Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Narrow-Spectrum Cephalosporin Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli with the BD Phoenix Automated System: Questionable Utility of Cephalothin as a Predictor of Cephalexin Susceptibility

Sean X. Zhang, Fern Parisian, Yvonne Yau, Jeffrey D. Fuller, Susan M. Poutanen, Susan E. Richardson
Sean X. Zhang
1Division of Microbiology, Hospital for Sick Children
3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fern Parisian
1Division of Microbiology, Hospital for Sick Children
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yvonne Yau
1Division of Microbiology, Hospital for Sick Children
3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey D. Fuller
3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan M. Poutanen
2Toronto Medical Laboratories and Mount Sinai Hospital
3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Richardson
1Division of Microbiology, Hospital for Sick Children
3Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: susan.richardson@sickkids.ca
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00968-07
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The resistance of Escherichia coli to cephalothin was found to be overestimated when the Phoenix automated susceptibility system was used to determine resistance compared to reference broth microdilution, a finding that jeopardized the use of cephalexin for first-line treatment of urinary tract infections in children. In addition, using broth microdilution, we studied the accuracy of either cephalothin or cefazolin in predicting cephalexin susceptibility. In contrast to the recommendation of the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), we found that cephalothin is not a reliable predictor of cephalexin susceptibility. Cefazolin performs no better in this role. We suggest that laboratories should consider testing and reporting cefazolin and cephalexin independently, according to clinical need.

Cephalexin is the empirical oral antibiotic of choice for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children at the Hospital for Sick Children. Cephalexin susceptibility is not routinely tested in the laboratory due to the absence of interpretive guidelines from the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (1). Its absence on most commercial panels reflects the CLSI recommendation that cephalothin should be used to predict cephalexin susceptibility (2). After implementing the Becton-Dickinson (BD) Phoenix Automated System method (PHX) in our laboratory, we noted an unusual susceptibility pattern in our urinary Escherichia coli isolates: ampicillin susceptible, cefazolin susceptible, and not susceptible to cephalothin (intermediate or resistant). Resistance to cephalothin rose from 5% to 86%, while resistance to ampicillin (52%) and cefazolin (4%) did not change. This alteration in the susceptibility profile resulted in the potential elimination of cephalexin as a first-line treatment for UTIs based on results using cephalothin to predict cephalexin susceptibility. Since the use of quinolones in children is not recommended, the default empirical oral choice of drug would be limited to the much more expensive and broader-spectrum drug, cefixime.

In this study, we attempted to compare the BD PHX to reference broth microdilution (BMD) for susceptibility testing of ampicillin and the narrow-spectrum cephalosporins cephalothin, cefazolin, and cephalexin. In addition, we also evaluated the validity of using either cephalothin or cefazolin as a predictor of cephalexin susceptibility.

This study examined 225 clinical isolates of E. coli (primarily from urine cultures). The 225 isolates were categorized into four groups based on their susceptibility pattern to ampicillin, cephalothin, and cefazolin determined by BD PHX. Group 1 consisted of ampicillin-susceptible, cephalothin-susceptible, cefazolin-susceptible isolates. Group 2 consisted of ampicillin-susceptible, cephalothin-intermediate/resistant, cefazolin-susceptible isolates. Group 3 consisted of ampicillin-resistant, cephalothin-intermediate/resistant, cefazolin-susceptible isolates. Group 4 consisted of ampicillin-resistant, cephalothin-resistant, cefazolin-resistant isolates. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was performed using PHX and BMD for four antibiotics, ampicillin, cephalothin, cefazolin, and cephalexin. PHX testing was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, while BMD was performed according to CLSI guidelines (1).

Interpretive breakpoints for ampicillin, cephalothin, and cefazolin were determined according to CLSI guidelines (2). Specific breakpoints for cephalexin do not exist in the CLSI guidelines; the recommendation is to use cephalothin to predict cephalexin susceptibility. For the purpose of this study, cephalexin breakpoints were determined as for other narrow-spectrum cephalosporins according to CLSI guidelines, i.e., susceptible, ≤8 μg/ml; intermediate, 16 μg/ml; and resistant, ≥32 μg/ml. The rates of very major errors, major errors, and minor errors were calculated for ampicillin, cephalothin, cefazolin, and cephalexin (PHX versus BMD). The very major error rate should be ≤3%, while the rate for the combination of major and minor errors should be ≤7% (4, 5). The evaluation of the utility of either cephalothin or cefazolin as a predictor of cephalexin susceptibility was based on reference BMD results.

On evaluation of E. coli susceptibility to ampicillin and narrow-spectrum cephalosporins, PHX results were 100% concordant with BMD results with respect to ampicillin susceptibility (Table 1). Although the error rate for very major errors was 3% and the error rate for major and minor errors combined was 7% when PHX was used to study cefazolin susceptibility (Table 1), these error rates were still within acceptable limits of variability. However, the error rate for very major errors was 9% and the error rate for major and minor errors combined was 42% when PHX was used to examine cephalothin susceptibility (Table 1). These error rates are considerably higher than the recommended acceptable upper limits (4, 5) and result in significant overestimates by PHX of resistance to cephalothin and therefore cephalexin. Sixty-one of 88 (69%) cephalothin-intermediate results by PHX were actually susceptible by BMD, and 40 of 101 (40%) resistant results by PHX were actually susceptible or intermediate by BMD. In a similar study, a 21% minor error rate in cephalothin susceptibility was observed when PHX results were compared to agar diffusion AST results (3).

