Raising the Bar: Improving Antimicrobial Resistance Detection by Clinical Laboratories by Ensuring Use of Current Breakpoints

How New Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests Will Affect Infectious Diseases Clinical Practice

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) affects 2.8 million Americans annually. AMR is identified through antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), but current and proposed regulatory policies from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jeopardize the future availability of AST for many microorganisms. Devices that perform AST must be cleared by the FDA using their susceptibility test interpretive criteria, also known as breakpoints. The FDA list of breakpoints is relatively short. Today, laboratories supplement FDA breakpoints using breakpoints published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, using legacy devices and laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). FDA proposes to regulate LDTs, and with no FDA breakpoints for many drug-bug combinations, the risk is loss of AST for key clinical indications and stifling innovation in technology development. Effective solutions require collaboration between manufacturers, infectious diseases clinicians, pharmacists, laboratories, and the FDA.

Navigating the network: a narrative overview of AMR surveillance and data flow in the United States

The antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance landscape in the United States consists of a data flow that starts in the clinical setting and is maintained by a network of national and state public health laboratories. These organizations are well established, with robust methodologies to test and confirm antimicrobial susceptibility. Still, the bridge that guides the flow of data is often one directional and caught in a constant state of rush hour that can only be refined with improvements to infrastructure and automation in the data flow. Moreover, there is an absence of information in the literature explaining the processes clinical laboratories use to coalesce and share susceptibility test data for AMR surveillance, further complicated by variability in testing procedures. This knowledge gap limits our understanding of what is needed to improve and streamline data sharing from clinical to public health laboratories. Successful models of AMR surveillance display attributes like 2-way communication between clinical and public health laboratories, centralized databases, standardized data, and the use of electronic health records or data systems, highlighting areas of opportunity and improvement. This article explores the roles and processes of the organizations involved in AMR surveillance in the United States and identifies current knowledge gaps and opportunities to improve communication between them through standardization, communication, and modernization of data flow.

Multicenter evaluation of the Selux Next-Generation Phenotyping antimicrobial susceptibility testing system

The Selux Next-Generation Phenotyping (NGP) system (Charlestown, MA) is a new antimicrobial susceptibility testing system that utilizes two sequential assays performed on all wells of doubling dilution series to determine MICs. A multicenter evaluation of the performance of the Selux NGP system compared with reference broth microdilution was conducted following FDA recommendations and using FDA-defined breakpoints. A total of 2,488 clinical and challenge isolates were included; gram-negative isolates were tested against 24 antimicrobials, and gram-positive isolates were tested against 15 antimicrobials. Data is provided for all organism-antimicrobial combinations evaluated, including those that did and did not meet FDA performance requirements. Overall very major error and major error rates were less than 1% (31/3,805 and 107/15,606, respectively), essential agreement and categorical agreement were >95%, reproducibility was ≥95%, and the average time-to-result (from time of assay start to time of MIC result) was 5.65 hours.

Approaches to Testing Novel β-Lactam and β-Lactam Combination Agents in the Clinical Laboratory

The rapid emergence of multi-drug resistant Gram-negative pathogens has driven the introduction of novel β-lactam combination agents (BLCs) to the antibiotic market: ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, imipenem-relebactam, cefiderocol, and sulbactam-durlobactam. These agents are equipped with innovative mechanisms that confer broad Gram-negative activity, notably against certain challenging carbapenemases. While their introduction offers a beacon of hope, clinical microbiology laboratories must navigate the complexities of susceptibility testing for these agents due to their diverse activity profiles against specific β-lactamases and the possibility of acquired resistance mechanisms in some bacterial isolates. This review explores the complexities of these novel antimicrobial agents detailing the intricacies of their application, providing guidance on the nuances of susceptibility testing, interpretation, and result reporting in clinical microbiology laboratories.

Introducing the new face of CLSI M100 in 2023: An explanatory review

BACKGROUND

The CLSI annual update of its M100 document is eagerly awaited every year. This year's update, the M100-Ed33, was published in February, and will significantly affect clinical practices.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight and explain the rationale of the changes and their clinical impact.

CONTENT

The major changes this year are mostly focused on PK/PD data, selective and cascade reporting of the antibiotics and therapy related comments. The CLSI has moved away from its classical grouping of antibiotics (A, B, U, O) to a tier-based approach (Tier 1, 2, 3, 4) which will aid in cascade reporting during an antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST). Rather than non-fastidious, fastidious and anaerobe grouping, the tables have been made organism specific. The aminoglycosides breakpoints have been changed for both Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa while for P. aeruginosa, the breakpoints of piperacillin - tazobactam (TZP) are also updated. These updates are mostly based on attainment of drug plasma level for bacterial stasis rather than bactericidal effect of the antibiotics. It is noteworthy, that these breakpoint changes are made, keeping in view that the aminoglycosides for all organisms should be used in combination therapy. For P. aeruginosa, gentamicin has been removed, while amikacin has been restricted for urinary isolates only.

