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
Mycobacteriology and Aerobic Actinomycetes

Implementation of Semiautomated Antimicrobial Susceptibility Interpretation Hardware for Nontuberculous Mycobacteria May Overestimate Susceptibility

Mariëlle Rockland, Mike Marvin Ruth, Nicole Aalders, Lian Pennings, Wouter Hoefsloot, Melanie Wattenberg, Jakko van Ingen
Geoffrey A. Land, Editor
Mariëlle Rockland
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Marvin Ruth
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mike Marvin Ruth
Nicole Aalders
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lian Pennings
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lian Pennings
Wouter Hoefsloot
bDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melanie Wattenberg
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jakko van Ingen
aDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jakko van Ingen
Geoffrey A. Land
Carter BloodCare and Baylor University Medical Center
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01756-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) cause severe opportunistic infections and have a rising incidence in most settings. Rising diagnostic need must be met by national reference laboratories, which rely on Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline-approved manual readout of microtiter plates for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to determine antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). Interpretation of these plates leads to different outcomes between laboratories. The SensiTitre Vizion digital MIC viewing system (Vizion) offers a more streamlined approach using semiautomated reading. Here, we conducted a blinded trial comparing the outcome of AST between manual readout and Vizion readout for 132 NTM isolates, amounting to 727 individual tests for antibiotic susceptibility ranging across 13 individual antibiotics with established CLSI breakpoints. From this, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the F1 value, as well as assessing major error (ME) and very major error (VME) rates. We find that Vizion-assisted AST produces significantly lower MICs (paired Wilcox signed rank test; P < 0.0001). The Vizion had an accuracy of 89,40%, producing 61 MEs (8.39%) and 16 VMEs (2.20%). The calculated specificity was 0.8370, the sensitivity was 0.9550, the PPV was 0.8460, the NPV was 0.9520, and the F1 score was 0.8970. We show that discrepant readings mostly stem from CLSI guideline breakpoints being close to, or overlapping, the MIC50 values, leading to small discrepancies crossing the breakpoint, contributing to VMEs and MEs. Using the Vizion in standard clinical diagnostics for NTM might lead to an overestimation of antibiotic susceptibility.

INTRODUCTION

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) cause severe opportunistic infections, most frequently of the respiratory tract (1). The prevalence of these infections increases (2). The most common causative species are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) and Mycobacterium abscessus (3). Treatment of these infections involves a lengthy, multidrug chemotherapy with moderate to poor outcome, depending on the species (3).

The technique of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to optimize NTM treatment regimens was long a subject of debate, but it is now well established for key antibiotics (4). This has led to increased demand for AST of NTM in mycobacteriology laboratories. The currently recommended method for AST of NTM is broth microdilution according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) standards (5). However, manual reading of these tests assisted by mirror is subjective (6) and time-consuming, thus automation would be helpful, if accurate. The SensiTitre Vizion digital MIC viewing system (Thermo Fisher, Landsmeer, the Netherlands) is a semiautomated, software-supported AST recording instrument. Here, the plates are photographed by customizable lightning options to accommodate different microorganisms and settings, and MICs are determined on a desktop PC. In this study, we assessed the performance of using Vizion compared to manual reading in AST of NTM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Strains.The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the Vizion across all NTM isolates encountered in day-to-day clinical diagnostic practice. Therefore, all NTM isolates received for AST from 5 March to 30 April 2017 in our NTM reference laboratory were eligible for the study. We included M. avium ATCC 700898 and M. peregrinum ATCC 700686 for quality control purposes.

To culture strains for AST, tubes containing Middlebrook 7H9 medium (Becton, Dickinson, and Company [Becton Dickinson], Erembodegem, Belgium) plus 10% oleic acid-albumin-dextrose-catalase growth supplement (Becton Dickinson) were inoculated with patient strains. A 5% blood plate was used for purity control. Strains were cultured at 37°C (except rapidly growing mycobacteria [RGM] and M. marinum, which were cultured at 30°C) until a visible pellet was formed. Plate inoculate solution was set to a 0.5 McFarland turbidity, diluted 1:100 in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth, and brought on SensiTitre plates at 100 µl per well. SensiTitre plates inoculated with rapidly growing mycobacteria were kept for 3 days, and plates containing slowly growing mycobacteria (SGM) were kept for 7 days.

