View
10
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Educational Workshop EW01: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing with EUCAST breakpoints and methods Arranged with EUCAST (The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing)
Convenors: Gunnar Kahlmeter, Växjö, SE
Rafael Canton Moreno, Madrid, ES
Faculty: Rafael Canton Moreno, Madrid, ES
Susan J. Howard, Manchester, UK Johan W. Mouton, Rotterdam, NL
Iztok Strumbelj, Murska Sobota, SI
Alasdair P. MacGowan, Bristol, UK Derek F.J. Brown, Peterborough, UK Sören G. Gatermann, Bochum, Germany
Ronald N. Jones, North Liberty, IA, USA
Marked in red = no handouts available
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints, 2015
www.EUCAST.org
Departamento de Microbiología IIUniversidad Complutense. Madrid
www.eucast.org
http://www.eucast.orgTop countries % visits-Q2014
Unknown 17,6
USA 10,6
Germany 10.1
UK 6.1
Netherlands 5.7
Switzerland 4.0
Itally 3.9
Sweden 3.6
Denmark 3.3
Belgium 2.8
France 2.2
Norway 1.9
Spain 1.8
Austria 1.7
Finland 1.7
China 1.7
Australia 1.5
Japan 1.5
Visits:
- 50.000-60.000 visitors/month (60% from EU)
Pages more visited (each visitor may seeeach page more than once)
- home 45.9%- clinical breakpoints 69.2% - MIC/zone distributions 5.5% - expert rules 3.3%- resistance mechanisms 3.2%
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
http://www.eucast.org
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Overall EU
No. of visitors per month
2012 20142013
EUCAST-related publications
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
*January-March, 2015
Yearly evolution of publications in PubMed including “EUCAST” in the title and/or abstract
No.
of p
ublic
atio
ns
EUCAST General Committee (GC)All European Countries + Countries from outside
EUCAST Steering CommitteeBSAC, CA‐SFM, CRG, NWGA, SRGA, NAK
+ 2 reps from the GC ± 1‐2 “visiting” members from the GC
SubcommitteesAntifungals (AFST)
VetCASTWhole genome sequencing and AST
National Breakpoint CommitteesF, N, NL, S, UK, DE
Experts (ECDC Networks,
ESCMID Study Groups) Industry
NACs = National Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Testing Committees
Contract 2011-14
2015 www.eucast.org
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
EUCAST translations
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
National Antimicrobial Committees (NACs) outside Europe
Countries with a NAC operating under EUCAST standards
Countries with interest to establish a NAC under EUCAST standards
EUCAST subcommittees
Subcommittees
Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST AFST) Standing subcommittee established in 2002
Veterinary Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (VetCAST). Standing Subcommittee established in 2015
Subcommittee on the role of whole genome sequencing in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Established in 2015.
Former subcommittees
Subcommittee on Expert Rules and Intrinsic Resistance. Established in 2007, disbanded 2011.
Subcommittee on Anaerobe Susceptibility Testing Established in 2007, disbanded 2011.
Subcommittee on the detection of resistance mechanisms of clinical and/or public health importance. Established in 2011, disbanded 2014.
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
Veterinary committee on AST (VetCAST)
Formed in 2015, dealing with antimicrobial susceptibility testing(AST) of bacterial pathogens of animal origin and zoonotic bacteria
Remit…
- To establish a science‐based committee to cooperate with EUprofessionals in veterinary medicine, EMA, ECDC and EFSA
- To determine antimicrobial breakpoints specific to the veterinary field
- To harmonize veterinary AST in the EU
- To provide AST/antimicrobial therapy education in the veterinary field
- To initiate and coordinate EU research aimed at filling the currentgaps in veterinary AST
– Missing or insufficient veterinary specific breakpoints– Optimized methods for AST of bacterial pathogens of animal origin
- To ensure that AST protocols and interpretive criteria are freelyaccessible online through the EUCAST website
Chairman (Dik Mevious), Secretary (Peter Damborg), …
Subcommittee on the role of whole genomesequencing (WGS) in AST of bacteria
Formed in 2015 with the following remit
- perform a systematic literature review of the role of WGS in antimicro-bial susceptibility testing (AST) of bacteria (excluding mycobacteria)
- determine the sensitivity and specificity of WGS compared withstandard phenotypic AST
- determine how WGS may be applied in clinical laboratories and the likely implications for phenotypic and other genotypic methods in use
- determine the epidemiological implications of using WGS
- determine the clinical implications of WGS for the selection of antimicrobial therapy
- determine the principles of how the result of WGS for AST would bebest presented to clinical users
- describe the drivers and barriers to routine use of WGS
Coordinator (Alasdair MacGowan), ...
EUCAST Development Laboratories (Nov 2014 …)
Development and maintenance of EUCAST antimicrobialsusceptibility testing (AST) methods
- Bacteria (Växjö, Sweden)- Fungi (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark)
Coordination of he EUCAST Network Laboratories in thedevelopment and validation of EUCAST methods, training,education and technical support to other laboratories.
EUCAST network laboratories (Nov 2014 …)
Microbiology laboratories with particular expertise andtraining in EUCAST AST for bacteria and/or fungal isolates
Develop, validate and troubleshoot EUCAST methodsand/or train and educate other laboratories
Assist clinical breakpoint development by providingspecies -specific MIC datasets
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
Templete for RDs, 40 documents (New: ceftaroline;
Drafted: cetobiprol, macrolides, penicillins, cephalosporins, SXT,
aztreonam, choramphenicol)
SOP 8.0. Format and updating of EUCAST documents
SOP 9.0. Procedure for establishingzone diameter breakpoints andQC criteria for new antibiotics
Implementation of EUCAST break-points for AST (Euro surveillance)
Euro Surveillance 2015;20:pii=21008
0
1020
304050
6070
8090
100
Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 11 Apr 12 Dez 12 Mrz 13 Sep 13 Feb 14 Mrz 15
Per
cen
t o
f la
bo
rato
ries
CLSIAll EUCAST
Uptake of EUCAST guidelines by participants in UKNEQAS (updated)
Courtesy of Derek Brown and Christine Walton
MIC vs zone diameters files Disk diffusion manual and slide show Breakpoint and QC tables v5.0 Compliance of manufacturers
Frequently Asked QuestionsMarch 23rd , 2015
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
Links to different pages (microorganisms) and EUCAST documents:- guidance documents, expert rules- detection of resistance mechanisms- breakpoints for topical use of antimicrobial agents
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
Guidance on reading EUCAST breakpoint tables
New format for comments
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
New and revised breakpoints
Enterobacteriaceae Amikacin (zone diameters)
Staphylococcus spp. Telavancin (new)
Moraxella catarrhalis Ceftaroline (change from dash to IE)
Neisseria menigitidis Ciprofloxacin (remove intermediate catergory)
Neisseria gonorrhoeae Cefpodoxime,ceftibuten (change from IE to dash)
Clostridium difficile Fidaxomicin (new)
M. tuberculosis Delamanid and bedaquiline (new)
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
New EUCAST breakpoints, April 2015
Staphylococcus spp. Dalbavancin, Oritavancin, Tedizolid (new)
Strep. group A, B, C, G Dalbavancin, Oritavancin, Tedizolid (new)
Strep. anginosus group Dalbavancin, Oritavancin, Tedizolid (new)
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
Rewording of notes, new notes
Telavancin, tigecycline, Information on testing conditionsdaptomycin, fosfomycin
Aztreonam Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp.
Trimethoprim-sulfameth. Stenotrophomonas maltophiliaEnterococcus spp.
Cephalosporins Staphylococcus spp.
Clindamycin Strept. groups A, B, C and DStreptococcus pneumoniaeViridans group streptococci
Quality control data
Haemophillus influenzae Moraxella catharralis Pasterurella multocida
Clindamycin induble phenotype (MLSB)
EUCAST breakpoints, 2015 (version 5.0)
Inducible clindamycin resistance can be detected by antagonism ofclindamycin activity by a macrolide agent
Place the erythromycin and clindamycin disks 12-20 mm apart (edge toedge) and look for antagonism (the D phenomenon)
Antagonisms Report clindamycin
Organisms Comment to the report
No detected S Staphylococcus spp.
