Reporting antimicrobial susceptibilities and phenotypes of resistance to vancomycin in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. clinical isolates: A nationwide proficiency study

Abstract

Introduction

The ability of Spanish microbiology laboratories to (a) determine antimicrobial susceptibility (AS), and (b) correctly detect the vancomycin resistance (VR) phenotype in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE) was evaluated.

Methods

Three VRE isolates representing the VanA (E. faecium), VanB (E. faecium) and VanC (E. gallinarum) VR phenotypes were sent to 52 laboratories, which were asked for: (a) AS method used; (b) MICs of ampicillin, imipenem, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, daptomycin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and quinupristin–dalfopristin, and high-level resistance to gentamicin and streptomycin; (c) VR phenotype.

Results

(a) The most frequently used system was MicroScan; (b) according to the system, the highest percentage of discrepant MICs was found with gradient strips (21.3%). By antimicrobial, the highest rates of discrepant MICs ranged 16.7% (imipenem) to 0.7% (linezolid). No discrepant MICs were obtained with daptomycin or levofloxacin. Mayor errors (MEs) occurred with linezolid (1.1%/EUCAST) and ciprofloxacin (5.0%/CLSI), and very major errors (VMEs) with vancomycin (27.1%/EUCAST and 33.3%/CLSI) and teicoplanin (5.7%/EUCAST and 2.3%/CLSI). For linezolid, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin, discrepant MICs were responsible for these errors, while for teicoplanin, errors were due to a misassignment of the clinical category. An unacceptable high percentage of VMEs was obtained using gradient strips (14.8%), especially with vancomycin, teicoplanin and daptomycin; (c) 86.4% of the centers identified VanA and VanB phenotypes correctly, and 95.0% the VanC phenotype.

Conclusion

Most Spanish microbiology laboratories can reliably determine AS in VRE, but there is a significant percentage of inadequate interpretations (warning of false susceptibility) for teicoplanin in isolates with the VanB phenotype.

Resumen

Introducción

Se evaluó la capacidad de los laboratorios de microbiología españoles para: (a) determinar la sensibilidad antimicrobiana (SA); y (b) detectar correctamente el fenotipo de resistencia a vancomicina (FRV) en Enterococcus spp. resistente a vancomicina (ERV).

Métodos

Se enviaron 3 aislados de ERV (E. faecium/VanA, E. faecium/VanB y E. gallinarum/VanC) a 52 laboratorios, a los que se les solicitó: (a) método de SA; (b) CMI de ampicilina, imipenem, vancomicina, teicoplanina, linezolid, daptomicina, ciprofloxacino, levofloxacino y quinupristina-dalfopristina y resistencia de alto nivel a gentamicina y estreptomicina; y (c) fenotipo de resistencia a vancomicina.

Resultados

(a) El sistema más utilizado fue MicroScan; y (b) el mayor porcentaje de CMI discrepantes se produjo con las tiras de gradiente (21,3%). Las tasas más elevadas de CMI discrepantes variaron entre el 16,7% (imipenem) y el 0,7% (linezolid). Se produjeron errores mayores con linezolid (1,1%/EUCAST) y ciprofloxacino (5,0%/CLSI) y errores máximos con vancomicina (27,1%/EUCAST y 33,3% CLSI) y teicoplanina (5,7%/EUCAST y 2,3%/CLSI). Para linezolid, ciprofloxacino y vancomicina las CMI discrepantes fueron las responsables de estos errores, mientras que para teicoplanina los errores se debieron a una asignación errónea de la categoría clínica. Se obtuvo un alto porcentaje de errores máximos utilizando tiras de gradiente (14,8%), especialmente con vancomicina, teicoplanina y daptomicina; y (c) el 86,4% de los centros identificaron correctamente los fenotipos VanA y VanB y el 95,0% el fenotipo VanC.

Conclusión

La mayoría de los laboratorios de microbiología españoles determinan de forma fiable la SA en ERV, pero existe un porcentaje significativo de interpretaciones inadecuadas (falsa sensibilidad) para teicoplanina en aislados con fenotipo VanB.