Susceptibility testing.We performed broth microdilution using commercially available plates for slow-growing and rapidly growing NTM, selected on basis of strain identification (SensiTitre SLOMYCOI and RAPMYCOI; Thermo Fisher) and according to CLSI standards (5). All plates were initially read manually by a trained technician and for this study, independently by a second technician; discrepant readings were resolved by consensus. After manual reading, plates were read using the Vizion (Thermo Fisher) semiautomated reading device, with data analysis using the SWIN software package version 3.3 (3.3.2.7 P/N SW515, 2011; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), operated by a technician blinded to the manual reading results. All technicians were trained by a Thermo Fisher technician, and quality controls of Mycobacterium avium ATCC 700898 and M. peregrinum ATCC 700868 were used as positive and quality controls biweekly, as suggested by the CLSI guidelines. The MICs were interpreted as “susceptible,” “intermediate,” and “resistant” as defined by CLSI guidelines. Only results of manual readings were reported to requesting physicians.

For this study, the manual reading is defined as the reference method. We defined very major errors (VMEs), major errors (MEs), and minor errors (7), with a VME being an isolate that proved to be resistant by the reference method standard of manual reading but susceptible using Vizion and a ME being an isolate that proved susceptible by the reference standard manual reading but resistant using Vizion. All other discrepancies were considered minor errors.

Data analysis.Antibiotics with no defined breakpoint were excluded from all analyses. Amikacin has no defined breakpoint according to CLSI guidelines, but Brown-Elliott et al. proposed breakpoints identical to those for M. abscessus, which will be considered for this study (8). Only for antibiotics where breakpoints were available, initial paired MIC data were transformed into breakpoint steps. We defined the breakpoint for resistance reported in the CLSI guidelines as 0 and transformed the MIC on basis of the number of 2-fold dilution steps difference from the breakpoint, giving susceptible isolates negative values and more resistant isolates positive values. Whenever an isolate exceeded the testing range to either side, they were categorized as one higher or lower than the highest or lowest value of the range, respectively. Distributions of MICs for antibiotics reportable according to CLSI guidelines were tested for normality using he Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. A paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare data obtained from manual reading and semiautomatic reading.

All individual manual readings and semiautomated reading comparisons were then plotted in a 2 × 2 confusion matrix, categorizing test outcomes as “susceptible” (S) and “nonsusceptible” (non-S) pooling the outcomes “intermediate” (I) and “resistant” (R). For this, we ignored differences in found MICs between manual reading and Vizion, focusing solely on discrepancies in the breakpoint interpretations defined by CLSI guidelines. From this matrix, we determined the overall testing accuracy of Vizion, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the F1 score indicating a test’s accuracy considering the specificity and sensitivity (9, 10).

All statistical tests were performed in Prism, version 6.00 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA). We defined significance as a P value of <0.01. Other calculations and data compilations were performed using Microsoft Office Excel 2013 software (Microsoft, Inc., Redmond, WA).

RESULTS

We included 132 NTM isolates; 107 were slow growers, and 25 were rapid growers. The species distribution is recorded in Table 1.

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

Species distribution

Transformed pooled MIC distributions for all performed tests are presented in Fig. 1A for the manual readings and Fig. 1B for the Vizion semiautomated readings. The MICs were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnoff, P < 0.01). We found a significant difference between the average MICs of the Vizion semiautomated analysis and the reference method, with the Vizion measuring lower MICs (−1.818 ± 2.445 versus −1.979 ± 2.390, respectively; n = 727; paired Wilcox signed rank, P < 0.0001; Fig. 1C).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Overall distributions of found MICs normalized on the breakpoint to resistance. (A) Distribution of MICs found with the manual readout method, regarded as the reference method according to CLSI guidelines. (B) Distribution of MICs found with the automated Vizion readout method. (C) Average MIC found in manual and automated readout. MICs found with the automated Vizion readout are significantly lower than the MICs found with the reference method (−1.818 ± 2.445 versus −1.979 ± 2.390, respectively; n = 727; paired Wilcox signed rank, P < 0.0001).