Detected R Staphylococcus spp. Clindamycin may still be used for short-term therapy of less serious skin and soft tissue infections as constitutive resistance is unlikely to develop during such therapy
R Strept. group A,B,C,GS. pneumoniaeViridans g. streptococci
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
Mycobacterium tuberculosis EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Table v. 5.0, valid from 2015-01-01
EUCAST was tasked with suggesting to EMA breakpoints for new agents but has so far not addressed breakpoints for existing agents.
Recommended methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of mycobacteria are currently under discussion.
S ? R >
Delamanid 0,06 0,06
Bedaquiline 0.25 0.25
MIC breakpoint (mg/L)
Notes Numbers for comments on MIC breakpoints
EUCAST breakpoints: Delamanid and Bedaquiline
EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Table v. 5.0, valid from 2015-01-01
≤
EUCAST breakpoints
Reviewed breakpoints with no changes:
- linezolid and staphylococci and enterococci
- teicoplanin and coagulase negative staphylococci
- fluoroquinolones and Corynebacterium spp.
- metronidazole and anaerobes
- daptomycin and enterococci
Superficial skin and external eye and ear infections but notfor bowel decontamination or inhaled agents
EUCAST has not found a consensus to resolve different opinions
- use ECOFFs for agents when used topically - use clinical breakpoints when available and ECOFF when
there are not clinical breakpoints
Acceptable distributions are not available for all topical agents
Only specific breakpoints for nasal decolonisation of S. aureuswith mupirocin is supported with clinical data
If tissue is involved the use of systemic treatment and systemic breakpoints should be considered
Guidance note on breakpoints for topical agents
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
ECOFFs and systemic clinical breakpoints for antimicrobial agentsthat are used topically
- = inappropriate combination; IE = insufficient evidence to set a clinical breakpoint; ND = No ECOFF defined on EUCAST MIC distribution website 1Agents also available for systemic use 2Breakpoints for nasal decontamination S≤1, R>256 mg/l.
Guidance note on breakpoints for topical agents
New and ongoing breakpoints (BP) and methodology
- EMA β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, cephalosporinsaminoglycosides, and oxazolidinones, pleuromutillin
guidelines for companies submitting anti-mycobacterial agents
- CLSI colistin and methodology
- NACs temocillin, nitroxoline, spiramycin, tigecycline, sulbactam
- Antimicrobial groups: fluoroquinolones and carbapenems
- Neisseria gonorrhoeae and different antimicrobials
- Breakpoints for Actinomyces spp., Eikenella corrhodens
New RD documents (new agents and new RD due to revised BP)
New documents, technical notes / guidance documents - new version of expert rules (v3)- SOPs (revision of breakpoints)
New EUCAST definition of the intermediate category and ECOFF
EUCAST: What is coming for 2015-16?
www.eucast.org
Canton - Update on EUCAST methods and breakpoints
EUCAST Development Laboratory
andEUCAST Network
laboratories
Acknowledgements
More information:
- Saturday 16:30 – 18:30, Hall B Resurrecting old antimicrobial agents
- Sunday 09.00 – 10.30, Meeting Room 19EUCAST Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) General Committee Meeting
11.30 – 12.30, Hall BBenefits and challenges of site-specificbreakpoints
- Monday 13.00 – 14.30, Hall NEUCAST General Committee meeting
17.30 – 18.30, Meeting Room 6EUCAST Veterinary Subcommittee onAntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (VetCAST)
- Tuesday 07.45 – 08.45, Hall IMeet the Experts. EUCAST: frequently askedquestions
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Dr Susan J Howard
Manchester, UK
Scientific Secretary
EUCAST Antifungal Steering Committee
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Disclosures ‐ none
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Agenda
• Setting the scene
• Methodology outline
• ECOFF/breakpoint setting
• Current guidelines
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Agenda
• Setting the scene
• Methodology outline
• ECOFF/breakpoint setting
• Current guidelines
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Background
• The mortality rate associated with fungal disease is dire
• Susceptibility is just one factor affecting outcome
• Limited therapeutic drug class options
• Global antifungal drug budget is significant (est. $US 5.7 billion in 2014)
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Why Susceptibility Test?
• Intrinsic resistance
• Acquired resistance (increasing in some
settings)
• Some identifications challenging/slow
• Historically multiple/differing
methodologies, with no/limited breakpoints
to allow comparison/interpretation
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Agenda
• Setting the scene
• Methodology outline
• ECOFF/breakpoint setting
• Current guidelines
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Methodology
• Commercially available tests
– Including disc diffusion, Sensititre, Vitek and Etest
• Broth dilution reference methods
– CLSI & EUCAST
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
EUCAST Method
P NDrug dilutions
• Flat bottom plates
• RPMI with 2% glucose and MOPS
• Incubate at 35 ± 2˚C
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
YeastsFermentative yeasts E.DEF 7.2 (2012)
– 0.5‐2.5 x 105 cells/mL
– 24 h and OD ≥ 0.2
– Spectrophotometer
– 90% endpoint (AMB) / 50% endpoint (all others)
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
MouldsConidia forming moulds E.DEF 9.2 (2014)
– 1‐2.5 x 105 cells/mL
(avoid clumps)
– 48 h adequate growth*
(*24h may be sufficient for
some zygomycetes,
some moulds require 72h)
– Visual endpoint reading
amphotericin & azoles =
no growth endpoint (MIC)
echinocandins =
aberrant growth (MEC)
CntFlu16‐0.125
Vor Itra4‐0.03
Amb Casp8‐0.06
MIC/MEC 0.5 ≤0.06 0.5 0.5 >16
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
MEC Aspergillus
Growth control Aberrant growth
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Agenda
• Setting the scene
• Methodology outline
• ECOFF/breakpoint setting
• Current guidelines
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
ECOFFs versus Breakpoints
Epidemiological cut off value (ECOFFs)
– Based on the wild‐type MIC distributions– Upper limit of WT isolates – Typically describes isolates with identical susceptibility
– Typically describes isolates with no resistance mechanisms
Clinical breakpoints
– Take other factors (e.g. PK/PD and clinical data) into account
– More later…
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
http://mic.eucast.org/Eucast2/
ECOFF:
≤32 µg/ml
MIC50
WTpopulation
Non‐WT
• May or may not respond depending on host & drug exposure
• Harbour resistance mechanisms
EUCAST fluconazole MIC C. glabrata
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Wild‐type MIC Distributions34 different C. glabrata isolates
Arendrup AAC 2009
‐25
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
No. of isolates
MIC (µg/ml)
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Wild‐type MIC Distributions34 different C. glabrata isolates
Arendrup AAC 2009
‐25
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
No. of isolates
MIC (µg/ml)
A single C. glabrata isolate tested 51 times
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Variability in Wild‐type Distributions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0,25 0,5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
MIC (µg/ml)
No.
of
Isol
ates
C. glabrata repetitions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
MIC (µg/ml)
No.
of
Isol
ates
One step lower
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
MIC (µg/ml)
No.
of
Isol
ates
One step higher 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 >16
MIC (µg/ml)
No.
of
Isol
ates
One step lower C. glabrata repetitions One step higher
Reflects the inherent susceptibility of the WT population
Arendrup AAC 2009
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Caspofungin and Variability (EUCAST)
No. of C. albicans isolates at the individual EUCAST MICs (mg/L) No.
Tested0.002 0.004 0.007 0.015 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 ≥ 4
CFG
Lab 1 ND ND ND 20 30 35 45 130
Lab 2 ND ND ND ND ND 123 162 209 102 9 1 606
Lab 3 ND ND ND ND ND 10 161 219 8 5 1 404
Lab 4 ND ND ND 2 105 264 182 54 11 3 1 4 626
Lab 5 ND ND 6 12 12 5 3 38
Lab 6 ND ND ND ND 25 5 1 31
Lab 7 ND ND ND ND 1 2 14 330 373 1 721
MFG
Lab 1 ND ND ND ND 107 107
Lab 2 ND 121 2 123
Lab 3 ND 34 19 12 30 4 1 100
Lab 4 ND 78 19 2 1 100
Lab 5 ND ND ND 520 35 2 1 2 560
Lab 6 4 87 252 239 4 4 590
Lab 7 ND ND 87 2 89
EUCAST MIC50 is highlighted
Considerable variation for caspofungin
EUCAST abstained from setting cut offs
Espinel‐Ingroff AAC 2013, Arendrup Mycoses in press
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Population with WT and non‐WT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.