Updating breakpoints in the United States: a summary from the ASM Clinical Microbiology Open 2022

Accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and reporting are essential for guiding appropriate therapy for patients and direction for public health prevention and control actions. A critical feature of AST reporting is the interpretation of AST results using clinical breakpoints for reporting as susceptible, susceptible-dose dependent, intermediate, or resistant. Breakpoints are subject to continuous adjustment and updating to best reflect current clinical data. These breakpoint changes can benefit patients and public health only if adopted in a timely manner. A recent survey identified that up to 70% of College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited U.S. laboratories and 45% of CAP-accredited laboratories outside the U.S. use various obsolete clinical breakpoints to interpret AST results to guide patient care. The reason for the ongoing use of obsolete breakpoints is multifactorial, including barriers encountered by laboratories, commercial AST device manufacturers, standards development organizations, and regulatory bodies alike. To begin to address this important patient safety issue, CAP implemented checklist requirements for CAP-accredited laboratories to ensure up-to-date clinical breakpoint use. Furthermore, the topic was discussed at the June 2022 American Society for Microbiology Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO) with various stakeholders to identify potential solutions. This minireview summarizes the breakpoint setting process in the U.S. and highlights solutions to close the gap between breakpoint revisions and implementation in clinical and public health laboratories. Solutions discussed include clarification of data requirements and minimum inhibitory concentration only reporting for regulatory clearance of AST devices, clinical data generation to close breakpoints gaps, advocacy, education, and greater dialogue between stakeholders.

What are the missing pieces needed to stop antibiotic resistance?

As recognized by several international agencies, antibiotic resistance is nowadays one of the most relevant problems for human health. While this problem was alleviated with the introduction of new antibiotics into the market in the golden age of antimicrobial discovery, nowadays few antibiotics are in the pipeline. Under these circumstances, a deep understanding on the mechanisms of emergence, evolution and transmission of antibiotic resistance, as well as on the consequences for the bacterial physiology of acquiring resistance is needed to implement novel strategies, beyond the development of new antibiotics or the restriction in the use of current ones, to more efficiently treat infections. There are still several aspects in the field of antibiotic resistance that are not fully understood. In the current article, we make a non-exhaustive critical review of some of them that we consider of special relevance, in the aim of presenting a snapshot of the studies that still need to be done to tackle antibiotic resistance.

Multidrug Resistance of Escherichia coli From Outpatient Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in a Large United States Integrated Healthcare Organization

Background

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) cause significant disease and economic burden. Uncomplicated UTIs (uUTIs) occur in otherwise healthy individuals without underlying structural abnormalities, with uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) accounting for 80% of cases. With recent transitions in healthcare toward virtual visits, data on multidrug resistance (MDR) (resistant to ≥3 antibiotic classes) by care setting are needed to inform empiric treatment decision making.

Methods

We evaluated UPEC resistance over time by care setting (in-person vs virtual), in adults who received outpatient care for uUTI at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between January 2016 and December 2021.

Results

We included 174 185 individuals who had ≥1 UPEC uUTI (233 974 isolates) (92% female, 46% Hispanic, mean age 52 years [standard deviation 20]). Overall, prevalence of UPEC MDR decreased during the study period (13% to 12%) both in virtual and in-person settings (P for trend <.001). Resistance to penicillins overall (29%), coresistance to penicillins and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) (12%), and MDR involving the 2 plus ≥1 antibiotic class were common (10%). Resistance to 1, 2, 3, and 4 antibiotic classes was found in 19%, 18%, 8%, and 4% of isolates, respectively; 1% were resistant to ≥5 antibiotic classes, and 50% were resistant to none. Similar resistance patterns were observed over time and by care setting.

Conclusions

We observed a slight decrease in both class-specific antimicrobial resistance and MDR of UPEC overall, most commonly involving penicillins and TMP-SMX. Resistance patterns were consistent over time and similar in both in-person and virtual settings. Virtual healthcare may expand access to UTI care.

Treatment decisions in VRE bacteraemia: a survey of infectious diseases pharmacists

Background

VRE infections increased in 2020. High-dose daptomycin (≥10 mg/kg) has shown mortality benefit over other regimens, though daptomycin resistance is increasing. Limited data exist on the practice patterns of ID pharmacists for VRE bloodstream infections (VRE BSIs).