The calculated confusion matrix is shown in Fig. 2. In 727 total tests (for a complete overview, see Table S1 in the supplemental material), the MIC determined by Vizion led to the same interpretation (S/I/R) as the reference method for 650 tests performing with an overall accuracy of 89.40%. We observed discrepant readings leading to MEs in 61 tests (8.39%) and leading to VMEs in 16 tests (2.20%). A tabular version of this matrix broken down per antibiotic is shown in Table S1.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Confusion matrix for the Vizion automated readout (left) versus reference method (top). Clinical breakpoints (susceptible [S], intermediate [I], and resistant [R]) were determined according to CLSI guidelines. I and R were pooled. In total, we performed 727 tests on 132 individual isolates.

The results of most individual antibiotics mirror the overall accuracy of Vizion semiautomated reading, i.e., around 90%. However, the two antibiotics, clarithromycin and moxifloxacin, disproportionally contribute errors and have different error patterns for SGM and RGM (Fig. 3; Table S1). Clarithromycin testing against SGM performed well with an overall accuracy of 97.20% (Fig. 3A), producing only MEs; against rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM), automated reading of clarithromycin MICs produced more MEs and only had 84.00% accuracy (Fig. 3D). Moxifloxacin testing against SGM produced most VMEs of all tested antibiotics, relatively and in absolute numbers, with an accuracy of 81.31% (Fig. 3C). In contrast, for RGM, moxifloxacin testing using Vizion showed 100% accuracy (Fig. 3B).

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

MIC distribution of antibiotics with notable error patterns. The MIC50 and MIC90 were calculated from all isolates. The distribution of all isolates tested for the antibiotics is plotted, either from Vizion or obtained by manual readout. (A and B) Moxifloxacin has an accuracy of 81.31% when testing on SGM (A; producing mainly VMEs) but 100% accuracy on RGM (B; no errors). (C and D) Clarithromycin has an accuracy of 97.20% (producing exclusively MEs) when tested against SGM but 84.00% accuracy when tested on RGM (producing only MEs).

From the pooled data set, we calculated the specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV, and F1 value for each breakpoint, as shown in Table 2. The automated Vizion readout reaches a sensitivity of 95.50% and a specificity of 83.70% when determining the drug susceptibility of NTM. From this, we calculated a PPV of 84.60% and an NPV of 95.20%. The F1 score is 89.70%. The full data set is provided as Table S2 in the supplemental material.

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

Classification functions as calculated from the Vizion confusion matrixa

DISCUSSION

With the rising incidence of NTM disease, a fast and reliable AST method becomes more desirable. We could show that the mycobacterial landscape is comparable to earlier data and, as such, reflects the clinical reality in the Netherlands (11). The SensiTitre Vizion digital MIC viewing system offers such a fast method but suffers from significantly lower MIC readouts than the CLSI-recommended reference method. In 10.08% of the tests, these readouts lead to MEs or VMEs, which might lead in turn to inappropriate treatment decisions.

Although other studies have assessed the clinical performance of the Vizion before, this study is the first using it to assess the MICs of NTM. Jones et al. tested the Vizion’s performance with ceftaroline on multiple microorganisms, but not NTM, and found 99.2% essential agreement with manual reading of MICs (12). Jayol et al. recently tested the accuracy of three different (semi)automated MIC readout systems, including the Vizion, to determine whether it could correctly detect colistin resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. These researchers found a categorical agreement of 97.3% between Vizion semiautomated readout and visual readout (13). Although the authors used a different analytic framework, their approach is highly comparable to ours. Both studies report higher accuracy than our 89.92%. Rancoita et al. assessed the intralaboratory reproducibility of Vizion for M. tuberculosis and found around 95% agreement, as well as 90% agreement between duplicated strains (14), although they did not quantify the accuracy of Vizion versus mirror-assisted readout. Notably, these authors only tested 31 predefined M. tuberculosis strains and did not assess Vizion’s performance during clinical laboratory practice. The difference found between NTM and other bacterial strains may be due to the variable phenotypes of NTM in the SensiTitre plates, which we find to be distinct in morphology, including aspects such as rough and smooth phenotypes (15). NTM tend to not form milky blankets in the SensiTitre wells, as, for example, Gram-negative bacteria or M. tuberculosis often tend to do, but rather grow in broken, small colonies, which might be easily missed by reading the plates on a monitor but might be picked up by the technician’s eye when reading the plate directly.