5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128
256
MIC (μg/ml)
No
. of
iso
late
s
R
One step higher
C. glabrata repetitions
One step lower
Non‐WTwith MIC50 64 µg/ml(4 steps higher)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.
5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128
256
MIC (μg/ml)
No
. of
iso
late
s
Non‐WT with MIC50 32 µg/ml(3 steps higher)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
MIC (μg/ml)
No
. of
iso
late
s
Non‐WT with MIC50 16 µg/ml(2 steps higher)
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Real Life Breakpoint ExampleA. fumigatus
Itraconazole
Clear separation WT and non‐WT
Verweij Drug Res Updates 2009
Posaconazole
Overlap WT and non‐WT further analysis needed to identify all non‐WT
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
EUCAST BP Setting Process
• MIC distributions
– Per species
– Several data sets
– Epidemiological Cut Off Value (ECOFF)
• Dosing regimens used
• PK/PD
• MIC‐clinical outcome relationships
– Per species
– For wild type and non‐wild type isolates
Arendrup Drug Res Updates 2014
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.016
0.032
0.064
0.125
0.25
0.5 1 2 4 816
32
64
128
256
512
Isolates
MIC
C. krusei
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Isolates
C. glabrata
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
Isolates
C. albicans
ECOFF versus Breakpoint (flucon)
www.eucast.org
C. albicans BP (S: ≤x ; R: >y) ECOFF 1 mg/L ≤2 mg/L ; >4 mg/L
C. glabrata BPECOFF 32 mg/L ≤0.002 mg/L ; >32 mg/L
C. krusei BPECOFF 128 mg/L none – not a good target
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Agenda
• Setting the scene
• Methodology outline
• ECOFF/breakpoint setting
• Current guidelines
Howard ‐ Antifungal breakpoints and susceptibility testing
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Website
www.eucast.org
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
ECOFF/Breakpoint Updates
• Recent updates (since ECCMID 2014):
– Mould E.DEF 9.2 definitive document
– Itraconazole Candida rationale document
– BP table (itra Candida BP added, caspo BP comment revised)
• Forthcoming documents to look out for in 2015:
– Amphotericin Candida rationale document
– Posaconazole Candida rationale document
– Voriconazole Candida rationale document
– Isavuconazole Aspergillus rationale document
Anti-Fungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee
EUCAST‐AFST: MC Arendrup (Chair), WW Hope (Secretary), M Cuenca‐Estrella & C Lass‐FlörlEUCAST AFST SC: Arendrup (chair), Howard (secretary), Meletiadis (data manager), Mouton, Cuenca‐Estrella, Lass‐Flörl
Thank you for your attention
Acknowledgements
The EUCAST Steering Committee Maiken ArendrupJoseph MeletiadisJohan MoutonManuel Cuenca‐EstrellaCornelia Lass‐Flörl
The EUCAST General (Sub) Committee
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
1
Iztok Štrumbelj
• National Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food
Maribor, Slovenia
National introduction of EUCASTbreakpoints and methods
• Slovenian National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Committee
2
Disclosure.
Iztok Štrumbelj: no conflict of interest, nothing to disclose.
3
Slovenia• Population: 2 million • Independent since 1991
http://www.slovenia.info/
Purpose:to describe the introduction of European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) bacteriology breakpoints and methods in Slovenia.
http://www.itis.si/zemljevid
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
4
Hospitals in Slovenia
29 hospitals (26 public, 3 private), most samples from:
• 2 university clinical centres• 11 general hospitals
Source: Zdravstveni statistični letopis 2012, Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje (NIJZ).
Medical microbiology laboratories are parts of different public institutions
• 1 university laboratory (Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana)
• 8 laboratories are departments of Centre for Medical Microbiology of National Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food
• 3 are hospital laboratories
5
Certified medical microbiology laboratories in Slovenia
Quality system (QS) and certification of diagnostic laboratories1. Quality system (QS), published in Official Gazette of Republic of Slovenia2. Audit of laboratory QS by independent Commission3. If requirements met: “permission to work” issued by Ministry of Health for 5
years.
List of certified diagnostic laboratories in the field of clinical bacteriology published at the website of Ministry of Health. (accessed March 19th, 2015)
12 laboratories:‐ 1 specialised in mycobacteriology‐ 11 perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing of common bacteria
6
Slovenian National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Committee Slovenian acronym: SKUOPZSlovenska komisija za ugotavljanje občutljivosti za protimikrobna zdravila
• Established: at the end of 2010.• Members: at least one member from each certified laboratory and one
member from National Institute of Public Health
• Two working areas:
a) Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST)b) Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) ‐ three annual national reports
were published on web (2011, 2012, 2013).
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
http://www.imi.si/strokovna‐zdruzenja/skuopz
Example page from SKUOPZ annual national report
8
Antimicrobial susceptiblity testing (AST)methods used in Slovenia
Disk diffusion method used as principal method.
For MIC determination, gradient diffusion method is mostly used. Always for anaerobes.
Standard microdilution method not used routinely.
Automated AST systems used in few laboratories.
Both, MICs and zones, entered and interpreted in LIS.
9
Transition from CLSI to EUCAST
Introduction, June 2013
• EUCAST presented in ISIS – official journal of Slovenian Medical Chamber• Symposium about EUCAST for microbiologists and clinicians
The process, June 2013 – April 2014
Three main points• Laboratory information system (LIS) upgrade. • Laboratory methods. • Information for clinicians.
Final control• Results of external quality assessment.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Note: in this presentation, “agent” means “antimicrobial agent”.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
10
Introduction, June 2013. EUCAST presented in ISIS – official journal of Slovenian Medical Chamber.Symposium with international speakers for microbiologists and clinicians, round table. Final unanimous decision: EUCAST should be introduced.
12
Consensus
During the whole process of EUCAST implementation – all decisions of SKUOPZ were accepted by consensus.
The first major decision was critical.
• Request of some clinicians: to supplement EUCAST breakpoints with breakpoints from other AST systems, if EUCAST has no breakpoint for an agent / species (e.g. ampicilin‐sulbactam and Acinetobacter baumannii)
• SKUOPZ decision: unacceptable. “Mixing” breakpoints would lead to a confusion.
Strict use of EUCAST interpretations was followed:
(‐) dash in the EUCAST breakpoint tables: no testing or resistant result.(IE) insufficient evidence in the breakpoint tables: if necessary (rarely) MIC
can be determined, but without interpretation into SIR category.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
13
Laboratory information system (LIS) upgrade (1)
Review of processes:
Identification of need: what do we want from LIS (responsibility of SKUOPZ)
Dedicated clinical microbiologist and software expert Alenka Štorman communicatedthe need for changes to software provider who finally implemented all software changes.
Alenka Štorman personally performed amazing amount of extensive and difficult tasks:
entered all breakpoint values (MICs and zones) into LIS wrote all comments (prepared by SKUOPZ) into LIS linked them to the proper AST result for different species / agents validated LIS after changes were implemented.
14
Laboratory information system (LIS) upgrade (2)
All laboratories use the same LIS provided by a Slovenian software company. The software development was started by Jana Kolman, MD and Alenka Štorman, MD, clinical microbiologists, in mid‐nineties.
INTERPRETATION OF ZONES AND MICs (into S, I, R category).
Background: it is not rare that one MIC / disk zone is interpreted differently for different species or that interpretation of MIC /zone is limited only to few species within bacterial group.
Automatic interpretation of MICs / zones, linked to different species, makes life easier.
Result of upgrade: all zones (calliper is used) and MICs are entered into LIS, where automatically interpreted as S, I or R.
Very rarely, manual correction of the result is necessary.
LIS precludes S, I, R interpretation if there are no EUCAST breakpoints.
15
Laboratory information system (LIS) upgrade (3)
COMMENTS OF RESULTS appearing on the results form
Background: for proper interpretation of many EUCAST results (S, I or R), comments are common and essential.
Basic idea: to make comments as user friendly as possible for laboratories (automatic link of the comment with the specific result of an agent) and clinicians (as short and as clear as possible).
