Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:57:12.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The genotypic antibiogram: using gram-negative antimicrobial resistance genes identified via rapid blood culture identification tests to optimize treatment of Enterobacterales bloodstream infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2024

Shawnalyn W. Sunagawa*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical and Nutrition Care, Nebraska Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Jeremy Tigh
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical and Nutrition Care, Nebraska Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Yolande A. Chan
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Ashlyn Okada
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical and Nutrition Care, Nebraska Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Scott J. Bergman
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical and Nutrition Care, Nebraska Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Trevor C. Van Schooneveld
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Paul D. Fey
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
Jonathan H. Ryder
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
*
Corresponding author:Shawnalyn W. Sunagawa; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The negative predictive value of blaCTX-M on BCID2 for ceftriaxone resistance in E. coli and K. pneumoniae group was 97% and 94%, respectively. Creation of a genotypic antibiogram led to updated local guidance for clinicians to utilize for empiric treatment of Enterobacterales bloodstream infections identified via rapid diagnostics.

Type
Concise Communication
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in the United States, 85.4% of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) were due to bla CTX-M. Reference Castanheira, Kimbrough, DeVries, Mendes and Sader1 With the increasing incidence of ESBL-producing isolates, rapid diagnostic tests, which include genotypic information such as the detection of bla CTX-M, have been shown to improve time to more appropriate, and even optimal, empiric therapy. Reference Tamma, Komarow and Ge2 This is critical since patients with ceftriaxone-resistant infections have been found to have worse outcomes. Reference Tamma, Komarow and Ge2,Reference Duffy, Karlsson and Reses3 The BioFire BCID2 is a second-generation multiplex panel which rapidly identifies 30 different Gram-negative, Gram-positive, and yeast pathogens along with 10 antimicrobial resistance genes from blood cultures. 4 Specifically, the bla CTX-M resistance marker detects the presence or absence of the most common family of ESBL enzymes; however, little is known regarding the safety of de-escalation in the absence of this marker. Reference Pogue, Heil and Lephart5 Genotypic markers of ceftriaxone resistance appear to outperform ESBL clinical prediction rules. Reference Andrews, Timbrook, Fisher and Tritle6 Thus, we created a genotypic antibiogram to use in combination with BCID2 results to assist with improving our institutional guidance for empiric antimicrobial therapy selection for patients with Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (BSI).

For this study, all positive BCID2 results with monomicrobial Enterobacterales BSIs at our academic medical center from 8/1/2021 to 11/1/2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Isolates with multiple positive resistance markers were excluded. Patient characteristics, BCID2, culture, and susceptibility results were collected. Immunocompromised patients were defined as people living with HIV with CD4 < 200, having received a solid organ or bone marrow transplant, or undergoing treatment for a hematologic and/or oncologic malignancy. Community-onset infections were defined as blood cultures collected < 48 hours from hospital admission. We performed descriptive statistics for cohort characteristics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the bla CTX-M marker was compared to ceftriaxone susceptibility. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the MicroScan WalkAway System (Beckman Coulter) and the MicroScan Negative MIC 56 antimicrobial panels, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. ESBL and AmpC producers were identified per our institutional protocol (Supplemental Material). CLSI guidance was followed for interpreting results (M100) and creation of the antibiogram (M39) utilizing the first patient isolate per year methodology. 7 Our institutional review board deemed this a quality improvement project exempt from review.

