title: Phenotypic detection of plasmid-acquired AmpC in Escherichia coli--evaluation of screening criteria and performance of two commercial methods for the phenotypic confirmation of AmpC production.
abstract: The phenotypic detection of plasmid-acquired AmpC (pAmpC) in Escherichia coli is challenging, and molecular methods are required for confirmation. In addition to cefoxitin resistance, multiresistance and high-level resistance to cephalosporins have both been suggested as criteria for targeting isolates with pAmpC, but data to support these proposed criteria are lacking. A Swedish collection of 378 isolates with either putative chromosomal hyperproduction of AmpC (cAmpC) or pAmpC were subjected to disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination with the Etest. The frequency of resistance to gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and trimethoprim among cAmpC and pAmpC was compared to elucidate the issue of multidrug resistance. Lastly, methods for the phenotypic confirmation of pAmpC were compared. One in-house disk diffusion method, one method employing NeoSensitabs (Rosco), and one Etest method (bioMérieux) were compared. The analysis of histograms based on both disk diffusion and the Etest showed that resistance [according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST)] to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime occurred in almost all isolates. By coining resistance instead of non-susceptibility, the number of isolates required to subject to phenotypic testing/genotypic confirmation dropped by more than 40 %, without compromising the sensitivity substantially. Further, almost 70 % of isolates with pAmpC were non-multidrug resistant, clearly indicating that this is an inappropriate criterion for further investigation. The phenotypic tests all had more than 90 % sensitivity, and the best sensitivities were obtained with the in-house method and with the ceftazidime ± cloxacillin NeoSensitab. In conclusion, clinical resistance to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime seems to be an appropriate criterion for pAmpC screening, and several phenotypic methods perform well for the phenotypic confirmation of AmpC production prior to genotypic confirmation.
authors.affiliation: Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control, 17182 Solna, Sweden.
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Edquist
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ringman
authors.forename: B O
authors.initials: BO
authors.lastname: Liljequist
authors.forename: K T
authors.initials: KT
authors.lastname: Wisell
authors.forename: C G
authors.initials: CG
authors.lastname: Giske
mesh_terms: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology; D001426:Bacterial Proteins / Q000235:genetics*; D002939:Ciprofloxacin / Q000494:pharmacology; D004926:Escherichia coli / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000235:genetics* / Q000302:isolation & purification; D005839:Gentamicins / Q000494:pharmacology; D006801:Humans; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests / Q000379:methods*; D010957:Plasmids / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics*; D014295:Trimethoprim / Q000494:pharmacology; D018440:beta-Lactam Resistance / Q000235:genetics; D001618:beta-Lactamases / Q000235:genetics*
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D001426:Bacterial Proteins; D005839:Gentamicins; D002939:Ciprofloxacin; D014295:Trimethoprim; C048795:AmpC beta-lactamases; D001618:beta-Lactamases
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Sep;67(9):2303-4
references.pmid: 22566593
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Aug;49(8):2924-32
references.pmid: 21653764
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997 Mar;41(3):647-53
references.pmid: 9056008
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Aug;49(8):2798-803
references.pmid: 21632895
references.citation: APMIS. 2012 Sep;120(9):724-32
references.pmid: 22882262
references.citation: J Med Microbiol. 2007 Jan;56(Pt 1):52-55
references.pmid: 17172517
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Jan;63(1):1-4
references.pmid: 18957393
references.citation: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013 Jan;68(1):60-7
references.pmid: 22949623
references.citation: J Infect. 2012 Feb;64(2):176-83
references.pmid: 22138600
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Feb;47(2):358-61
references.pmid: 19109470
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Jan;53(1):146-9
references.pmid: 18955528
references.citation: Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012 Aug;40(2):158-62
references.pmid: 22743014
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Apr;17(4):552-6
references.pmid: 20597925
references.citation: J Microbiol Methods. 2010 Sep;82(3):229-33
references.pmid: 20600365
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Apr;56(4):1870-6
references.pmid: 22290945
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000 Jun 1;187(1):35-40
references.pmid: 10828397