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
Letter to the Editor

The Clinical Impact of a Negative Molecular β-Lactamase Gene Test for Enterobacteriaceae: Let’s Not Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Really Good

Jason M. Pogue, Emily L. Heil
Alexander J. McAdam, Editor
Jason M. Pogue
aUniversity of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily L. Heil
bUniversity of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. McAdam
Boston Children's Hospital
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02098-19
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

LETTER

We read with interest “Evaluation of Empiric β-Lactam Susceptibility Prediction among Enterobacteriaceae by Molecular β-Lactamase Gene Testing” by Spafford and colleagues (1). We commend the authors for their analysis of nationwide susceptibility/resistance gene data to provide an examination beyond that of an individual institution. In their analysis of 5,739 Enterobacteriaceae from 72 hospitals in the United States, including 683 (11.9%) ceftriaxone-resistant isolates, the authors demonstrated that using the absence of a resistance marker detected by Verigene (CTX-M, KPC, or NDM) to predict ceftriaxone susceptibility would result in a very major error (VME) rate of 18.6%. That is, 127/683 isolates that were resistant to ceftriaxone would not be detected by the molecular test. The authors then assess the impact that this VME rate would have at different resistance rates and alarmingly demonstrate that if the rate of ceftriaxone resistance at one’s institution was 50%, molecular testing would fail to capture resistance in 1 out of 10 isolates tested! This leads the authors to caution against using genotypic results for de-escalation efforts and stress the benefit of rapid phenotypic tests.

While we agree that rapid phenotypic results are welcome, we feel that this current analysis understates the confidence that clinicians can have that an isolate will be ceftriaxone susceptible in the absence of these resistance markers. While it is true, per the author’s analyses, that a VME rate (i.e., predicted susceptibility when resistance is actually present) approaching 20% would occur, this type of approach is inconsistent with how clinicians use these tests. What a clinician wants to know is, “If the molecular test is negative for a resistance gene, how confident can I be that the isolate is susceptible to the target drug?” In order to make that assessment, one needs to assess the negative predictive value of the test by considering all isolates for which the test is negative (both those resulting in a VME and those susceptible to the target drug). In the data presented, there were 5,056 isolates that were ceftriaxone susceptible. Let us assume that those are test negative (in the absence of CTX-M, KPC, or NDM). Additionally, there were 127 test-negative, ceftriaxone-resistant isolates. That means that 5,056/5,183 (97.5%) test-negative isolates were ceftriaxone susceptible. That is powerful information for clinicians, as it changed the pretest probability from 11.9% to 2.5% resistance. All clinicians would feel more comfortable with an antibiogram that predicted 98% susceptibility versus 88%. While it is true that the “miss rate” goes up as the rate of resistance does, the impact of the negative test actually increases. If the resistance rate is 40% pretest, a negative test would decrease this to 8.4%. This information can then be combined by clinicians with the severity of illness and an assessment of response (or lack thereof) to current therapy to make an informed decision about the patient. While we agree with the authors that understanding the limitations of a test and assessing local epidemiology are critically important, we feel that if local data matched this national data set, it would strongly support de-escalation (or lack of escalation) for most patients with a negative molecular test.

FOOTNOTES

  • For the author reply, see https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02114-19.

  • Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    1. Spafford K,
    2. MacVane S,
    3. Humphries R
    . 2019. Evaluation of empiric β-lactam susceptibility prediction among Enterobacteriaceae by molecular β-lactamase gene testing. J Clin Microbiol 57:e00674-19. doi:10.1128/JCM.00674-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Clinical Impact of a Negative Molecular β-Lactamase Gene Test for Enterobacteriaceae: Let’s Not Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Really Good
Jason M. Pogue, Emily L. Heil
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2020, 58 (4) e02098-19; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02098-19

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.
The Clinical Impact of a Negative Molecular β-Lactamase Gene Test for Enterobacteriaceae: Let’s Not Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Really Good
(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
The Clinical Impact of a Negative Molecular β-Lactamase Gene Test for Enterobacteriaceae: Let’s Not Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Really Good
Jason M. Pogue, Emily L. Heil
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2020, 58 (4) e02098-19; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02098-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • LETTER
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCE
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

extended-spectrum β-lactamase
Enterobacteriaceae
Verigene
ceftriaxone
molecular test

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