere, M. Fuzi, M. Galleni, H. Giamarellou, M. Gniadkowski, R. Koncan, B. Libisch, F. Luzzaro, V. Miriagou, F. Navarro, P. Nordmann, L. Pagani, L. Peixe, L. Poirel, M. Souli, E. Tacconelli, A. Vatopoulos, and G. M. Rossolini. 2007. Metallo-beta-lactamases as emerging resistance determinants in gram-negative pathogens: open issues. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 29:380-388.[CrossRef][Medline]
    11. 11
  11. Franklin, C., L. Liolios, and A. Y. Peleg. 2006. Phenotypic detection of carbapenem-susceptible metallo-β-lactamase-producing gram-negative bacilli in the clinical laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:3139-3144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. Gales, A. C., D. J. Biedenbach, P. Winokur, D. M. Hacek, M. A. Pfaller, and R. N. Jones. 2001. Carbapenem-resistant Serratia marcescens isolates producing Bush group 2f beta-lactamase (SME-1) in the United States: results from the MYSTIC Programme. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 39:125-127.[CrossRef][Medline]
    13. 13
  13. Jones, R. N., L. M. Deshpande, J. M. Bell, J. D. Turnidge, S. Kohno, Y. Hirakata, Y. Ono, Y. Miyazawa, S. Kawakama, M. Inoue, Y. Hirata, and M. A. Toleman. 2004. Evaluation of the contemporary occurrence rates of metallo-beta-lactamases in multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli in Japan: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2002). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 49:289-294.[CrossRef][Medline]
    14. 14
  14. Kimura, S., Y. Ishii, and K. Yamaguchi. 2005. Evaluation of dipicolinic acid for detection of IMP- or VIM-type metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 53:241-244.[CrossRef][Medline]
    15. 15
  15. Lee, K., Y. Chong, H. B. Shin, Y. A. Kim, D. Yong, and J. H. Yum. 2001. Modified Hodge and EDTA-disk synergy tests to screen metallo-beta-lactamase-producing strains of Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 7:88-91.[CrossRef][Medline]
    16. 16
  16. Lee, K., Y. S. Lim, D. Yong, J. H. Yum, and Y. Chong. 2003. Evaluation of the Hodge test and the imipenem-EDTA double-disk synergy test for differentiating metallo-β-lactamase-producing isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:4623-4629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    17. 17
  17. Lee, K., D. Yong, J. H. Yum, Y. S. Lim, A. Bolmstrom, A. Qwarnstrom, A. Karlsson, and Y. Chong. 2005. Evaluation of Etest MBL for detection of blaIMP-1 and blaVIM-2 allele-positive clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:942-944.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    18. 18
  18. Lee, K., J. H. Yum, D. Yong, H. M. Lee, H. D. Kim, J. D. Docquier, G. M. Rossolini, and Y. Chong. 2005. Novel acquired metallo-β-lactamase gene, blaSIM-1, in a class 1 integron from Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates from Korea. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:4485-4491.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    19. 19
  19. Lincopan, N., J. A. McCulloch, C. Reinert, V. C. Cassettari, A. C. Gales, and E. M. Mamizuka. 2005. First isolation of metallo-β-lactamase-producing multiresistant Klebsiella pneumoniae from a patient in Brazil. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:516-519.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    20. 20
  20. Linden, A. 2006. Measuring diagnostic and predictive accuracy in disease management: an introduction to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 12:132-139.[CrossRef][Medline]
    21. 21
  21. Marchiaro, P., M. A. Mussi, V. Ballerini, F. Pasteran, A. M. Viale, A. J. Vila, and A. S. Limansky. 2005. Sensitive EDTA-based microbiological assays for detection of metallo-β-lactamases in nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:5648-5652.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    22. 22
  22. Mendes, R. E., M. Castanheira, M. Toleman, A. Gales, R. C. Picao, and A. C Pignatari. 2006. Characterization of blaIMP-1 dissemination among non-clonally related Acinetobacter spp. (ACB) causing nosocomial infections in a Brazilian teaching hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, abstr. C1-55, p. 70. Abstr. 46th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
    23. 23
  23. Mendes, R. E., K. A. Kiyota, J. Monteiro, M. Castanheira, S. S. Andrade, A. C. Gales, A. C. Pignatari, and S. Tufik. 2007. Rapid detection and identification of metallo-β-lactamase encoding genes by multiplex real-time PCR assay and melt curve analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:544-547.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    24. 24
  24. Mendes, R. E., M. A. Toleman, J. Ribeiro, H. S. Sader, R. N. Jones, and T. R. Walsh. 2004. Integron carrying a novel metallo-β-lactamase gene, blaIMP-16, and a fused form of aminoglycoside-resistant gene aac(6')-30/aac(6')-Ib': report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:4693-4702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    25. 25
  25. Migliavacca, R., J. D. Docquier, C. Mugnaioli, G. Amicosante, R. Daturi, K. Lee, G. M. Rossolini, and L. Pagani. 2002. Simple microdilution test for detection of metallo-β-lactamase production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:4388-4390.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    26. 26
