These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Multicenter Comparison of Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Rates in the US (2016 to 2020): Facility-Reported Rates versus Rates Based on Updated Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute Breakpoints.
    Author: Gupta V, Yu KC, Pogue JM, Watts JA, Clancy CJ.
    Journal: Microbiol Spectr; 2022 Jun 29; 10(3):e0115822. PubMed ID: 35638777.
    Abstract:
    Adoption of revised antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints is often slow, potentially leading to underreporting of antimicrobial resistance. We compared facility-reported rates of carbapenem nonsusceptibility (NS; intermediate or resistant) with NS rates based on current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for Enterobacterales or Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in ambulatory and inpatient adults in the BD Insights Research Database (US) from 2016 to 2020. Overall, 77.4% (937,926/1,211,845) and 90.6% (2,157,785/2,381,824) of nonduplicate Enterobacterales isolates with facility-reported susceptibility results had MIC data for ertapenem (ETP) and imipenem/meropenem/doripenem (IPM/MEM/DOR), respectively; 86.9% (255,844/294,426) of P. aeruginosa isolates had MIC data for IPM/MEM/DOR. Facility-reported susceptibility and susceptibility based on CLSI criteria resulted in comparable carbapenem susceptibility rates (99.3% versus 99.1% for ETP-susceptible Enterobacterales, 98.9% versus 98.4% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible Enterobacterales, and 84.9% versus 83.3% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible P. aeruginosa). However, compared with CLSI criteria, facilities underreported Enterobacterales- and IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 18.8% and 26.5%, respectively, and P. aeruginosa IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 9.8%. Underreporting was observed for both intermediate and resistant isolates. Our data suggest that delayed adoption of revised breakpoints has a small but potentially important impact on reported rates of antimicrobial resistance. Facilities should be aware of local epidemiology, evaluate potential underreporting of resistance, and assess the related clinical impact. IMPORTANCE Clinicians often base antimicrobial therapeutic decisions on laboratory determinations of pathogen susceptibility to an antibiotic based on MIC breakpoints. MIC breakpoints evolve over time based on new information; between 2010 and 2012 the CLSI lowered carbapenem breakpoints for Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and these were subsequently adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Carbapenems are important therapeutic options for these difficult-to-treat pathogens, so understanding resistance rates is critically important. However, laboratories can be slow to adopt updated breakpoints. We used MIC data to evaluate whether reports received by hospitals for carbapenem susceptibility were consistent with updated CLSI breakpoints. Although overall susceptibility rates were similar between hospital reports and susceptibility based on updated CLSI criteria, the percentages of carbapenem-resistant isolates were significantly underreported by hospital reports. Delayed adoption of MIC breakpoints may impact epidemiological understanding of resistance and contribute to the spread of resistant pathogens.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]