Tests for some antibiotics seem to contribute more errors than others (the full MIC data are shown in Table S2). Moxifloxacin produces most VMEs (n = 20), followed by linezolid (n = 9), but only against SGM, and amikacin for both SGM and RGM (n = 9 for SGM and n = 3 for RGM). Often, VMEs and MEs result from MIC distributions being very close to, or partially overlapping, the current CLSI breakpoints (4, 5, 16). This is true for both moxifloxacin (MIC50 against MAC = 4 mg/liter; S/I/R = ≤1/2/≥4 mg/liter) and linezolid (MIC50 against MAC = 16 mg/liter; S/I/R = ≤8/16/≥32 mg/liter). Because RGM isolates tend to be either susceptible or completely resistant, this pattern is less pronounced here, increasing Vizion’s accuracy for moxifloxacin on RGM. Thus, if automated readings tend to place MICs one dilution lower than manual reading, this easily leads to a change in interpretation from “nonsusceptible” to “susceptible,” producing VMEs. The calculated Vizion specificity of 83.70% supports this notion. A systematically lower MIC, as found with a Vizion reading, favors the classification of an isolate as “susceptible.” This leads to false-positive samples producing type 1 errors. Higher false-negative rates will lower a test’s specificity. Notably, RGM tests did not deviate much from the overall accuracy. An exception is, again, moxifloxacin, which produced no errors.

One of the most important considerations of this study is the significance of the test’s outcome in clinical diagnostics. Most M. abscessus isolates, except for M. abscessus subsp. massiliense, have a functional erm(41) gene (17), which rapidly induces high-level macrolide resistance. Because of this, one might argue that the Vizion’s low accuracy of 84% in measuring clarithromycin MICs at day 3 against RGM is clinically irrelevant, since the reported MIC90 values for both clarithromycin and azithromycin for M. abscessus isolates with a functional erm(41) gene were consistently >16 mg/liter after 7 days of incubation, irrespective of the MIC values found on day 3 (18). It is also suggested that erm(41) sequencing might be an option to assess M. abscessus macrolide susceptibility, which might confirm phenotypes found in AST and serve as an extra layer of control for isolates with intermediate susceptibility (19).

There are some limitations to this study. First, the reference method, i.e., the visual interpretation of the plates, is subjective, with different laboratories finding different MICs for the same isolate (6). In addition, the current CLSI breakpoints have a very limited evidence base, and small changes in MICs at or near these breakpoints may not be clinically relevant (14). Although complicated by the fact that NTM disease is treated by multidrug regimens, the ultimate test for AST performance is to compare outcomes in controlled trials to MICs measured by different methods. Indeed, a direct correlation between AST and clinical outcome has only been found for clarithromycin and amikacin against both MAC and M. abscessus (4, 20, 21). Furthermore, our statistical method and data report differ slightly from other studies that work with categorical agreement (12, 13). Since no studies exist that discuss the clinical relevance of small deviations in MIC, we felt that for our study, deviations in breakpoint classifications might give a clearer picture of Vizion’s diagnostic power.

In summary, automated reading of MICs of NTM with the Vizion system yields MICs that are lower than those measured by visual reading. Because of the proximity—or even overlap—of clinical isolate MIC distributions to current breakpoints, small discrepancies in terms of MICs lead to large deviations in AST interpretation. A conclusive statement about the clinical impact of both reading methods can only be based clinical trials that follow either recommendations of manual SensiTitre plate reading or interpretation supported by Vizion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

J.V.I. is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/ZonMW grant Veni 016.176.024).

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 8 November 2018.
    • Returned for modification 5 December 2018.
    • Accepted 1 February 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 13 February 2019.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01756-18.