  26. Petropoulou, D., K. Tzanetou, V. P. Syriopoulou, G. L. Daikos, G. Ganteris, and E. Malamou-Lada. 2006. Evaluation of imipenem/imipenem+EDTA disk method for detection of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from blood cultures. Microb. Drug Resist. 12:39-43.[CrossRef][Medline]
    27. 27
  27. Sader, H. S., M. Castanheira, R. E. Mendes, M. Toleman, T. R. Walsh, and R. N. Jones. 2005. Dissemination and diversity of metallo-beta-lactamases in Latin America: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 25:57-61.[CrossRef][Medline]
    28. 28
  28. Siemann, S., A. J. Clarke, T. Viswanatha, and G. I. Dmitrienko. 2003. Thiols as classical and slow-binding inhibitors of IMP-1 and other binuclear metallo-beta-lactamases. Biochemistry 42:1673-1683.[CrossRef][Medline]
    29. 29
  29. Takano, A. P., M. Castanheira, R. E. Mendes, A. P. Penteado, and A. Gales. 2006. Contemporary assessment on prevalence of metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-encoding genes in a Brazilian tertiary care university hospital, abstr. C2-100, p. 86. Abstr. 45th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
    30. 30
  30. Tognim, M. C., A. C. Gales, A. P. Penteado, S. Silbert, and H. S. Sader. 2006. Dissemination of IMP-1 metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Acinetobacter species in a Brazilian teaching hospital. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 27:742-747.[CrossRef][Medline]
    31. 31
  31. Toleman, M. A., D. Biedenbach, D. M. Bennett, R. N. Jones, and T. R. Walsh. 2005. Italian metallo-beta-lactamases: a national problem? Report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 55:61-70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    32. 32
  32. Toleman, M. A., K. Rolston, R. N. Jones, and T. R. Walsh. 2004. blaVIM-7, an evolutionarily distinct metallo-β-lactamase gene in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolate from the United States. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:329-332.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    33. 33
  33. Toleman, M. A., A. M. Simm, T. A. Murphy, A. C. Gales, D. J. Biedenbach, R. N. Jones, and T. R. Walsh. 2002. Molecular characterization of SPM-1, a novel metallo-beta-lactamase isolated in Latin America: report from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance programme. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 50:673-679.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    34. 34
  34. Walsh, T. R., A. Bolmstrom, A. Qwarnstrom, and A. Gales. 2002. Evaluation of a new Etest for detecting metallo-β-lactamases in routine clinical testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:2755-2759.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    35. 35
  35. Walsh, T. R., M. A. Toleman, L. Poirel, and P. Nordmann. 2005. Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18:306-325.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    36. 36
  36. Xavier, D. E., A. C. Gales, R. E. Mendes, A. C. Pignatari, L. F. Cirilo, L. Santos Filho, and M. Castanheira. 2006. IMP-18-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA): increasing diversity of mobile metallo-β-lactamases (MBL) in Brazil, abstr. C2-420, p. 110. Program Abstr. 46th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
    37. 37
  37. Yan, J. J., J. J. Wu, S. H. Tsai, and C. L. Chuang. 2004. Comparison of the double-disk, combined disk, and Etest methods for detecting metallo-beta-lactamases in gram-negative bacilli. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 49:5-11.[CrossRef][Medline]
    38. 38
  38. Yong, D., K. Lee, J. H. Yum, H. B. Shin, G. M. Rossolini, and Y. Chong. 2002. Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-β-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:3798-3801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    39. 39
  39. Zavascki, A. P., A. L. Barth, A. L. Goncalves, A. L. Moro, J. F. Fernandes, A. F. Martins, F. Ramos, and L. Z. Goldani. 2006. The influence of metallo-beta-lactamase production on mortality in nosocomial Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 58:387-392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    40. 40
  40. Zavascki, A. P., P. B. Gaspareto, A. F. Martins, A. L. Goncalves, and A. L. Barth. 2005. Outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing SPM-1 metallo-beta-lactamase in a teaching hospital in southern Brazil. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 56:1148-1151.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2008, p. 2028-2037, Vol. 46, No. 6
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00818-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Qu, T.-t., Zhang, J.-l., Wang, J., Tao, J., Yu, Y.-s., Chen, Y.-g., Zhou, J.-y., Li, L.-j. (2009). Evaluation of Phenotypic Tests for Detection of Metallo-{beta}-Lactamase-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strains in China. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 1136-1142 [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 Picão, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gales, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Picão, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gales, A. C.

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