Considerable amount of work and discussions was necessary to integrate (or split)guidelines and rules from different EUCAST documents into software rules so thatcomments are added to laboratory reports automatically ‐ 99 different comments were entered into LIS.
Result of LIS upgrade: comments are linked to the results so that appropriate comment is automatically linked to the agent or agent result.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
16
Breakpoints may be different for different species within a group
Species specific breakpoints within a group.
Software precludes use of inappropriate breakpoints for the species tested.
Example: Staphylococcus spp. ‐ breakpoints for cefoxitin screen disk (surrogate disk for “methicillin “ susceptibility / resistance)
Species Zone – methicilin susceptible
S. aureus, S. lugdunensis and S. saprophyticus
S ≥ 22
S. pseudintermedius S ≥ 35
Other coagulase‐negative staphylococci S ≥ 25
17
Breakpoints may be limited to some species within a group
There is no interpretation (no breakpoints) for other species in the group.
Software precludes interpretation for species without breakpoints.
Example 1. Systemic infections.
Example 2. Uncomplicated urinary tract infections only.
Group Agent Breakpoints limited to
Enterobacteriaceae Cefuroxime iv E. coli, Klebsiella spp. andP. mirabilis
Group Agent Breakpoints limited to
Enterobacteriaceae Nitrofurantoin E. coli
Enterococcus spp. Nitrofurantoin E. faecalis
Staphylococcus spp. Nitrofurantoin S. saprophyticus
Streptococcus spp. Nitrofurantoin S. agalactiae
18
Manual correction of results
Example 1. Staphylococcus spp., inducible clindamycin resistance.
Example 2. Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin.
Agent, disk “Zone test result” Reason for change
Final result forthe agent
Clindamycin Zone ≥ 22 mm, S – susceptible.
Positive D‐phenomenon.
R ‐ resistant
Agent, disk “Zone test result” Reason for change
Final result forthe agent
Penicillin Zone ≥ 26 mm, S ‐ susceptible
The zone edge is sharp.
R ‐ resistant
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
19
Comments / notes in the report
• Few comments are added manually, e.g. when resistance mechanism is determined.
• Most of comments appear automatically ‐ they are linked to an element. “Element” is isolate and:
1. the agent or2. result of the agent or3. MIC of the agent.
• Comment may be a translation of EUCAST note or synthesis of several data from EUCAST documents (e.g. several notes in breakpoint tables).
• One comment may be used for several different elements.
20
Comments linked to the agent
Applicability of the result of an agent to other agents
• Isolate: Staphylococcus spp. Agent: erythromycin• Comment: Result of erythromycin applies also to azithromycin,
clarithromycin and roxithromycin.
• Isolate: Streptococcus agalactiae. Agent: penicillin.• Comment: Streptococcus agalactiae ‐ result of penicillin applies also to
other penicillins (with the exception of phenoxymethylpenicillin and isoxazolylpenicillins), to cephalosporins (with the exception of cefiximeand ceftazidime) and to carbapenemes.
Explanation about the agent tested
• Isolate from urine: Enterococcus spp. Agent: norfloksacin disk is tested.• Comment: Enterococcus ‐ result of norfloksacin disk is valid for
ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, not for norfloxacin. Result applies to uncomplicated urinary tract infections only.
21
Comments linked to the dose of an agent
General comment about high dose.• Isolate: Pseudomonas spp. • Agent: ceftazidime• Comment: Result applies to high dose therapy.
Specific once‐daily application of high daily dose.• Isolate: Pseudomonas spp. • Agent: gentamicin.• Comment: Result applies to once‐daily administration of high
aminoglycoside dosages.
Specific dose of an agent for the isolate; comment may be specific for S or I result.
• Isolate: isolate without species specific breakpoint, PK/PD breakpoints used.
• Agent: imipenem.• Comment: Breakpoints apply to imipenem 500 mg x 4 daily administered
intravenously over 30 minutes as the lowest dose. 1 g x 4 daily was taken into consideration for severe infections and in setting the R breakpoint.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
22
Comments linked to the SIR result of an agent Agent : methicillin (tested with cefoxitin disk, reported as oxacillin result).
Isolate: any staphylococcus. Result: S.Comment: Oxacillin susceptible staphylococcal isolate is also susceptible to
other antistaphyloccal penicillins (e.g. cloxacillin, flucloxacillin), to penicillins with betalactamase inhibitors, to carbapenemes and to cephalosporins ‐ except for ceftazidime, cefixime and ceftibuten, which should not be used for staphylococcal infections.
Isolate: Stapylococcus aureus *Result: R.Comment: Stapylococcus aureus, resistant to oxacillin, is resistant to all beta‐
lactam agents; exceptions are ceftaroline and ceftobiprole if their antimicrobial susceptibility result is susceptibility (S).
* Note: Comments for CNS are slightly different ‐ no ceftaroline and ceftobiprole breakpoint.
23
Comments linked to the MIC of an agent
Isolate: Streptococcus pneumoniae. Comments relate to treatment of pneumonia.
Result and comment for parenteral penicillin, non‐meningeal criteria:
24
Sources.
Links to following »basic« documents are provided on the EUCAST web sitehttp://www.eucast.org (current versions, accessed 25th March 2015).
General information at: http://www.eucast.org•The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 5.0, 2015. •Leclercq R et al. EUCAST expert rules in antimicrobial susceptibility testing (2011)•Giske CG et al. EUCAST guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or epidemiological importance. (Version 1.0. December 2013)•Guidance Document on Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (1 Feb 2012)•Guidance Document on Burkholderia cepacia group (20 July, 2013)•Guidance Document on Breakpoints for topical use of antimicrobial agents (2014)•Check list to facilitate implementation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing with EUCAST breakpoints (2010)•EUCAST QC table v 5.0 (2015‐01‐11)•Preparation of plates and media for EUCAST AST (v 4.0, 19 June, 2014) •Compliance of manufacturers of susceptibility testing devices and materials (25 September, 2014)
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
25
Disk‐diffusion documents at: http://www.eucast.org(current versions, accessed 25th March 2015).•EUCAST Disk Diffusion ‐Manual (v 5.0, 26 January, 2015)•EUCAST Disk Diffusion ‐ Slide Show (v 5.0, 26 January, 2015)•EUCAST Disk Diffusion ‐ Reading Guide (v. 4.0, 19 June, 2014)•Matuschek E et al. Development of the EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing method and its implementation in routine microbiology laboratories. (2014)
Whenever a clear answer can’t be found in other documents, solution can be frequently found following the link:•Frequently Asked Questions (2015‐03‐23)
Whenever this option failed, we sent an E‐mail to Erika Matuschek, Clinical Scientist, responsible for the EUCAST Development Laboratory, Växjö, Sweden.Answers were extremely fast and helpful. Thanks!
Implementation of EUCAST – laboratory work
• Basic guide: this "check list".
• "General issues" were discussed by SKUOPZ
• Practical work was done in each laboratory
• SKUOPZ member was "a champion among laboratory staff" in each laboratory – i.e. responsible for the process
• About 6 months of work was necessary before Quality Control results were fully compliant and EUCAST implemented.
26
27
Laboratory methods ‐ training.
A lot of practice and “tuning” of procedures and staff was needed, most difficult parts were:
• searching for suitable MHF agar (home made or ready to use plates)
• proper inoculum preparation, inoculation and reading of MHFplates.
Practical advice (provided by E. Matuschek):‐ When inoculating haemophilus, plates must be sufficiently dry and
swabs before inoculation extremely dry.
Procedures on Mueller Hinton were technically relatively simple,EUCAST disk diffusion reading guide and slide show very useful, however, considerable amount of time still needed for details.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
28
Laboratory methods ‐materials
Some new quality control strains.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Disk‐diffusion method• Some disks have different contents in CLSI and EUCAST. • New agar: Mueller Hinton Fastidious agar.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐MIC determination
Note: • SKUOPZ policy: use of commercial methods (including gradient
diffusion) is the responsibility of each laboratory.Essential requirement – MIC materials (machines and consumables
must be according to EUCAST).
29
Laboratory methods – materials, MICs
For EUCAST susceptibility testing purposes, the concentration of sulbactamis fixed at 4 mg/L, of clavulanic acid is fixed at 2 mg/L, of tazobactam is fixed at 4 mg/L.
