Comparison of available methods to evaluate cefiderocol susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp

• Published in: Journal of microbiological methods Vol. 223; p. 106972
• Main Authors: Pasteran, Fernando, Wong, Olivia, Mezcord, Vyanka, Lopez, Christina, Georgeos, Nardin, Fua, Venjaminne, Ozuna, Alonzo, Ramlaoui, Dema, Sánchez, Cristian, Marchetti, Paulina, Corso, Alejandra, Tolmasky, Marcelo E., Bonomo, Robert A., Ramirez, María Soledad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Acinetobacter; Acinetobacter - drug effects; Acinetobacter Infections - microbiology; Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology; antibiotic resistance; Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST); Carbapenem-resistance; carbapenems; Cefiderocol; Cephalosporins - pharmacology; decision making; Diazabicyclooctanes (DBOs); disk diffusion antimicrobial test; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods; minimum inhibitory concentration; NDM; uncertainty; Acinetobacter; Cefiderocol; Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST); Diazabicyclooctanes (DBOs); Carbapenem-resistance; NDM
• ISSN: 0167-7012; 1872-8359; 1872-8359
• DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106972

Recently, considerable uncertainty has arisen concerning the appropriate susceptibility testing for cefiderocol in gram-negative bacilli, particularly in the context of its application to Acinetobacter spp. The optimal method for assessing the susceptibility levels of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol remains a subject of debate due to substantial disparities observed in the values obtained through various testing procedures. This study employed four minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methodologies and the disk diffusion to assess the susceptibility of twenty-seven carbapenem resistant (CR)-Acinetobacter strains to cefiderocol. The results from our study reveal significant variations in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained with the different methods and in the level of agreement in interpretation categories between the different MIC methods and the disk diffusion test. Among the MIC methods, there was relatively more consistency in reporting the interpretation categories. For European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, the categorical agreement (CA) for MIC methods ranged between 66.7 and 81.5%. On the other hand, the essential agreement (EA) values were as low as 18.5–29.6%. The CA between MIC methods and disk diffusion was 81.5%. These results emphasize the need for a reliable, accurate, and clinically validated methodology to effectively assess the susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. to cefiderocol. The wide variability observed in our study highlights the importance of standardizing the susceptibility testing process for cefiderocol to ensure consistent and reliable results for clinical decision-making. •Cefiderocol MIC values vary significantly across methods.•Differences in the agreement on interpreting categories were identified.•More consistency in reporting interpretation categories among MIC methods was seen.•The variability observed calls for standardization of cefiderocol testing.