Polymyxin B resistance rates in carbapenem‑resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and a comparison between Etest® and broth microdilution methods of antimicrobial susceptibility testing

  • Chen X
  • Xu J
  • Zhu Q
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Polymyxin B has been considered to be the last line of defense for life-threatening infections caused by multiple drug resistant gram-negative pathogens, including carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA). The present study analyzed CRPA resistance to polymyxin B in the Suzhou district of China. Additionally, polymyxin B resistance rates were compared in different parts of the world to determine global trends. The present study also assessed the reliability and effectiveness of the Etest® in a clinical setting, as laboratories lack a reliable and efficient susceptibility test for polymyxin B. The susceptibility rate of polymyxin B reached 96.0%, which is in accordance with results obtained from the United States of America, Europe, Africa and the majority of Asian countries. However, the rate of polymyxin B non-susceptibility (resistant or intermediate) in Singapore is 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.93). In addition, the susceptibility rate of polymyxin B determined via Etest® was not significantly increased compared with that determined via broth microdilution (98.0 vs. 96.0%; P=0.558). Essential and categorical agreement rates reached 98.0%. In conclusion, the polymyxin B resistance rate of CRPA isolates is relatively low in the majority of countries, with the exception of Singapore. Furthermore, Etest® may be a reliable clinical method for the measurement of polymyxin B resistance in CRPA isolates.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, X., Xu, J., Zhu, Q., Ren, Y., & Zhao, L. (2020). Polymyxin B resistance rates in carbapenem‑resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and a comparison between Etest® and broth microdilution methods of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 20(2), 762–769. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.8777

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