Optimally, range of MIC values should be suitable for different purposes. Example: Enterobacteriaceae, meropenem
Purpose Lower MIC Higher MIC
Clinical breakpoints S ≤ 2 mg/L R > 8 mg/L
Screening for carbapenemase Negative screen≤ 0.12 mg/L
Positive screen> 0.12 mg/L
EUCAST quality control rangeEscherichia coli ATCC 25922
Minimum0.008
Maximum0.06
30
Detailed Slovenian guidelines for Enterobacteriaceae –
ESBL, AmpC and carbapenemases.
Guideline 001: Carbapenem resistance,Enterobacteriaceae.
Guideline 002: ESBL, AmpC,Enterobacteriaceae.
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
31
Slovenian guidelines for carbapenemase ‐producing Enterobacteriaceae .
Fully compliant with “EUCAST guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or epidemiological importance”, Version 1.0, December 2013. Details were specified, epidemiological definitions for CRE and CRE‐CPE were added.
Screening cut –off:
‐ EUCAST guideline offers two possibilities for meropenem disk screening cut‐off. <25 mm (“best balance of sensitivity and specificity”)<27 mm (“may be used as a screening cut‐off in countries where OXA‐48 is endemic, but at the expense of lower specificity”).
‐meropenem cut‐off < 27 mm was chosen(other combinations of carbapenems can be used)
Phenotypic methods for detection of carbapenemases:
Two methods with different mechanisms are used for each “suspicious” isolate:‐ Carbapenem hydrolisis test (Carba NP test or Blue‐Carba).‐ Combined disks (tablets) with carbapenemase inhibitors (including “triple “ disk + temocillin + cloxacillin)
32
Information for clinicians.
April 2014. Transition to EUCAST implemented.When possible, personal contacts with clinicians were used.
One page long information about EUCAST, supplemented with table of major differences between CLSI and EUCAST, was distributed to users when we changed to EUCAST.
This information included link to SKUOPZ web home page, where concise but quite comprehensive information (15 pages) for clinicians were published:“Short explanation on transition to EUCAST “(in Slovene)
Every day on each report.Comments available when needed.
http://www.imi.si/strokovna‐zdruzenja/skuopz
33
“Short explanation on transition to EUCAST”
Strumbelj ‐ National introduction of EUCAST breakpoints and methods
34
Results of the process
April 2014: all but one diagnostic medical microbiology laboratories in Slovenia implemented EUCAST.
Results of external quality assessment (EQA)
All SKUOPZ laboratories that have implemented EUCAST were asked to report all scored results of EQA since April 2014 to the end of 2014.
Cumulative results for 1154 bacteria/antibiotic results:
• Categorical agreement: 1149 (99,6 %)• Major discrepancy: 4 (0,3%)• Very major discrepancy: 1 (0,1%)
35
Conclusions
Introduction of EUCAST was a demanding national project:
• coordinated by the national AST committee – SKUOPZ• activities “at the bench” were performed by each
laboratory.
Three key points were:
• Changes in laboratory information system • Changes in laboratory methods• Information for clinicians.
System was well accepted by both laboratories and clinicians.
36
Acknowledgments
EUCAST Secretariat, EUCAST Development Laboratory and speakers at EUCAST symposium in LjubljanaRafael Cantón, Derek Brown, Gunnar Kahlmeter, Erika Matuschek, ArjanaTambić Andrašević, Iva Butić, Katja Seme
SKUOPZ membersIngrid Berce, Jerneja Fišer, Andrej Golle, Tatjana Harlander, Martina Kavčič, Jana Kolman, Slavica Lorenčič‐Robnik, Tadeja Matos, Verica Mioč, Manica Mueller‐Premru, Irena Piltaver‐Vajdec, Mateja Pirš, Katja Seme, Helena Ribič, Alenka Štorman, Viktorija Tomič, Barbara Zdolšek, MancaŽolnir Dovč.
Laboratory staff of Slovenian clinical microbiology laboratories
Review of this presentationKatja Seme, Mateja Pirš, Jernej Štrumbelj
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Derek Brown EUCAST Scientific Secretary
EUCAST Educational Workshop, ECCMID 2015
Clindamycin
• Lincosamide agent classified in the macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin group
• Used to treat staphylococcal and streptococcal skin and soft tissue infections, particularly in general practice and outpatients
Clindamycin resistance mechanisms in staphylococci and streptococci
• Most resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin type B (MLSB) antimicrobial agents is mediated by the erm genes (ribosomal methylation) and is induced by erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin, but not by clindamycin (dissociated resistance or MLSB inducible resistance).
• Strains with MLSB constitutive resistance are resistant to clindamycin.
• Efflux
• Ribosomal mutation
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Clindamycin MIC distribution for S. aureus
RS
Clindamycin MIC distribution for coagulase-negative staphylococci
RS
Clindamycin MIC distribution for Streptococcus pyogenes
S R
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Clindamycin MIC distribution for Streptococcus agalactiae
S R
Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci and streptococci by disk diffusion
• Disk diffusion –the “D test”
• Erythromycin 15 µg and clindamycin 2 µg disks placed 12-20 mm apart (edge to edge) for staphylococci, 12-16 mm apart for streptococci
• “Antagonism” of clindamycin by erythromycin indicates inducible resistance
Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci and
streptococci by broth microdilution
• Test clindamycin MIC in presence of fixed concentration of erythromycin– Staphylococci 4 mg/L erythromycin– Streptococci 1 mg/L erythromycin
• Staphylococci– Clindamycin MIC >0.25 mg/L in presence of erythromycin
and ≤0.25 mg/L without erythromycin indicates inducible resistance (Swenson et al, JCM, 2007)
• Streptococci– Clindamycin MIC >0.5 mg/L in presence of erythromycin
and ≤0.5 mg/L without erythromycin indicates inducible resistance (Bowling et al, JCM, 2010)
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci by
automated systems
• Vitek 2 (Sensitivity 80-95%)– Bobenchik et al, JCM 2014. Inducible R detected in 24/30 isolates
– Gardiner et al, Pathology 2013. Inducible R detected in 191/201 isolates
– Lavallee et al, JCM 2010. Inducible R detected in 124/134 isolates
– Buchan et al, DMID 2012. Inducible R detected in 51/56 isolates
• Phoenix– Buchan et al, DMID 2012. Inducible R detected in 56/56 isolates
• Microscan– Ji et al, Korean J Lab Med 2010. Inducible R detected in 58/58 isolates
Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in streptococci by
automated systems
• Vitek 2 (Sensitivity 36-95%)– Tazi et al, JAC 2007. Inducible R detected in 9/25 of Group B isolates
– Tang et al, JCM 2004. Inducible R detected in 17/18 of Group B isolates
• Phoenix
– Buchan et al, DMID 2012. Inducible R detected in 100% of Group B isolates (not clear how many tested)
– Richter et al, JCM 2007 Inducible R detected in 23/23 of Group B isolates
Reporting inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci and
streptococci• Should staphylococci and streptococci with
inducible clindamycin resistance be reported resistant or susceptible?
• Inducible strains segregate clindamycin resistant mutants, which may be selected during treatment, possibly leading to treatment failure
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Reporting inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci and
streptococci• Guidance on reporting has been inconsistent
Susceptible with warning that resistance may develop during treatment
OR
Resistant with note that less serious infections may still be treatable
EARSNet External Quality AssessmentS. aureus with inducible clindamycin resistance
(MIC 0.12 mg/L, but resistance induced by erythromycin)
• Reports from participants
•
• Reports of susceptible not related to guideline or method
• Different recommendations from EUCAST and CLSI
– EUCAST expert rules recommend reporting resistant, or susceptible with warning of possible failure due to selection of resistant mutants. Avoid use in serious infections
– CLSI report resistant with note that some may respond
Specimen NPercent reporting
S I R
0275 (2011) 775 24.0 1.8 74.2
1377 (2012) 705 7.5 1.4 91.1
Evidence for clinical significance of inducible resistance to clindamycin in staphylococci and streptococci?
• In vitro studies
• Animal models
• Clinical outcome data
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
In vitro studies (S. aureus)
• Constitutive resistant mutants can be selected by culture in the presence of clindamycin.