Objectives

To describe practice patterns for VRE BSI in ID pharmacists.

Methods

A 22-question REDCap survey was distributed to ID pharmacist members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Infectious Diseases Practice and Research Network (ID PRN) via e-mail listserv. The survey was distributed on 7 April 2022 and remained open for 4 weeks.

Results

Sixty-eight pharmacists responded. All pharmacists completed additional training or certification in infectious diseases past their PharmD, and most (70.5%) had been practising for 10 years or less. Pharmacists at academic medical centres (80.0%) were more likely (P = 0.001) to have implemented the updated CLSI breakpoints than pharmacists at other types of institutions (55.2%). Daptomycin was the preferred drug for VRE BSI (92.6%), with 10 mg/kg (72.1%) being the preferred dose. Adjusted body weight was the most common weight (61.2%) used for obese patients. Fourteen days (76.1%) was the most common treatment duration for VRE BSI. Pharmacists defined persistent VRE BSI as 5 days (68.7%) after first blood culture.

Conclusions

ID pharmacists overwhelmingly selected high-dose daptomycin for VRE BSI. There were variations in practice and response rate when selecting combination therapy, managing persistent bacteraemia, and treating patients with high daptomycin MICs or previous exposure to daptomycin.

Machine-Learning Model for Prediction of Cefepime Susceptibility in Escherichia coli from Whole-Genome Sequencing Data

The declining cost of performing bacterial whole-genome sequencing (WGS) coupled with the availability of large libraries of sequence data for well-characterized isolates have enabled the application of machine-learning (ML) methods to the development of nonlinear sequence-based predictive models. We tested the ML-based model developed by Next Gen Diagnostics for prediction of cefepime phenotypic susceptibility results in Escherichia coli. A cohort of 100 isolates of E. coli recovered from urine (n = 77) and blood (n = 23) cultures were used. The cefepime MIC was determined in triplicate by reference broth microdilution and classified as susceptible (MIC of ≤2 μg/mL) or not susceptible (MIC of ≥4 μg/mL) using the 2022 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute breakpoints. Five isolates generated both susceptible and not susceptible MIC results, yielding categorical agreement of 95% for the reference method to itself. Categorical agreement of ML to MIC interpretations was 97%, with 2 very major (false, susceptible) and 1 major (false, not susceptible) errors. One very major error occurred for an isolate with blaCTX-M-27 (MIC mode, ≥32 μg/mL) and one for an isolate with blaTEM-34 for which the MIC cefepime mode was 4 μg/mL. One major error was for an isolate with blaCTX-M-27 but with a MIC mode of 2 μg/mL. These preliminary data demonstrated performance of ML for a clinically important antimicrobial-species pair at a caliber similar to phenotypic methods, encouraging wider development of sequence-based susceptibility prediction and its validation and use in clinical practice.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: An updated primer for clinicians in the era of antimicrobial resistance: Insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is a critical function of the clinical microbiology laboratory and is essential for optimizing care of patients with infectious diseases, monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) trends, and informing public health initiatives. Several methods are available for performing AST including broth microdilution, agar dilution, and disk diffusion. Technological advances such as the development of commercial automated susceptibility testing platforms and the advent of rapid diagnostic tests have improved the rapidity, robustness, and clinical application of AST. Numerous accrediting and regulatory agencies are involved in the process of AST and setting and revising breakpoints, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Challenges to optimizing AST include the emergence of new resistance mechanisms, the development of new antimicrobial agents, and generation of new data requiring updates and revisions to established methods and breakpoints. Together, the challenges in AST methods and their interpretation create important opportunities for well-informed clinicians to improve patient outcomes and provide value to antimicrobial stewardship programs, especially in the setting of rapidly changing and increasing AMR. Addressing AST challenges will involve continued development of new technologies along with collaboration between clinicians and the laboratory to facilitate optimal antimicrobial use, combat the increasing burden of AMR, and inform the development of novel antimicrobials. This updated primer serves to reinforce important principles of AST, and to provide guidance on their implementation and optimization.

Clinical Impact of Ceftriaxone Resistance in Escherichia coli Bloodstream Infections: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding.

Results

Notable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1-35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0-6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%-61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (-5.3% [95% CI, -10.3% to -.4%] and -1.8 [95% CI, -6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5-13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4-9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045).

Conclusions

Patients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.

What's New in Antibiograms? Updating CLSI M39 Guidance with Current Trends

A vast amount of antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) data is generated from routine testing in diagnostic laboratories for the primary purpose of guiding clinicians in antimicrobial therapy decisions for their patients. However, there is additional value for these data when they are compiled at the local, regional, national, and global levels. Cumulative AST data can be used to prepare antibiograms at the individual health care facility level. These reports can be used to gain insight into appropriate empirical therapy options prior to the availability of AST results on an individual patient's isolate. Different types of cumulative AST data reports can also be compiled at the regional, national, and global levels to estimate susceptibility rates in geographic regions, document trends in evolving microbial populations, and recognize the appearance and spread of emerging antimicrobial resistance threats. The first CLSI M39 Guideline for Analysis and Presentation of Cumulative AST Data was published in 2000. Since that time, there have been changes to AST and reporting recommendations as well as the introduction of advanced informatics technologies to analyze and present data. The 5th edition of M39 has taken into consideration these changes to assist those who analyze, present, and utilize routine antibiograms and other types of cumulative AST data reports as well as those who design information systems for the capturing and analyzing of AST data. Furthermore, antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have expanded considerably, and uses of the antibiogram by ASPs have been addressed. This minireview will remind users of the basic recommendations for analysis and presentation of antibiograms and provide new suggestions to enhance these reports.

A Multicenter Comparison of Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Rates in the US (2016 to 2020): Facility-Reported Rates versus Rates Based on Updated Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute Breakpoints

Adoption of revised antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints is often slow, potentially leading to underreporting of antimicrobial resistance. We compared facility-reported rates of carbapenem nonsusceptibility (NS; intermediate or resistant) with NS rates based on current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for Enterobacterales or Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in ambulatory and inpatient adults in the BD Insights Research Database (US) from 2016 to 2020. Overall, 77.4% (937,926/1,211,845) and 90.6% (2,157,785/2,381,824) of nonduplicate Enterobacterales isolates with facility-reported susceptibility results had MIC data for ertapenem (ETP) and imipenem/meropenem/doripenem (IPM/MEM/DOR), respectively; 86.9% (255,844/294,426) of P. aeruginosa isolates had MIC data for IPM/MEM/DOR. Facility-reported susceptibility and susceptibility based on CLSI criteria resulted in comparable carbapenem susceptibility rates (99.3% versus 99.1% for ETP-susceptible Enterobacterales, 98.9% versus 98.4% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible Enterobacterales, and 84.9% versus 83.3% for IPM/MEM/DOR-susceptible P. aeruginosa). However, compared with CLSI criteria, facilities underreported Enterobacterales- and IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 18.8% and 26.5%, respectively, and P. aeruginosa IPM/MEM/DOR-NS isolates by 9.8%. Underreporting was observed for both intermediate and resistant isolates. Our data suggest that delayed adoption of revised breakpoints has a small but potentially important impact on reported rates of antimicrobial resistance. Facilities should be aware of local epidemiology, evaluate potential underreporting of resistance, and assess the related clinical impact. IMPORTANCE Clinicians often base antimicrobial therapeutic decisions on laboratory determinations of pathogen susceptibility to an antibiotic based on MIC breakpoints. MIC breakpoints evolve over time based on new information; between 2010 and 2012 the CLSI lowered carbapenem breakpoints for Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and these were subsequently adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Carbapenems are important therapeutic options for these difficult-to-treat pathogens, so understanding resistance rates is critically important. However, laboratories can be slow to adopt updated breakpoints. We used MIC data to evaluate whether reports received by hospitals for carbapenem susceptibility were consistent with updated CLSI breakpoints. Although overall susceptibility rates were similar between hospital reports and susceptibility based on updated CLSI criteria, the percentages of carbapenem-resistant isolates were significantly underreported by hospital reports. Delayed adoption of MIC breakpoints may impact epidemiological understanding of resistance and contribute to the spread of resistant pathogens.

The Practical Problem With Carbapenem Testing and Reporting Accurate Bacterial Susceptibilities

Background: Antibiotic resistance is an evolving issue which requires constant review. Susceptibility breakpoints are revised in line with new microbiological and pharmacological data. Susceptibility breakpoints for carbapenems and Enterobacterales were revised in response to the rise in resistance and the potential for standard doses of carbapenems to provide the necessary antibiotic exposure and to accurately identify rates of carbapenem resistance.

Objectives: This review sought to identify real-world implications associated with lack of testing and reporting current carbapenem breakpoints and potential barriers that may impede implementation of these strategies.

Methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases.

Results: The failure to adopt revised breakpoints incurs negative clinical outcomes and carries increased cost implications. However, there were several impediments highlighted which are barriers for laboratories to implement breakpoint updates.

Conclusion: Possible practical steps to implement revised breakpoints which apply to carbapenems and Enterobacterales are proposed. The challenge for laboratories is to be aware and implement these changes to provide accurate and relevant susceptibility results for clinicians.