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Griffith DE,
    2. Aksamit T,
    3. Brown-Elliott BA,
    4. Catanzaro A,
    5. Daley C,
    6. Gordin F,
    7. Holland SM,
    8. Horsburgh R,
    9. Huitt G,
    10. Iademarco MF,
    11. Iseman M,
    12. Olivier K,
    13. Ruoss S,
    14. von Reyn CF,
    15. Wallace RJ,
    16. Winthrop K
    , Infectious Disease Society of America. 2007. An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175:367–416. doi:10.1164/rccm.200604-571ST.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Donohue MJ
    . 2018. Increasing nontuberculous mycobacteria reporting rates and species diversity identified in clinical laboratory reports. BMC Infect Dis 18:163. doi:10.1186/s12879-018-3043-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Stout JE,
    2. Koh W-J,
    3. Yew WW
    . 2016. Update on pulmonary disease due to non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Int J Infect Dis 45:123–134. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2016.03.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. van Ingen J,
    2. Kuijper EJ
    . 2014. Drug susceptibility testing of nontuberculous mycobacteria. Future Microbiol 9:1095–1110. doi:10.2217/fmb.14.60.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    CLSI. 2011. M24-A2: susceptibility testing of mycobacteria, nocariae, and other aerobic actinomycetes; approved standard, 2nd ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Woods GL,
    2. Williams-Bouyer N,
    3. Wallace RJ,
    4. Brown-Elliott BA,
    5. Witebsky FG,
    6. Conville PS,
    7. Plaunt M,
    8. Hall G,
    9. Aralar P,
    10. Inderlied C
    . 2003. Multisite reproducibility of results obtained by two broth dilution methods for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium avium complex. J Clin Microbiol 41:627–631. doi:10.1128/JCM.41.2.627-631.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Metzler CM,
    2. DeHaan RM
    . 1974. Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations. J Infect Dis 130:588–594. doi:10.1093/infdis/130.6.588.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brown-Elliott BA,
    2. Iakhiaeva E,
    3. Griffith DE,
    4. Woods GL,
    5. Stout JE,
    6. Wolfe CR,
    7. Turenne CY,
    8. Wallace RJ
    . 2013. In vitro activity of amikacin against isolates of Mycobacterium avium complex with proposed MIC breakpoints and finding of a 16S rRNA gene mutation in treated isolates. J Clin Microbiol 51:3389–3394. doi:10.1128/JCM.01612-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Bland JM
    . 1994. Statistics notes—diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 308:1552. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Bland JM
    . 1994. Statistics notes—diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 309:102. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hoefsloot W,
    2. van Ingen J,
    3. Andrejak C,
    4. Angeby K,
    5. Bauriaud R,
    6. Bemer P,
    7. Beylis N,
    8. Boeree MJ,
    9. Cacho J,
    10. Chihota V,
    11. Chimara E,
    12. Churchyard G,
    13. Cias R,
    14. Daza R,
    15. Daley CL,
    16. Dekhuijzen PNR,
    17. Domingo D,
    18. Drobniewski F,
    19. Esteban J,
    20. Fauville-Dufaux M,
    21. Folkvardsen DB,
    22. Gibbons N,
    23. Gómez-Mampaso E,
    24. Gonzalez R,
    25. Hoffmann H,
    26. Hsueh P-R,
    27. Indra A,
    28. Jagielski T,
    29. Jamieson F,
    30. Jankovic M,
    31. Jong E,
    32. Keane J,
    33. Koh W-J,
    34. Lange B,
    35. Leao S,
    36. Macedo R,
    37. Mannsåker T,
    38. Marras TK,
    39. Maugein J,
    40. Milburn HJ,
    41. Mlinkó T,
    42. Morcillo N,
    43. Morimoto K,
    44. Papaventsis D,
    45. Palenque E,
    46. Paez-Peña M,
    47. Piersimoni C,
    48. Polanová M,
    49. Rastogi N,
    50. Richter E,
    51. Ruiz-Serrano MJ,
    52. Silva A,
    53. da Silva MP,
    54. Simsek H,
    55. van Soolingen D,
    56. Szabó N,
    57. Thomson R,
    58. Tórtola Fernandez T,
    59. Tortoli E,
    60. Totten SE,
    61. Tyrrell G,
    62. Vasankari T,
    63. Villar M,
    64. Walkiewicz R,
    65. Winthrop KL,
    66. Wagner D
    . 2013. The geographic diversity of nontuberculous mycobacteria isolated from pulmonary samples: an NTM-NET collaborative study. Eur Respir J 42:1604–1613. doi:10.1183/09031936.00149212.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Jones RN,
    2. Holliday NM,
    3. Critchley IA
    . 2015. Accuracy of the Thermo Fisher Scientific (Sensititer™) dry-form broth microdilution MIC product when testing ceftaroline. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 81:280–282. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.12.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Jayol A,
    2. Nordmann P,
    3. André C,
    4. Poirel L,
    5. Dubois V