Panagea et al. JAC 1999: 44; 581-2
Daurel et al. JCM 2008: 46; 546-55
• Time-kill studies indicate initial killing but rapid regrowth
Leplante et al. AAC 2008: 52; 2156-62
Animal models of infection with MLSBi S. aureus
• Mouse thigh model with low inoculum (105) – Clindamycin reduced CFU by 0.45 and1.3 logs for
two isolates at 72h.
– Constitutive resistant mutants detected at 72h.
• Mouse thigh model with high inoculum (107) – Clindamycin showed bacteriostatic activity at 24h and
growth of 0.39 and 1.28 logs for two isolates at 72h.
– Constitutive resistant mutants detected at 24h.
Leplante et al. AAC 2008: 52; 2156-62
Animal models of infection with MLSBi streptococci
• Neutropenic mouse thigh model with inoculum (107) – Clindamycin reduced CFU over 12h for two isolates
(one Group A and one Group B) but then regrowth to similar level to constitutive resistant isolates by 72h.
Lewis et al. AAC 2014: 58; 1327-31
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Issues in assessing clinical data on significance of MLSBi resistance
• Anecdotal cases of failures more likely to be reported than successes
• Non-severe cases may have spontaneous favourable outcome
• Initial treatment often with a β-lactam agent or vancomycin, the clindamycin
• Treatment of non-severe cases in general practice or as outpatients so often no follow up unless treatment fails
• Contribution of treatment when there is surgical intervention is unclear
Clinical data on outcome of infection with MLSBi S. aureus
Reference No. of patients
Outcome Susceptibility
McGehee et al. AAC 1968:13;392
3 2 failed1 success
2 S pre-treatment3 R post-treatmentNot tested for MLSBi
Drinkovic et al. JAC 2001:48:315
3 1 failed2 success
1 MLSBc
Frank . Ped Inf Dis J 2002:21;530
10 2 failed 1 MLSBc
Rao. JAC 2000:45;715 3 1 failed2 success
1 MLSBc
Watanakunacorn. Am J Med 1976:60;419
1 1 failed 1 S pre-treatment1 R post-treatmentNot tested for MLSBi
Siberry et al.Clin Inf Dis 2003:37;1257
1 1 failed 1 MLSBc
Clinical data on outcome of infection with MLSBi streptococci
Reference No. of patients
Outcome Post therapy susceptibility
Lewis et al.AAC 2014:58;1327
8 with Gp B 8 failed
Brown ‐ Clindamycin susceptibility testing and reporting
Inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci and streptococci• There is a significant risk of failure of therapy in
treatment of more severe infections
• There is not strong evidence relating to treatment of less serious infections
• EUCAST guidelines for staphylococci and streptococci in breakpoint tables v. 5.0 2015
If MLSBi detected, then report as resistant
Consider adding this comment to the report:"Clindamycin may still be used for short-term therapy of less serious skin and soft tissue infections as constitutive resistance is unlikely to develop during such therapy".
Gatermann, Expert Rules ECCMID 2015
Expert rules in antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Sören Gatermann Bochum, Germany
soeren.gatermann@rub.de
Objectives
● improve therapeutic relevance of susceptibility testing results
● recognition of the unusual● should have consequences
● therapy● infection control
● satisfy curiosity
Recognition of the unusual
● natural resistance● e.g. clindamycin or cefalosporins in enterococci
● typical susceptibility● penicillin in ß-haemolytic streptococci● carbapenems in enterobacteria
– in some places rare in others frequent
Gatermann, Expert Rules ECCMID 2015
Improve therapeutic relevance
● staphylococci● cefoxitin/oxacillin predicts utility of ß-lactams● D-phenomenom predicts utility of clindamycin
● enterobacteria● carbapenemases● ESBL● AmpC
Improve therapeutic relevance
● pneumococci● in pneumonia● in meningits
● H. influenzae● detect ß-Lactamase● BLNAR
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Susceptibility Testing of New and Revived Antimicrobial AgentsSusceptibility Testing of New and Revived Antimicrobial Agents
Ronald N. Jones, MD, FAAM, FASCP, FCAP, FIDSA*JMI Laboratories
North Liberty, Iowa
USA
1*Scientific Secretary of the
US Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (USCAST)
Disclosure and Transparency StatementDisclosure and Transparency Statement
JMI Laboratories, Inc., received additional research and educational
grants in 2012 to 2014 from Achaogen, Actelion, Affinium, American
Proficiency Institute (API), AmpliPhi Bio, Anacor, Astellas, AstraZeneca,
Basilea, BioVersys, Cardeas, Cempra, Cerexa, Daiichi, Dipexium, Durata,
Fedora, Forest Research Institute, Furiex, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline,
Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Medpace, Meiji Seika Kaisha, Melinta,
Merck, MethylGene, Nabriva, Nanosphere, Novartis, Pfizer, Polyphor,
Rempex, Roche, Seachaid, Shionogi, Synthes, The Medicines Co., Theravance,Thermo Fisher Scientific, VenatoRx, Vertex, Waterloo, and some other corporations. Some JMI employees are advisors/consultants for Astellas,Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Cempra, Cerexa‐Forest, and Theravance.
2
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
1. Background of typical AST development
2. Contemporary challenges to AST development
‐ New agents (lipoglycopeptides, oxazolidinones) with specific technical issues
‐ Revived older agents or combinations
3. Integrating AST challenges with emerging understanding of drug exposure (PK/PD) optimization
4. Conclusions
3
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Background of AST Development (“The Past”)Background of AST Development (“The Past”)
1. Mode of actions, breadth of spectrum, and cidality
2. MIC distributions and establishing the treatable wildtype (WT) distribution
3. Pharmacokinetics (dosing ranges)4. Establishing reference method (broth or agar)
and required supplements5. Standardizing disk test correlate testing details6. Assigning clinical breakpoints driven by Phase 3
trial response rates
4
Background of AST Development (“Now”)Background of AST Development (“Now”)
1. Mode of actions, breadth of spectrum, and cidality2. MIC distributions and establishing the treatable wildtype
(WT) distribution3. Pharmacokinetics (dosing ranges), with greater emphasis
on pharmacodynamics.4. Establishing reference method (broth or agar) and
required supplements, with greater technical challenges of media quality, supplements and method variations.
5. Standardizing disk test correlate testing details, but drug disk contents may differ by geographic region or the diffusion methods may be compromised.
6. Assigning clinical breakpoints driven by Phase 3 trial response rates, but pharmacodynamic modeling and TA data have become very helpful.
5
Examples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint IssuesExamples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint Issues
• Lipoglycopeptide development, a long painful history – Dalbavancin*– Oritavancin*– Telavancin*
• Oxazolidinones– Linezolid– Tedizolid*
• Combination drugs– Ceftazidime‐Avibactam (CAZ‐AVI)*– Ceftolozane‐Tazobactam (TOL‐TAZ)*
• Polymyxins among other agents– Colistin and Polymyxin B
*Six new drug breakpoints evaluated in the last yearA1
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Glycopeptides(Vancomycin, Teicoplanin)
Lipoglycopeptides(Dalbavancin, Oritavancin, Telavancin)
Greater potency Heavy molecular weight
Extended serum elimination half‐life Less soluble
“Sticky”
A2
Structure of DalbavancinStructure of Dalbavancin
A3
Dalbavancin Activity Trends from Key PublicationsaDalbavancin Activity Trends from Key Publicationsa
A4
MIC50/MIC90 (% >0.12 µg/ml)a
Pathogen Jones (1999‐2000) Biedenbach (2002‐2007) Jones (2012)
Staphylococci
S. aureus (no.) (155)0.12/0.25 (45)
(46,773)0.06/0.06 (1)
(1,000)0.06/0.06 (<1)
CoNS (no.) (67)0.12/0.25 (30)
(12,308)≤0.03/0.06 (1)
(122)0.06/0.06 (<1)
a. From Jones et. al. J. Chemother. 2001; 13: 244-254, and Biedenbach et. al. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009; 53: 1260-1263, and Jones et. al. Diagn. Microbiol. Inf. Dis. 2013; 76: 122-124.