When comparing PHX to BMD results for cephalexin, PHX resulted in an error rate of 16% for major and minor errors combined (Table 1), using CLSI-based interpretive breakpoints. Despite the absence of very major errors, this rate is higher than the acceptable limit (4, 5). Since there are no specific CLSI breakpoints for cephalexin, we evaluated the accuracy of cephalothin in predicting cephalexin susceptibility by BMD. In contrast to CLSI recommendations, we found that cephalothin is a poor predictor of cephalexin susceptibility. The error rate for major and minor errors combined was 40%, when the interpretive breakpoints for cephalexin that are recommended by CLSI for other narrow-spectrum cephalosporins were used (Table 2). In addition, cefazolin was proven to be a poor predictor, in that significantly elevated very major error rates (11%) were also observed (Table 2). These results suggested that neither cephalothin nor cefazolin can be used to predict cephalexin susceptibility; instead, cephalexin susceptibility should be tested independently.

It is noteworthy that 18 isolates were found to be susceptible to ampicillin, cefazolin, and cephalexin but intermediate to cephalothin by both methods. The reason for such a pattern is unclear; we have not been able to find evidence for a beta-lactamase enzyme that is active against narrow-spectrum cephalosporins (i.e., cephalothin) but inactive against ampicillin. One study has also shown that 72% of E. coli isolates resistant to cephalothin were found to be susceptible to cefazolin (6). These data suggest that cephalothin is less stable to beta-lactamase than other narrow-spectrum cephalosporins in vitro. These findings may undermine its role as a predictor of susceptibility testing for other narrow-spectrum cephalosporins. While cephalothin may have been chosen for the role of “predictor” because it is known to overestimate resistance in other narrow-spectrum cephalosporins, the expediency afforded by this approach is unacceptable if it unnecessarily eliminates an antibiotic, such as cephalexin, from usage in appropriate clinical situations.

In summary, PHX overestimates cephalothin resistance compared to reference BMD. Susceptibility testing of cephalexin by PHX needs to be improved, since the error rates are significant, according to CLSI-based interpretive breakpoints. In addition, cephalothin was found to be a poor predictor of cephalexin susceptibility compared to BMD, in contrast to the current CLSI recommendation to use cephalothin to predict cephalexin susceptibility. Cefazolin is also not a reliable predictor of cephalexin susceptibility in vitro. Laboratories should test and report cefazolin and cephalexin susceptibility independently, since they are the only narrow-spectrum cephalosporins in common usage. Furthermore, CLSI should consider evaluating specific interpretive breakpoints for cephalexin, which could help retain its position as an effective antimicrobial and enhance the rational use of antibiotics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Error rates for BD PHX AST compared to BMD MICs for ampicillin and narrow-spectrum cephalosporins in E. coli

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Comparison of cephalothin and cefazolin for predicting cephalexin susceptibility by using BMD MICs

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 9 May 2007.
    • Returned for modification 3 July 2007.
    • Accepted 20 August 2007.
  • Copyright © 2007 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    CLSI. 2006. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard M7-A7. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  2. 2.↵
    CLSI. 2007. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. M100-S17. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  3. 3.↵
    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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Elder, B. L., S. A. Hansen, J. A. Kellogg, F. J. Marsik, and R. J. Zabransky. 1997. Cumitech 31, Verification and validation of procedures in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Coordinating ed., B. W. McCurdy. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
  5. 5.↵
    Jorgensen, J. H. 1993. Selection criteria for an antimicrobial susceptibility testing system. J. Clin. Microbiol.31:2841-2844.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Yeh, L. L., and C. L. Chi. 2001. Another look at differences in the susceptibility of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to cephalothin and cefazolin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents17:521-524.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Narrow-Spectrum Cephalosporin Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli with the BD Phoenix Automated System: Questionable Utility of Cephalothin as a Predictor of Cephalexin Susceptibility
Sean X. Zhang, Fern Parisian, Yvonne Yau, Jeffrey D. Fuller, Susan M. Poutanen, Susan E. Richardson
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2007, 45 (11) 3762-3763; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00968-07

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Narrow-Spectrum Cephalosporin Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli with the BD Phoenix Automated System: Questionable Utility of Cephalothin as a Predictor of Cephalexin Susceptibility
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Narrow-Spectrum Cephalosporin Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli with the BD Phoenix Automated System: Questionable Utility of Cephalothin as a Predictor of Cephalexin Susceptibility
Sean X. Zhang, Fern Parisian, Yvonne Yau, Jeffrey D. Fuller, Susan M. Poutanen, Susan E. Richardson
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2007, 45 (11) 3762-3763; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00968-07
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Cephalexin
Cephalothin
Escherichia coli
Microbial Sensitivity Tests

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X