Over 15 months, 455 Enterobacterales bloodstream isolates were identified from 452 unique patients. Of those, 236 (52%) were male patients, 189 (41%) immunocompromised, and 342 (75%) had community-onset infections. The most common species identified were Escherichia coli (55%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae group (17%). bla CTX-M was detected in 48 (11%) isolates from 41 (85%) E. coli and 6 (13%) K. pneumoniae group (Supplemental Table 1). E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates that did not harbor bla CTX-M detected were 97% and 100% susceptible to ceftriaxone, respectively. bla KPC was detected in 1 isolate (K. variicola), and excluded from our analysis. Additionally, no other carbapenemase genes were detected. For E. coli, bla CTX-M sensitivity and specificity for detection of ceftriaxone resistance was 85% and 100%, respectively; bla CTX-M PPV for ceftriaxone resistance was 100%, while the NPV of absent bla CTX-M for ceftriaxone susceptibility was 97% (Table 1). Of 7 bla CTX-M negative E. coli isolates, 6 were identified as ESBL and one as an AmpC producer based on phenotypic lab protocols. For K. pneumoniae group, bla CTX-M sensitivity and specificity for detection of ceftriaxone resistance was 60% and 100%, respectively; bla CTX-M PPV for ceftriaxone resistance was 100%, while the NPV of absent bla CTX-M for ceftriaxone susceptibility was 94% (Table 1). Among the other Enterobacterales species detected on BCID2, only one had bla CTX-M detected despite 24% (31/129) having ceftriaxone resistance. Figure 1 describes susceptibilities to common antimicrobials, delineated on the presence or absence of BCID2 resistance markers, for E. coli and K. pneumoniae group since these organisms are most likely to harbor bla CTX-M, whereas other organisms are more likely to have other mechanisms of ceftriaxone resistance (eg, Enterobacter species and AmpC). Reference Castanheira, Kimbrough, DeVries, Mendes and Sader1 Supplemental Figure 1 describes susceptibilities for all organisms.

Table 1. BCID2 organisms with bla CTX-M detected sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values

Note. SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.

a All organisms with bla CTX-M detected on BCID2. Those without bla CTX-M detected are not shown.

b Includes Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella quasipneumoniae, and Klebsiella variicola.

c Organism cultured that was bla CTX-M positive identified as Providencia rettgeri.

Figure 1. Genotypic Antibiogram.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess the utility of BCID2 to create a genotypic antibiogram. Previous literature focused on the Verigene Gram-negative blood culture nucleic acid test’s ability to provide empiric treatment recommendations based on the presence or absence of resistance markers. Reference Pogue, Heil and Lephart5,Reference Spafford, MacVane and Humphries8 Our approach is novel in assessing BCID2, which contains additional resistance markers and organism targets in comparison to Verigene, providing clinicians with additional information to target antimicrobial therapy. 4 Results from this study demonstrate similar PPV and NPVs for ceftriaxone susceptibility. Reference Pogue, Heil and Lephart5,Reference Rödel, Karrasch and Edel9 Based on the high NPV in E. coli and K. pneumoniae group, clinicians can confidently de-escalate therapy to ceftriaxone when the bla CTX-M resistance marker is not detected at our institution. A genotypic antibiogram (Figure 1) was distributed to clinicians simultaneously with our updated BCID2 utilization guidance document 10 which provides empiric antibiotic recommendations based on the BCID2 results. While rapid diagnostics are useful in identifying organisms to target, clinicians often struggle to interpret these complex tests, and education and guidance on how to optimally utilize and interpret the results is continually needed. Reference Donner, Campbell, Lyden and Van Schooneveld11 A recent study Reference Hasegawa, Livorsi, Perencevich, Church and Goto12 questioned the overall efficacy and diagnostic accuracy of cumulative antibiograms’ ability to predict resistance for isolates; however, genotypic blood culture antibiograms likely have improved predictive capability.

Limitations include the retrospective, single-institution design; however, this project is easily replicable and can provide other facilities with a framework for assessing their specific resistance patterns and rapid diagnostic data. Extrapolation of the results to other multiplex panels (eg, pneumonia panel) should be done cautiously. Additionally, there may be limited value of an annual genotypic antibiogram given the limited sample size and additional cost/time associated with its creation. However, genotypic antibiograms may provide insight into the monitoring of epidemiologic trends in ESBLs within an institution. Other limitations include the low number of bla CTX-M isolates, which limits applicability to only a select number of organisms. Since the proportion of bla CTX-M isolates was representative of the overall BCID2 results, the genotypic antibiogram still provides clinically relevant information regarding susceptibilities. Further, for our institution, absence of bla CTX-M does not reliably predict ceftriaxone susceptibility for non-E. coli or non-K. pneumoniae isolates. Finally, antimicrobial utilization and prescriber response based on BCID2 results was not collected; however, previous literature supports that utilization of rapid diagnostics, when coupled with stewardship, reduces time to optimal antimicrobial therapy, and our stewardship program reviews BCID results daily. Reference Banerjee and Humphries13 Further studies should be performed to explore the utilization and impact of BCID2 gram-negative resistance markers on time to optimal therapy and patient outcomes.