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
FIG 1. Influence of various P-80 concentrations (0.000002 to 2%) on the dalbavancin MIC results for S. aureus (11 strains) and beta-hemolytic streptococci (4 strains)
FIG 1. Influence of various P-80 concentrations (0.000002 to 2%) on the dalbavancin MIC results for S. aureus (11 strains) and beta-hemolytic streptococci (4 strains)
A5*From Rennie et. al. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007; 45: 3151‐3154
Dry-form MIC Panel Validation (Sensititre®)*Dry-form MIC Panel Validation (Sensititre®)*
A6
*From Jones et. al. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2004; 23:197‐199.
Surrogate Testing (2006)Surrogate Testing (2006)
A7*From Jones et. al. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006; 44: 2622‐2625.
99.8%predictive
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Surrogate TestingSurrogate Testing
A8
4
2
1
0.5 4 1
0.25 1 1 32 10
0.12 2 195 2895 119
0.06 5 3193 17946 325
0.03 1 36 2888 6000 34
0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16
Dalbavancin M
IC (µg/ml)
Vancomycin MIC (µg/ml)
Figure 1. S. aureus (33,688 strains) isolated from the USA and Europe in 2011-2013a.
a. Broken horizontal line shows USA-FDA breakpoint (≤0.12 µg/ml) having acceptable predictive values (99.9%); and the solid vertical line is the vancomycin breakpoint.
*From Jones et. al. (in press)
Surrogate TestingSurrogate Testing
A9
Pathogen or species group (no. tested)Surrogate accuracy for breakpoint at:
≤0.12 ≤0.25
S. aureus (33,688) 99.86a 99.99
β‐haemolytic streptococci (5,722) 98.97 100.00
S. pyogenes (2,297) 100.00a 100.00
S. agalactiae (2,495) 97.72a 100.00
Viridans group streptococci (2,800) 100.00 100.00
S. anginosus group (758) 100.00a 100.00
CoNS (4,576) 97.55 99.87
Enterococci (6,515) 98.43 99.94
Table 2. Summary of vancomycin test result accuracy for predicting dalbavancin susceptibility using two breakpoint concentrations (≤0.12 and ≤0.25 µg/ml) when tested against eight Gram-positive pathogen/groups in 2011-2013.
a. Underlined percentage shows USA-FDA approved breakpoint for clinical use versus indicated species/groups.
*From Jones et. al. (in press)
Oritavancin MIC results (across 14 years)Oritavancin MIC results (across 14 years)
Nicas et al., AAC, 1996Schwalbe et al., AAC, 1996Jones et al., AAC, 1996Biavasco et al., AAC, 1997
Zeckelet al., AAC, 2000Noviello et al., JAC, 2001Arhin et al., AAC, 2009
Organism/Group Oritavancin MIC90 values (g/mL) by reference
Resistant subsetsNicas et al.
(1996)Schwalbe et al.
(1996)Jones et al.
(1996)Biavasco et al.
(1997)Zeckel et al.
(2000)Noviello et al.
(2001)Arhin et al.
(2009)
S. aureus
Methicillin-susceptible 0.5 − 2 4 2 4 0.12
Methicillin-resistant 0.5 1 4 4 2 4 0.12
CoNS
Methicillin-susceptible − − 4 4 2 − 0.25
Methicillin-resistant 0.5 1 8 4 2 − 0.25
S. haemolyticus − 2 2 4 − − 0.12
E. faecalis
Vancomycin-susceptible − 1 2 − 1 1 0.06
Vancomycin-resistant − 2 2 − − − 1
E. faecium
Vancomycin-susceptible − 0.5 0.25 − 0.5 0.25 0.03
Vancomycin-resistant − 1 4 − 2 2 0.25
S. pneumoniae
Penicillin-susceptible − − ≤0.015 ≤0.03 0.008 ≤0.03 0.004
Penicillin-resistant − − 0.06 ≤0.03 0.015 ≤0.03 0.008
β-hemolytic streptococci
Group A − − 0.5 0.25 − − 0.25
Group B − − 0.25 − − − 0.25
Group C 1 − − − − -
Group G 1 − − − − -
A10
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
A11*From Arhin et. al. Agents Chemo. 2008; 52: 1597-1603
Oritavancin activity as tested against staphylococcal species/groups and resistant subsets submitted to the International Oritavancin Resistance Surveillance follow application of P-80 (first three years)
Oritavancin activity as tested against staphylococcal species/groups and resistant subsets submitted to the International Oritavancin Resistance Surveillance follow application of P-80 (first three years)
Organism / MIC (g/ml) Cumulative % of isolates inhibited at each MIC (g/ml)
Year/Group (no tested) 50% 90% ≤0.008 0.015 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25
S. aureus
2008
All (6,664) 0.03 0.06 1.8 21.5 77.1 97.5 99.8 99.9
2009All (4,522) 0.015 0.03 7.0 52.5 92.4 99.2 99.9 100.0
2010
All (5,438) 0.03 0.06 4.3 42.2 85.2 96.9 99.5 100.0
OXA-S (3,269) 0.03 0.06 4.5 41.1 84.8 96.9 99.4 100.0
VAN MIC, ≤1 g/ml (3,248) 0.03 0.06 4.6 41.1 84.9 96.9 99.4 100.0
VAN MIC, 2 g/ml (21) 0.03 0.06 0.0 42.9 76.2 100.0
OXA-R (2,169) 0.03 0.06 3.9 43.9 85.8 96.8 99.6 100.0
VAN MIC, ≤1 g/ml (2,136) 0.03 0.06 4.0 44.5 86.5 97.2 99.7 100.0
VAN MIC, 2 g/ml (33) 0.06 0.12 0.0 3.0 39.4 72.7 93.9 100.0
A12
Telavancin AST HistoryTelavancin AST History
• No P‐80 supplement in microdilution broth until 2014
• Testing re‐evaluated post USA‐FDA and EUCAST/EMA approvals
• Re‐evaluated QC guidelines, testing detail and breakpoints are now published (EUCAST/EMA, USA‐FDA) with P‐80 supplemented broth
• Potency of telavancin like those of other lipoglycopeptides (S. aureus MIC 50/90 at 0.06 µg/mL)
A13
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Conclusions for Lipoglycopeptide ASTConclusions for Lipoglycopeptide AST
• Requires modified reference MIC tests
– Broth microdilution with 0.002% polysorbate‐80
• Agar dilution and diffusion methods are compromised
• Limited availability of commercial methods, especially automated systems
– Surrogate testing strategies have been suggested
A14
Examples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint IssuesExamples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint Issues
• Lipoglycopeptide development, a long painful history – Dalbavancin*– Oritavancin*– Telavancin*
• Oxazolidinones– Linezolid– Tedizolid*
• Combination drugs– Ceftazidime‐Avibactam (CAZ‐AVI)*– Ceftolozane‐Tazobactam (TOL‐TAZ)*
• Polymyxins among other agents– Colistin and Polymyxin B
*Six new drug breakpoints evaluated in the last year
B1
B2*From CLSI M07-A10 2015
Endpoint Reading Exceptions for LinezolidEndpoint Reading Exceptions for Linezolid
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
B3*From CLSI M07-A10 2015
B4*From Mendes et. al. J. Antimicrob. Chemo. 2014; 69: 1582-1588
Summary of non-susceptibility rates documented for linezolid when tested against a total of 52,082 clinical isolates included in the 9 year ZAAPS Program (2004-2012)
Summary of non-susceptibility rates documented for linezolid when tested against a total of 52,082 clinical isolates included in the 9 year ZAAPS Program (2004-2012)
Activity of Tedizolid and Linezolid against Pathogens with Important Resistant Phenotypes in the 2011-2012 STAR Program
Activity of Tedizolid and Linezolid against Pathogens with Important Resistant Phenotypes in the 2011-2012 STAR Program
Organism (N) Antimicrobial MIC50 MIC90
Cum. percentage of isolates inhibited at MIC (µg/mL) of:
≤0.25 0.5 1 2 4
MRSA (1770) Tedizolid 0.25 0.5 65.9 99.7 99.8 99.9 100.0
Linezolid 2 2 0.2 0.5 31.3 97.0 99.7
MSSA (2729) Tedizolid 0.25 0.5 66.0 100.0 ‐ ‐ ‐
Linezolid 2 2 0.2 0.5 25.3 94.5 99.7
VRE (163) Tedizolid 0.25 0.5 62.6 98.8 99.4 100.0 ‐
Linezolid 2 2 0.0 1.2 41.7 98.8 99.4
VSE (705) Tedizolid 0.25 0.5 87.4 100.0 ‐ ‐ ‐
Linezolid 1 2 0.6 6.5 58.4 99.7 100.0
B5*From Sahm et. al. Diagn. Microb. Inf. Dis. 2015; 81: 112-118
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Direct comparison of Thermo Fisher tedizolid MIC testing device (Sensititre®) results to that of reference frozen-form panel values (285 strains)
