In vitro activity of apramycin against 16S-RMTase-producing Gram-negative isolates

International audienceObjectives: Apramycin is an aminoglycoside (AG) with a unique structure that is little affected by plasmid-mediated mechanisms of AG resistance, including most AG-modifying enzymes and 16S rRNA methyltransferases (16S-RMTases). We evaluate the activity of apramycin against a collection of 16S-RMTase-producing isolates, including Enterobacterales, non-fermenting bacteria, and carbapenemase producers. Methods: In total, 164 non-duplicate 16S-RMTase-producing isolates, including 84 Enterobacterales, 53 Acinetobacter baumannii and 27 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, were included in the study. Wholegenome sequencing (WGS) was performed on all isolates with Illumina technology. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of apramycin was determined by broth microdilution with customized Sensititre plates (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Dardilly, France). Results: We found that 95% (156/164) of the 16S-RMTase-producing isolates were susceptible to apramycin, with a MIC 50 of 4 mg/L and a MIC 90 of 16 mg/L, respectively. Resistance rates were higher in P. aeruginosa (11%) than in A. baumannii (4%) or Enterobacterales (4%) (P 64 mg/L due to the acquisition of the aac(3)-IV gene. The genetic environment of the aac(3)-IV gene was similar to that in the pAH01-4 plasmid of an Escherichia coli isolate from chicken in China. Conclusion: Resistance to apramycin remains rare in 16S-RMTase-producing isolates. Apramycin may, therefore, be an interesting alternative treatment for infections caused by 16S-RMTase and carbapenemase producers

Detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates coproducing the plasmid-encoded 16S rRNA methyltransferase RmtF and carbapenemase in Paris, France

International audienc

Rapid and Simple Universal Escherichia coli Genotyping Method Based on Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem-Repeat Analysis Using Single-Tube Multiplex PCR and Standard Gel Electrophoresis

International audienceWe developed a multiplex PCR method based on multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) analysis (MLVA) that was designed for the rapid typing of Escherichia coli and Shigella isolates. The method amplifies seven VNTRs and does not require a sequencing capillary or fluorescent dyes. The amplification products are simply loaded on a standard agarose gel for electrophoresis, and the banding patterns are analyzed visually. We evaluated the method on 220 strains belonging to different collections: the E. coli reference (ECOR) collection (n = 72), O1:K1 isolates causing neonatal meningitis (n = 38), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing fecal isolates belonging to the worldwide sequence type 131 (ST131) clone (n = 38), Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) isolates of serogroups O157:H7 (n = 21) and O26 (n = 16, 8 of which belonged to an outbreak), 27 Shigella isolates (22 Shigella sonnei isolates, including 5 epidemic strains), and 8 reference strains. The performances were compared to those of multilocus sequence typing (MLST), the DiversiLab automated repetitive element palindromic PCR (REP-PCR), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). We found 66 different profiles among the isolates in the ECOR collection. Among the clonal group O1:K1 isolates, 14 different profiles were identified. For the 37 STEC isolates, we found 23 profiles, with 1 corresponding to the 8 epidemic strains. We found 19 profiles among the 27 Shigella isolates, with 1 corresponding to the epidemic strain. The method was able to recognize strains of the ST131 clone and to distinguish the O16 and O25b serogroups and identified 15 different MLVA types among them. This method allows the simple, fast, and inexpensive typing of E. coli/Shigella isolates that can be carried out in any laboratory equipped for molecular biology and has a discriminatory power superior to that of MLST and DiversiLab REP-PCR but slightly lower than that of PFGE.IMPORTANCE Fast typing methods that can easily and accurately distinguish clonal groups and unrelated isolates are of particular interest for microbiologists confronted with outbreaks or performing epidemiological studies. Highly discriminatory universal methods, like PFGE, optical mapping, or WGS, are expensive and/or time-consuming. MLST is useful for phylogeny but is less discriminatory and requires sequencing facilities. PCR methods, which are fast and easy to perform, also have drawbacks. Random PCRs and REP-PCR are universal but lack reproducibility. Other PCR methods may lack the discriminatory power to differentiate isolates during outbreaks. MLVA combines the advantages of PCR methods with a high discriminatory power but in its standard form requires sequencing capillary electrophoresis. The method that we have developed combines the advantages of standard PCR (simple, fast, and inexpensive) with the high discriminatory power of MLVA and permits the typing of all E. coli isolates (either intestinal or extraintestinal pathogenic isolates as well as commensal isolates)