This study demonstrated that the majority of ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli and Klebsiella BSI harbor bla CTX-M, and carbapenemases are rare in our institution. Creating a genotypic antibiogram assisted in providing updated guidance for our clinicians on treatment of Enterobacterales bloodstream infection.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.406

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to reviewing and editing of the manuscript and approved the submitted version.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Competing interests

TCVS: Investigator initiated grant support paid to his institution from BioMerieux as well as consulting to BioMerieux. SJB: Honoraria from BioMerieux for presentation related to rapid diagnostic testing. All other authors report no conflicts of interest/disclosures relevant to this article.

References

Castanheira, M, Kimbrough, JH, DeVries, S, Mendes, RE, Sader, HS. Trends of β-lactamase occurrence among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in United States hospitals during a 5-year period and activity of antimicrobial agents against isolates stratified by β-lactamase type. Open Forum Infect Dis 2023;10:ofad038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamma, PD, Komarow, L, Ge, L, et al. Clinical impact of ceftriaxone resistance in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2022;9:ofac572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, N, Karlsson, M, Reses, HE, et al. Epidemiology of extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales in five US sites participating in the emerging infections program, 2017. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:15861594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biofire. Biofire (BCID2) Panel Instructions For Use. Published online 2020.Google Scholar
Pogue, JM, Heil, EL, Lephart, P, et al. An antibiotic stewardship program blueprint for optimizing verigene BC-GN within an institution: A tale of two cities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62(5):e02537-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, SR, Timbrook, TT, Fisher, MA, Tritle, BJ. Comparative analysis of a rapid diagnostic test and scoring tools for ESBL detection in Enterobacterales bloodstream infections for optimizing antimicrobial therapy. Microbiol Spectr 2024;12:e03131-23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CLSI. Analysis and Presentation of Cumulative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Data 5th ed CLSI guideline M39. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Instittue. Published online 2022.Google Scholar
Spafford, K, MacVane, S, Humphries, R. Evaluation of empiric β-lactam susceptibility prediction among Enterobacteriaceae by molecular β-lactamase gene testing. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:10128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rödel, J, Karrasch, M, Edel, B, et al. Antibiotic treatment algorithm development based on a microarray nucleic acid assay for rapid bacterial identification and resistance determination from positive blood cultures. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2016;84:252257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Nebraska Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship Program. Recommendations Regarding the Use of Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel Data. Published 2021. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://www.unmc.edu/intmed/_documents/id/asp/news/bcid2-final-8-11-21.pdf Google Scholar
Donner, LM, Campbell, WS, Lyden, E, Van Schooneveld, TC. Assessment of rapid-blood-culture-identification result interpretation and antibiotic prescribing practices. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:14961507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasegawa, S, Livorsi, DJ, Perencevich, EN, Church, JN, Goto, M. Diagnostic accuracy of hospital antibiograms in predicting the risk of antimicrobial resistance in Enterobacteriaceae isolates: a nationwide multicenter evaluation at the veterans health administration. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2023. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad467 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banerjee, R, Humphries, R. Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for blood cultures and their clinical impact. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:635831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. BCID2 organisms with blaCTX-M detected sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values

Figure 1

Figure 1. Genotypic Antibiogram.

Supplementary material: File

Sunagawa et al. supplementary material

Sunagawa et al. supplementary material
Download Sunagawa et al. supplementary material(File)
File 276.6 KB