Direct comparison of Thermo Fisher tedizolid MIC testing device (Sensititre®) results to that of reference frozen-form panel values (285 strains)
B6*From Jones et. al. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015; 53: 657-659
Variation in log2 dilution steps:
Organism (no. tested) ‐2 ‐1 Exact +1 +2 % Essential Agreement
S. aureus (110) 0 6 89 15 0 100.0
CoNS (20) 0 1 16 3 0 100.0
Enterococci (40) 0 0 28 12 0 100.0
S. pneumoniae (30) 0 2 26 2 0 100.0
β‐hemolytic streptococci (70) 0 21 47 2 0 100.0
S. anginosus group (15) 0 5 7 3 0 100.0
All strains (285) 0 35 213 37 0 100.0
Conclusions for Oxazolidinone ASTConclusions for Oxazolidinone AST
• Class having potent Gram‐positive spectrum but not considered as cidal agents
• Tedizolid QC range for S. aureus spans the susceptible breakpoint
• Some breakpoint organizations and regulator‐imposed post‐marketing global surveillance programs apply modified endpoint interpretations (80% inhibition, disregard trailing growth)
• Correlate disk diffusion and commercial methods/systems may be delayed and surrogate strategies could be an option (data pending)
B7
Examples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint IssuesExamples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint Issues
• Lipoglycopeptide development, a long painful history – Dalbavancin*– Oritavancin*– Telavancin*
• Oxazolidinones– Linezolid– Tedizolid*
• Combination drugs– Ceftazidime‐Avibactam (CAZ‐AVI)*– Ceftolozane‐Tazobactam (TOL‐TAZ)*
• Polymyxins among other agents– Colistin and Polymyxin B
*Six new drug breakpoints evaluated in the last year
C1
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Combination Drug Testing StrategiesCombination Drug Testing Strategies
• Active agent tested on a log2 dilution schedule with a fixed concentration of the inhibitor for reference MIC method
• Active agent and a validated amount of inhibitor in disks for diffusion method– Active drug traditional disk loading for geographic region (30‐µg/ml or 10‐µg/ml) adjusted to PK‐PD breakpoint
– Inhibitor concentration generally approximating to dosing ratio at 2 or 3: 1 (30‐20, 30‐10, 10‐6 µg proposed)
• Correlative accuracy between breakpoints for the methods shall be predictably acceptable because of the long history of cephalosporin AST methods
C2
50% fT > MIC for Ceftazidime and 50% f T > CT of 1 mg/L Avibactam Following IVAdministration of 2.5g CAZ-AVI q8h (2 hour infusion) Overlaid on a Histogram of MIC Distributions for Enterobacteriaceae collected during 2012 INFORM
50% fT > MIC for Ceftazidime and 50% f T > CT of 1 mg/L Avibactam Following IVAdministration of 2.5g CAZ-AVI q8h (2 hour infusion) Overlaid on a Histogram of MIC Distributions for Enterobacteriaceae collected during 2012 INFORM
C3*From USA‐FDA AIDAC Presentation, 2014
C4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32
% inhibited
MIC (µg/ml)
Piperacillin‐tazobactam
Ceftazidime
Cefepime
Meropenem
CAZ‐AVI
92.2%89.7%92.5%
98.2% 99.9% susceptible to CAZ‐AVI*
Figure 1. Cumulative percentage activity curves for CAZ-AVIand four comparison agents tested against 9,261 Enterobacteriaceae from USA SENTRY Program (2013)
Figure 1. Cumulative percentage activity curves for CAZ-AVIand four comparison agents tested against 9,261 Enterobacteriaceae from USA SENTRY Program (2013)
*From INFORM Program
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
C5
Example of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Activity against P. aeruginosa (USA, 2011-2012)aExample of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Activity against P. aeruginosa (USA, 2011-2012)a
Organism subsets (no. tested)
Cum. % inhibited at MIC (mg/L):
≤1 2 4 8 16
All strains (1971) 82.6 90.4 96.1b 98.5 99.0
MDR (310) 29.0 55.2 79.0 90.3 93.5
XDR (175) 17.1 45.7 70.9 85.7 90.3
MEM-NS (388) 53.1 71.6 85.3 92.8 95.1
C6
a. From Farrell et al. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57: 6305-6310 (2013)
b. USA-FDA approved breakpoint, Enterobacteriaceae coverage = 93.3% at ≤ 2 mg/L (7,071 strains)
Conclusions for β-lactamase Inhibitor Combination ASTConclusions for β-lactamase Inhibitor Combination AST
• In vitro methods for ceftazidime‐avibactam and ceftolozane‐tazobactam appear sound for MIC reference and disk diffusion testing
• Recommended breakpoints will be consistent with PK‐PD validated high‐dose regimens for a limited number of indications
• Expanded spectrums appear very broad against Gram‐negative pathogens, many with MDR profiles
C7
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Examples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint IssuesExamples of Recent AST Development and Breakpoint Issues
• Lipoglycopeptide development, a long painful history – Dalbavancin*– Oritavancin*– Telavancin*
• Oxazolidinones– Linezolid– Tedizolid*
• Combination drugs– Ceftazidime‐Avibactam (CAZ‐AVI)*– Ceftolozane‐Tazobactam (TOL‐TAZ)*
• Polymyxins among other agents– Colistin and Polymyxin B
*Six new drug breakpoints evaluated in the last yearD1
Correlation between polymyxin B and colistin MIC values when testing 15,377 Gram-negative bacilli collected worldwide in 2013
Correlation between polymyxin B and colistin MIC values when testing 15,377 Gram-negative bacilli collected worldwide in 2013
D2
Scattergram showing polymyxin B MIC results obtained with versus without the addition of P-80 to the MHB (all species: N=247)
Scattergram showing polymyxin B MIC results obtained with versus without the addition of P-80 to the MHB (all species: N=247)
D3*From Sader et. al. Diagn. Microb. Inf. Dis. 2012; 74: 412-414
Jones ‐ Susceptibility testing of new and revived antimicrobial agents
Re-evaluation of Polymyxin AST:Report of the Joint EUCAST/CLSI ad hoc Polymyxin Breakpoint Working Group
Re-evaluation of Polymyxin AST:Report of the Joint EUCAST/CLSI ad hoc Polymyxin Breakpoint Working Group
• Agents stick to plastics via an electrostatic interaction (concentration dependent)
• PK‐PD data is limited for polymyxin B• Polymyxin components may differ in potency by pathogen
(debated)• Colistin breakpoints will appear in late 2015• Potencies of colistin and polymyxin B are “not quite” comparable• AST methods
– Agar dilution and disk/gradient diffusion are suboptimal– Broth microdilution is reference test, using polystrnene trays not P‐80
• Attend lecture by Professor Turnidge on other revived drugs in Hall B (5:00PM)
D4* Minutes of CLSI Subcommittee, 2015
EMA/CHMP“Ultimate regulatory approval function
for antimicrobial agents including breakpoints”
EUCAST*
“Authority to develop and suggest AST breakpoints”
Has regulated process for interactions with drug sponsors
and agencies (SOP/H/3043)ESCMID
“Support function”
ECDC
“Support function”
*recommends/endorses methods of choice available worldwide (ISO, CLSI etc), and modifies per need of EU region and member NACs; method listed in regulatory documents E1
Stable-Functional Components of EUCAST SystemStable-Functional Components of EUCAST System
Assuming the Development Objectives are Achieved, Do We Still Have a Problem?
Assuming the Development Objectives are Achieved, Do We Still Have a Problem?
• “YES! Getting the breakpoints to the end‐user to favorably influence patient care. Improve implementation of breakpoint updates found in the EUCAST documents via diagnostic systems”
• “Delays of greater than one year would clearly be excessive, if the breakpoint determining process was effective.”
‐R.N. Jones (2015)
E2
Recommended