Multicenter Evaluation of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel for Pathogen Detection in Bloodstream Infections

International audienceThe FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel (BCID2; bioMérieux) is a fully automated PCR-based assay for identifying bacteria, fungi, and bacterial resistance markers in positive blood cultures (BC) in about 1 h. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the performance of the BCID2 panel for pathogen detection in positive BC. Conventional culture and BCID2 were performed in parallel at four tertiary-care hospitals. We included 152 positive BC-130 monomicrobial and 22 polymicrobial cultures-in this analysis. The BCID2 assay correctly identified 90% (88/98) of Gram-negative and 89% (70/79) of Gram-positive bacteria. Five bacterial isolates targeted by the BCID2 panel and recovered from five positive BC, including three polymicrobial cultures, were missed by the BCID2 assay. Fifteen isolates were off-panel organisms, accounting for 8% (15/182) of the isolates obtained from BC. The mean positive percent agreement between the BCID2 assay and standard culture was 97% (95% confidence interval, 95 to 99%), with agreement ranging from 67% for Candida albicans to 100% for 17 targets included in the BCID2 panel. BCID2 also identified the bla CTX-M gene in seven BC, including one for which no extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing isolate was obtained in culture. However, it failed to detect ESBL-encoding genes in three BC. Two of the 18 mecA/ C genes detected by the BCID2 were not confirmed. No carbapenemase, mecA/C, or MREJ targets were detected. The median turnaround time was significantly shorter for BCID2 than for culture. The BCID2 panel may facilitate faster pathogen identification in bloodstream infections. IMPORTANCE Rapid molecular diagnosis combining the identification of pathogens and the detection of antibiotic resistance genes from positive blood cultures (BC) can improve the outcome for patients with bloodstream infections. The FilmArray BCID2 panel, an updated version of the original BCID, can detect 11 Gram-positive bacteria, 15 Gram-negative bacteria, 7 fungal pathogens, and 10 antimicrobial resistance genes directly from a positive BC. Here, we evaluated the real-life microbiological performance of the BCID2 Edito

Performance of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction panel for identifying bacterial pathogens causing pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19

International audienceThe FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus (FA-PP) panel can provide rapid identifications and semiquantitative results for many pathogens. We performed a prospective single-center study in 43 critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in which we performed 96 FA-PP tests and cultures of blind bronchoalveolar lavage (BBAL). FA-PP detected 1 or more pathogens in 32% (31/96 of samples), whereas culture methods detected at least 1 pathogen in 35% (34/96 of samples). The most prevalent bacteria detected were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 14) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 11) on both FA-PP and culture. The FA-PP results from BBAL in critically ill patients with COVID-19 were consistent with bacterial culture findings for bacteria present in the FA-PP panel, showing sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of 95%, 99%, 82%, and 100%, respectively. Median turnaround time for FA-PP was 5.5 h, which was significantly shorter than for standard culture (26 h) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing results (57 h)

Performance evaluation of a PCR panel (FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus) for detection of respiratory bacterial pathogens in respiratory specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis

International audienceBackground: Accuracy and timing of antibiotic therapy remain a challenge for lower respiratory tract infections. New molecular techniques using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction, including the FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus Panel [FAPP], have been developed to address this. The aim of this study is to evaluate the FAPP diagnostic performance for the detection of the 15 typical bacteria of the panel from respiratory samples in a meta-analysis from a systematic review. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2022, and selected any study on the FAPP diagnostic performance on respiratory samples compared to the reference standard, bacterial culture. The main outcome was the overall diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity. We calculated the log Diagnostic Odds Ratio and analyzed performance for separate bacteria, antimicrobial resistance genes, and according to the sample type. We also reported the FAPP turnaround time and the out-of-panel bacteria number and species. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226280). Results: From 10 317 records, we identified 30 studies including 8 968 samples. Twenty-one were related to intensive care. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 94% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 91–95] and 98% [95%CI 97–98], respectively. The log Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 6.35 [95%CI 6.05–6.65]. 9.3% [95%CI 9.2–9.5] of bacteria detected in culture were not included in the FAPP panel. Conclusion: This systematic review reporting the FAPP evaluation revealed a high accuracy. This test may represent an adjunct tool for pulmonary bacterial infection diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship. Further evidence is needed to assess the impact on clinical outcome. © 2023 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar