Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly?

David M. Livermore, Jenny M. Andrews, Peter M. Hawkey, Pak Leung Ho, Yoram Keness, Yohei Doi, David Paterson, Neil Woodford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

99 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent EUCAST advice asserts that, with low breakpoints, susceptibility results for cephalosporins and carbapenems can be reported 'as found', even for strains with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases. The CLSI has similar advice, but with higher ceftazidime and cefepime breakpoints than those of EUCAST. Pharmacodynamic and animal data are used to support these views, along with some analysis of clinical case series. We contend that such advice is misguided on three counts. First, whilst there are cases on record where cephalosporins and carbapenems have proved effective against infections due to low-MIC ESBL producers and low-MIC carbapenemase producers, respectively, there are similar numbers of cases where such therapy has failed. Second, routine susceptibility testing is less precise than in research analyses, meaning that ESBL and carbapenemase producers with 'real' MICs of 1-8 mg/L will oscillate between susceptibility categories according to who tests them and how. Third, although EUCAST continues to advocate ESBL and carbapenemase detection for epidemiological purposes, the likely consequence of not seeking these enzymes for treatment purposes is that some laboratories will not seek them at all, leading to a loss of critical infection control information. In short, it is prudent to continue to seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly and, where they are found, generally to avoid substrate drugs as therapy.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberdks088
Pages (from-to)1569-1577
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Volume67
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-07-2012

Fingerprint

Carbapenems
Cephalosporins
Ceftazidime
Infection Control
Drug Therapy
Enzymes
Therapeutics
Infection
Research
carbapenemase
cefepime

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Livermore, D. M., Andrews, J. M., Hawkey, P. M., Ho, P. L., Keness, Y., Doi, Y., ... Woodford, N. (2012). Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly? Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 67(7), 1569-1577. [dks088]. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dks088
Livermore, David M. ; Andrews, Jenny M. ; Hawkey, Peter M. ; Ho, Pak Leung ; Keness, Yoram ; Doi, Yohei ; Paterson, David ; Woodford, Neil. / Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly?. In: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2012 ; Vol. 67, No. 7. pp. 1569-1577.
@article{710c221dd41d4686a0c0e68fe06015cd,
title = "Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly?",
abstract = "Recent EUCAST advice asserts that, with low breakpoints, susceptibility results for cephalosporins and carbapenems can be reported 'as found', even for strains with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases. The CLSI has similar advice, but with higher ceftazidime and cefepime breakpoints than those of EUCAST. Pharmacodynamic and animal data are used to support these views, along with some analysis of clinical case series. We contend that such advice is misguided on three counts. First, whilst there are cases on record where cephalosporins and carbapenems have proved effective against infections due to low-MIC ESBL producers and low-MIC carbapenemase producers, respectively, there are similar numbers of cases where such therapy has failed. Second, routine susceptibility testing is less precise than in research analyses, meaning that ESBL and carbapenemase producers with 'real' MICs of 1-8 mg/L will oscillate between susceptibility categories according to who tests them and how. Third, although EUCAST continues to advocate ESBL and carbapenemase detection for epidemiological purposes, the likely consequence of not seeking these enzymes for treatment purposes is that some laboratories will not seek them at all, leading to a loss of critical infection control information. In short, it is prudent to continue to seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly and, where they are found, generally to avoid substrate drugs as therapy.",
author = "Livermore, {David M.} and Andrews, {Jenny M.} and Hawkey, {Peter M.} and Ho, {Pak Leung} and Yoram Keness and Yohei Doi and David Paterson and Neil Woodford",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jac/dks088",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "1569--1577",
journal = "Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy",
issn = "0305-7453",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "7",

}

Livermore, DM, Andrews, JM, Hawkey, PM, Ho, PL, Keness, Y, Doi, Y, Paterson, D & Woodford, N 2012, 'Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly?', Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 67, no. 7, dks088, pp. 1569-1577. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dks088

Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly? / Livermore, David M.; Andrews, Jenny M.; Hawkey, Peter M.; Ho, Pak Leung; Keness, Yoram; Doi, Yohei; Paterson, David; Woodford, Neil.

In: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 67, No. 7, dks088, 01.07.2012, p. 1569-1577.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are susceptibility tests enough, or should laboratories still seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly?

AU - Livermore, David M.

AU - Andrews, Jenny M.

AU - Hawkey, Peter M.

AU - Ho, Pak Leung

AU - Keness, Yoram

AU - Doi, Yohei

AU - Paterson, David

AU - Woodford, Neil

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Recent EUCAST advice asserts that, with low breakpoints, susceptibility results for cephalosporins and carbapenems can be reported 'as found', even for strains with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases. The CLSI has similar advice, but with higher ceftazidime and cefepime breakpoints than those of EUCAST. Pharmacodynamic and animal data are used to support these views, along with some analysis of clinical case series. We contend that such advice is misguided on three counts. First, whilst there are cases on record where cephalosporins and carbapenems have proved effective against infections due to low-MIC ESBL producers and low-MIC carbapenemase producers, respectively, there are similar numbers of cases where such therapy has failed. Second, routine susceptibility testing is less precise than in research analyses, meaning that ESBL and carbapenemase producers with 'real' MICs of 1-8 mg/L will oscillate between susceptibility categories according to who tests them and how. Third, although EUCAST continues to advocate ESBL and carbapenemase detection for epidemiological purposes, the likely consequence of not seeking these enzymes for treatment purposes is that some laboratories will not seek them at all, leading to a loss of critical infection control information. In short, it is prudent to continue to seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly and, where they are found, generally to avoid substrate drugs as therapy.

AB - Recent EUCAST advice asserts that, with low breakpoints, susceptibility results for cephalosporins and carbapenems can be reported 'as found', even for strains with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases. The CLSI has similar advice, but with higher ceftazidime and cefepime breakpoints than those of EUCAST. Pharmacodynamic and animal data are used to support these views, along with some analysis of clinical case series. We contend that such advice is misguided on three counts. First, whilst there are cases on record where cephalosporins and carbapenems have proved effective against infections due to low-MIC ESBL producers and low-MIC carbapenemase producers, respectively, there are similar numbers of cases where such therapy has failed. Second, routine susceptibility testing is less precise than in research analyses, meaning that ESBL and carbapenemase producers with 'real' MICs of 1-8 mg/L will oscillate between susceptibility categories according to who tests them and how. Third, although EUCAST continues to advocate ESBL and carbapenemase detection for epidemiological purposes, the likely consequence of not seeking these enzymes for treatment purposes is that some laboratories will not seek them at all, leading to a loss of critical infection control information. In short, it is prudent to continue to seek ESBLs and carbapenemases directly and, where they are found, generally to avoid substrate drugs as therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862657112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862657112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jac/dks088

DO - 10.1093/jac/dks088

M3 - Article

C2 - 22461311

AN - SCOPUS:84862657112

VL - 67

SP - 1569

EP - 1577

JO - Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

JF - Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

SN - 0305-7453

IS - 7

M1 - dks088

ER -