Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2021; 13(03): 263-269
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731137
Original Article

Detection of Colistin Resistance in Carbapenem Resistant Enterobacteriaceae by Reference Broth Microdilution and Comparative Evaluation of Three Other Methods

Punyatoya Kar
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
,
Bijayini Behera 
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
,
Srujana Mohanty 
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
,
Jayanti Jena 
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
,
Ashoka Mahapatra 
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Challenges in susceptibility testing of colistin along with increase in the prevalence of colistin-resistant carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) pathogens needs addressal. Evaluation of user-friendly methods is necessary as an alternative to broth microdilution (BMD), the reference susceptibility testing method, for routine implementation in diagnostic clinical microbiology laboratories. Genotypic detection of the plasmid-mediated colistin resistance is also needed for infection control purposes.

Materials and Methods Colistin susceptibility of 200 nonduplicate clinical CRE isolates from December 2017 to June 2019 was determined by BMD, agar dilution (AD), E test, and rapid polymyxin NP test and interpreted as per the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. The results of AD, E test, and NP test were compared with that of BMD, considering minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≤ 2 µg/mL as susceptible and > 2 µg/mL as resistant. Presence of any plasmid-mediated colistin resistance (mcr-1 and 2) was evaluated in 27 colistin-resistant CRE isolates by polymerase chain reaction.

Statistical Analysis Performance of different phenotypic methods was analyzed by comparing MIC results of AD and E test with that of reference BMD method. Agreement between BMD and the other two methods was expressed in terms of categorical agreement and essential agreement. Errors were expressed as very major error (VME: false-susceptible) and major error (ME: false-resistance) by AD/E test. VME and ME of 3% disagreement were considered unacceptable.

Results Colistin resistance was found in 27 (13.5%) isolates by BMD method. The VME rates of both AD (11%) and E test (37%) could not meet the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute recommendation (< 3% VME rate is acceptable) as alternative tests to the reference BMD. Colistin NP test showed sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 98%, respectively. The percentage discordant result in NP test was highest in Enterobacter spp. (17%). None of the 27 colistin resistant isolates showed presence of mcr-1 and mcr-2 genes.

Conclusion High VME rate in AD and E tests precludes their use as alternatives to BMD for colistin susceptibility testing. NP test with moderate sensitivity but excellent specificity can be a good alternative for testing colistin susceptibility in CRE isolates, except in Enterobacter spp. Absence of mcr-1 and mcr-2 gene necessitates the exploration of other mechanisms of colistin resistance.

