{"id":4412,"date":"2017-06-13T08:14:11","date_gmt":"2017-06-13T08:14:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/?p=4412"},"modified":"2017-07-07T10:03:13","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T10:03:13","slug":"etestw-versus-broth-microdilution-for-ceftaroline-mic-determination-with-staphylococcus-aureus-results-from-premium-a-european-multicentre-study-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/2017\/06\/13\/etestw-versus-broth-microdilution-for-ceftaroline-mic-determination-with-staphylococcus-aureus-results-from-premium-a-european-multicentre-study-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Etest versus broth microdilution for ceftaroline MIC determination with Staphylococcus aureus: Results from PREMIUM, a European multicentre study (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Type of publication:<\/strong>
\nJournal article<\/p>\n

Author(s):<\/strong>
\nCanton R.; Morosini M.I.; Livermore D.M.; Diaz-Reganon J.; Rossolini G.M.; Verhaegen J.; Cartuyvels R.; Claeys G.; De Beenhouwer H.; Delmee M.; Denis O.; Glupczynski Y.; Leven G.; Melin P.; Pierard D.; Pagani L.; Arena F.; Luzzaro F.; Gesu G.P.; Serra R.; D'Argenio A.; Sarti M.; Pecile P.; Mazzariol A.; Biscaro V.; Manso E.; Catania M.R.; Giraldi C.; Stefani S.; Labonia M.; Aschbacher R.; Giammanco A.; Cristino M.; Sancho L.; Diogo J.M.; Ramalheira E.; Ramos H.; Pinheiro D.; Garcia-Castillo M.; Calvo J.; Oliver A.; Gimeno C.; Pascual A.; Quintano F.T.; Bartolome R.; Cisterna R.; Cercenado E.; Merino P.; Marco F.; Bou G.; Sanchez J.E.G.; Cilla G.; Iglesias M.R.; Droz S.; Frei R.; James D.; Mushtaq S.; Howe R.; Paton R.; Gould K.; Eyre A.; Jepson A.; Swann A.; Weston D.; *Harvey G.; Humphrey H.<\/p>\n

Citation:<\/strong>
\nJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; 2017; vol. 72 (no. 2); p. 431-436<\/p>\n

Abstract:<\/strong>
\nObjectives: To compare the concordance of ceftaroline MIC values by reference broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest (bioMerieux, France) for MSSA and MRSA isolates obtained from PREMIUM (D372SL00001), a European multicentre study. Methods: Ceftaroline MICs were determined by reference BMD and by Etest for 1242 MSSA and MRSA isolates collected between February and May 2012 from adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections; tests were performed across six European laboratories. Selected isolates with ceftaroline resistance in broth (MIC >1 mg\/L) were retested in three central laboratories to confirm their behaviour. Results: Overall concordance between BMD and Etest was good, with >97% essential agreement and >95% categorical agreement. Nevertheless, 12 of the 26 MRSA isolates found resistant by BMD scored as susceptible by Etest, with MICs <1 mg\/L, thus counting as very major errors, whereas only 5 of 380 MRSA isolates found ceftaroline susceptible in BMD were miscategorized as resistant by Etest. Twenty-one of the 26 isolates with MICs of 2 mg\/L by BMD were then retested twice by each of three central laboratories: BMD MICs of 2 mg\/L were consistently found for 19 of the 21 isolates. Among 147 Etest results for these 21 isolates (original plus six repeats per isolate) 112 were >1 mg\/L. Conclusions: BMD and Etest have good overall agreement for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus; nevertheless, reliable Etest based discrimination of the minority of ceftaroline-resistant (MIC 2 mg\/L) MRSA is extremely challenging, requiring careful reading of strips, ideally with duplicate testing.<\/p>\n

Link to full-text: jac.oxfordjournals.org\/content\/early\/2016\/10\/19\/jac.dkw442.full.pdf<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Type of publication: Journal article Author(s): Canton R.; Morosini M.I.; Livermore D.M.; Diaz-Reganon J.; Rossolini G.M.; Verhaegen J.; Cartuyvels R.; Claeys G.; De Beenhouwer H.; Delmee M.; Denis O.; Glupczynski Y.; Leven G.; Melin P.; Pierard D.; Pagani L.; Arena…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more Etest versus broth microdilution for ceftaroline MIC determination with Staphylococcus aureus: Results from PREMIUM, a European multicentre study (2017)<\/span> ›<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[200],"tags":[677],"class_list":["post-4412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-staff-publication","tag-677"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4412","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4412"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4412\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4487,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4412\/revisions\/4487"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}