Author:
den Drijver Evert,Verweij Jaco J.,Verhulst Carlo,Soer Joke,Veldman Kees,Rossen John W.,Kooistra-Smid A.M.D. (Mirjam),Kluytmans van den Bergh Marjolein F. Q.,Kluytmans Jan A. J. W.
Abstract
AbstractThe aim of this study was to determine the performance of both cefotaxime and ceftazidime containing agars on the specificity and sensitivity for chromosomal AmpC-hyperproducing and plasmid AmpC harboring Escherichia coli compared to ESBL-producing E. coli and E. coli without ESBL, pAmpC or cAmpC hyperproduction. Second, we evaluated the influence of adding cefoxitin to these agars for detection of both chromosomal AmpC-hyperproducing and plasmid AmpC harboring E. coli.Four different homemade screening agars with cefotaxime (1mg/L), ceftazidime (1mg/L), cefotaxime (1mg/L) with cefoxitin (8mg/L), and ceftazidime (1mg/L) with cefoxitin (8mg/L) were compared to each other for the identification of AmpC producing E. coli. A total of 40 isolates with plasmid encoded AmpC β-lactamases, 40 isolates with alterations in the promoter/attenuator region of the AmpC gene leading to hyperproduction of the β-lactamase, 40 isolates with ESBL genes and 39 isolates lacking both a AmpC and ESBL genotype were used to test the four agars.The sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 96.1% to 100%) and 48.1% (95% CI 38.6%-60.2%), respectively, for the cefotaxime agar; 100% (95% CI 96.1% to 100%) and 49.41% (95% CI 39.8%-61.4%), respectively, for the ceftazidime agar; 96.3% (95% CI 89.1% to 99.2%) and 77.2% (95% CI 66.7%-85.2%) respectively, for the cefotaxime with cefoxitin agar; 98.8% (95% CI) 92.6% to 99.6%) and 81.0% (95% CI 70.9%-88.3%) respectively, for the ceftazidime agar with cefoxitin. The main reason for false-positive results were ESBL-harboring strains that grew on various agars; therefore, the specificity of each agar reported here was influenced mainly by the proportion of ESBL isolates tested. In conclusion addition of cefoxitin to cefotaxime and ceftazidime containing agars had little influence on sensitivity, but increased specificity for the detection of AmpC in E. coli.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory