Assessment of 30/20-Microgram disk content versus MIC results for ceftazidime-Avibactam tested against enterobacteriaceae and pseudomonas aeruginosa

13Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We evaluated the correlation between MIC and disk diffusion inhibition zones when testing ceftazidime-avibactam, using the 30/20-g disk and the disk diffusion and MIC breakpoints established by the U.S. FDA and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Organisms used included 2 groups of Enterobacteriaceae isolates and 2 groups of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates; 1 group of each consisted of randomly selected isolates and the second group consisted of a challenge group from thousands of surveillance isolates with an increased proportion of organisms displaying ceftazidime-avibactam MIC values close to the breakpoints. Broth microdilution, disk diffusion tests, and data analysis were performed according to reference standardized methods. Ceftazidime-avibactam breakpoints of 8/4 (susceptible) and 16/4 g/ml (resistant) for MIC and 21/20 mm for disk diffusion, as established by the U.S. FDA and the CLSI, were applied for Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime-avibactam MIC and disk zone (30/20-g disk) correlation were acceptable when testing Enterobacteriaceae (overall, very major [VM] and major [Ma] error rates of 0.4% and 0.0%, respectively) and nearly so when testing P. aeruginosa (2.3% VM and 2.9% Ma errors). In summary, disk diffusion and broth microdilution testing results demonstrated good categorical agreement for ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, using 30/20-g disks.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sader, H. S., Rhomberg, P. R., Huband, M. D., Critchley, I. A., Stone, G. G., Flamm, R. K., & Jones, R. N. (2018). Assessment of 30/20-Microgram disk content versus MIC results for ceftazidime-Avibactam tested against enterobacteriaceae and pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 56(6). https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01960-17

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free