    . 2018. Evaluation of three broth microdilution systems to determine colistin susceptibility of Gram-negative bacilli. J Antimicrob Chemother 73:1272–1278.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rancoita PMV,
    2. Cugnata F,
    3. Gibertoni Cruz AL,
    4. Borroni E,
    5. Hoosdally SJ,
    6. Walker TM,
    7. Grazian C,
    8. Davies TJ,
    9. Peto TEA,
    10. Crook DW,
    11. Fowler PW,
    12. Cirillo DM
    , CRyPTIC Consortium. 2018. Validating a 14-drug microtiter plate containing bedaquiline and delamanid for large-scale research susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e00344-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.00344-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Clary G,
    2. Sasindran SJ,
    3. Nesbitt N,
    4. Mason L,
    5. Cole S,
    6. Azad A,
    7. McCoy K,
    8. Schlesinger LS,
    9. Hall-Stoodley L
    . 2018. Mycobacterium abscessus smooth and rough morphotypes form antimicrobial-tolerant biofilm phenotypes but are killed by acetic acid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e01782-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.01782-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Schön T,
    2. Chryssanthou E
    . 2017. Minimum inhibitory concentration distributions for Mycobacterium avium complex-towards evidence-based susceptibility breakpoints. Int J Infect Dis 55:122–124. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2016.12.027.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Nash KA,
    2. Brown-Elliott BA,
    3. Wallace RJ
    . 2009. A novel gene, erm(41), confers inducible macrolide resistance to clinical isolates of Mycobacterium abscessus but is absent from Mycobacterium chelonae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:1367–1376. doi:10.1128/AAC.01275-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Bastian S,
    2. Veziris N,
    3. Roux A-L,
    4. Brossier F,
    5. Gaillard J-L,
    6. Jarlier V,
    7. Cambau E
    . 2011. Assessment of clarithromycin susceptibility in strains belonging to the Mycobacterium abscessus group by erm(41) and rrl sequencing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:775–781. doi:10.1128/AAC.00861-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brown-Elliott BA,
    2. Vasireddy S,
    3. Vasireddy R,
    4. Iakhiaeva E,
    5. Howard ST,
    6. Nash K,
    7. Parodi N,
    8. Strong A,
    9. Gee M,
    10. Smith T,
    11. Wallace RJ
    . 2015. Utility of sequencing the erm(41) gene in isolates of Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. abscessus with low and intermediate clarithromycin MICs. J Clin Microbiol 53:1211–1215. doi:10.1128/JCM.02950-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Park J,
    2. Cho J,
    3. Lee C-H,
    4. Han SK,
    5. Yim J-J
    . 2017. Progression and treatment outcomes of lung disease caused by Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium massiliense. Clin Infect Dis 64:301–308. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw723.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Olivier KN,
    2. Griffith DE,
    3. Eagle G,
    4. McGinnis JP,
    5. Micioni L,
    6. Liu K,
    7. Daley CL,
    8. Winthrop KL,
    9. Ruoss S,
    10. Addrizzo-Harris DJ,
    11. Flume PA,
    12. Dorgan D,
    13. Salathe M,
    14. Brown-Elliott BA,
    15. Gupta R,
    16. Wallace RJ
    . 2017. Randomized trial of liposomal amikacin for inhalation in nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 195:814–823. doi:10.1164/rccm.201604-0700OC.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Implementation of Semiautomated Antimicrobial Susceptibility Interpretation Hardware for Nontuberculous Mycobacteria May Overestimate Susceptibility
Mariëlle Rockland, Mike Marvin Ruth, Nicole Aalders, Lian Pennings, Wouter Hoefsloot, Melanie Wattenberg, Jakko van Ingen
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2019, 57 (4) e01756-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01756-18

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.
Implementation of Semiautomated Antimicrobial Susceptibility Interpretation Hardware for Nontuberculous Mycobacteria May Overestimate 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
Implementation of Semiautomated Antimicrobial Susceptibility Interpretation Hardware for Nontuberculous Mycobacteria May Overestimate Susceptibility
Mariëlle Rockland, Mike Marvin Ruth, Nicole Aalders, Lian Pennings, Wouter Hoefsloot, Melanie Wattenberg, Jakko van Ingen
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2019, 57 (4) e01756-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01756-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antibiotics
antimicrobial susceptibility testing
diagnostics
mycobacteria
nontuberculous

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