Keywords

agar dilution - broth microdilution - colistin - colistin NP test - E test


Publication History

Article published online:
06 July 2021

© 2021. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, chaired by Jim O’Neill. Antimicrobial resistance: tackling a crisis for the health and wealth of nations. Available at: http://www.jpiamr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/AMR-Review-Paper-Tackling-a-crisis-for-the-health-and-wealth-of-nations_1-2.pdf. Accessed December 2014
  • 2 Recommendations for MIC determination of colistin (polymyxin E) as recommended by the joint CLSI–EUCAST Polymyxin breakpoints Working Group. Available at: http://www.bioconnections.co.uk/files/merlin/Recommendations_for_MIC_determination_of_colistin_March_2016.pdf. Accessed 2016
  • 3 Manohar P, Shanthini T, Ayyanar R. et al The distribution of carbapenem- and colistin-resistance in Gram-negative bacteria from the Tamil Nadu region in India. J Med Microbiol 2017; 66 (07) 874-883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Arjun R, Gopalakrishnan R, Nambi PS, Kumar DS, Madhumitha R, Ramasubramanian V. A study of 24 patients with colistin-resistant gram-negative isolates in a tertiary care hospital in South India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2017; 21 (05) 317-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berglund B. Acquired resistance to colistin via chromosomal and plasmid-mediated mechanisms in Klebsiella pneumoniae. . Infect Microbes Dis. 2019; 1: 10
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liu Y-Y, Wang Y, Walsh TR. et al Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16 (02) 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gales AC, Jones RN, Sader HS. Contemporary activity of colistin and polymyxin B against a worldwide collection of Gram-negative pathogens: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2006-09). J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66 (09) 2070-2074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Walia K, Madhumathi J, Veeraraghavan B. et al Establishing antimicrobial resistance surveillance & research network in India: journey so far. Indian J Med Res 2019; 149 (02) 164-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Büchler AC, Gehringer C, Widmer AF. et al. Risk factors for colistin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in a low-endemicity setting for carbapenem resistance: a matched case-control study. Euro Surveill 2018; 23 (30) 1700777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bakthavatchalam YD, Pragasam AK, Biswas I, Veeraraghavan B. Polymyxin susceptibility testing, interpretative breakpoints and resistance mechanisms: an update. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2018; 12: 124-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Second Informational Supplement. CLSI document M100–S27. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2017
  • 12 CLSI. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard. 10th edition. CLSI document M07–A10. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2015
  • 13 Nordmann P, Jayol A, Poirel L. Rapid Detection of Polymyxin Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis 2016; 22 (06) 1038-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Xavier BB, Lammens C, Ruhal R. et al Identification of a novel plasmid-mediated colistin-resistance gene, mcr-2, in Escherichia coli, Belgium, June 2016. Euro Surveill 2016; 21 (27) 30280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Humphries RM, Ambler J, Mitchell SL. et al CLSI methods development and standardization working group best practices for evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol 2018; DOI: DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01934-17.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yadav S. Prevalence of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae at a tertiary care institute: Need for policy. Int J Curr Res 2018; DOI: DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2021/47332.14627.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Saeed NK, Alkhawaja S, Azam NFAEM, Alaradi K, Al-Biltagi M. Epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in a tertiary care center in the Kingdom of Bahrain. J Lab Physicians 2019; 11 (02) 111-117
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cerqueira GC, Earl AM, Ernst CM. et al Multi-institute analysis of carbapenem resistance reveals remarkable diversity, unexplained mechanisms, and limited clonal outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114 (05) 1135-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Amladi AU, Abirami B, Devi SM. et al Susceptibility profile, resistance mechanisms & efficacy ratios of fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin & colistin for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae causing urinary tract infections. Indian J Med Res 2019; 149 (02) 185-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Srinivasan VB, Rajamohan G. KpnEF, a new member of the Klebsiella pneumoniae cell envelope stress response regulon, is an SMR-type efflux pump involved in broad-spectrum antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57 (09) 4449-4462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bakthavatchalam YD, Shankar A, Thukaram B, Krishnan DN, Veeraraghavan B. Comparative evaluation of susceptibility testing methods for colistin and polymyxin B among clinical isolates of carbapenem- resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii. J Infect Dev Ctries 2018; 12 (06) 504-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Singhal L, Sharma M, Verma S. et al Comparative evaluation of broth microdilution with polystyrene and glass-coated plates, agar dilution, E-test, Vitek, and disk diffusion for susceptibility testing of colistin and polymyxin b on carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates of acinetobacter baumannii. Microb Drug Resist 2018; 24 (08) 1082-1088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chew KL, La M-V, Lin RTP, Teo JWP. Colistin and polymyxin B susceptibility testing for carbapenem-resistant and mcr-positive enterobacteriaceae: comparison of Sensititre, MicroScan, Vitek 2 and E test with Broth Microdilution. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 2609-1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dafopoulou K, Zarkotou O, Dimitroulia E. et al Comparative evaluation of colistin susceptibility testing methods among carbapenem-nonsusceptible klebsiella pneumoniae and acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59 (08) 4625-4630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ramanan P, Cole N, Kohner P, Uhl J, Patel R, Schuetz A. Colistin susceptibility testing of enterobacteriaceae by agar dilution (AD), broth microdilution (BMD) and polymyxin NP. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4: 596
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Simar S, Sibley D, Ashcraft D, Pankey G. Evaluation of the rapid polymyxin NP test for polymyxin B resistance detection using Enterobacter cloacae and Enterobacter aerogenes isolates. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55: 3016-3020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pragasam AK, Shankar C, Veeraraghavan B. et al Molecular mechanisms of colistin resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae causing bacteremia from india-a first report. Front Microbiol 2017; 7: 2135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kumar M, Saha S, Subudhi E. More furious than ever: escherichia coli-acquired co-resistance toward colistin and carbapenems. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63 (09) 1267-1268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kumar A, Biswas L, Omgy N. et al Colistin resistance due to insertional inactivation of the mgrB in Klebsiella pneumoniae of clinical origin: first report from India. Rev Esp Quimioter 2018; 31 (05) 406-410 Us recate simint, cum quos
    PubMedGoogle Scholar