1 / 19

Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus : What do we do now?

Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus : What do we do now?. 14 th March 2013. Robin A Howe. Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus : What do we do now?. History What are we aiming to identify? Testing issues Current recommendations. 1997: VISA

harva
Download Presentation

Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus : What do we do now?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Antimicrobial use in Primary Care Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus: What do we do now? 14th March 2013 Robin A Howe

  2. Susceptibility testing for Vancomycin in S. aureus: What do we do now? • History • What are we aiming to identify? • Testing issues • Current recommendations

  3. 1997: VISA • Mu50 Vanc MIC 8mg/L • 2001: SARV (S. aureuswith Reduced susceptibility to Vancomycin) • MIC 4mg/L • Associated with mortality in Case-control study • 2003: VRSA • High-level resistance (>32mg/L) due to acquisition of vanA • Remains v rare Hiramatsu et al. (1997) JAC 40: 135 Fridkinet al. 41st ICAAC (2001)

  4. 1997: hetero-VISA • Mu3 Vanc MIC 2-4mg/L but population able to grow in higher vanc concentrations • Numerous case reports associating hVISA with treatment failure (lack of systematic studies) Hiramatsu et al (1997) Lancet 350: 1670

  5. Is there an association between high MICs below BP and poor outcome? • Meta-analysis • high-VMIC • VMIC >1 mg/L but ≤2 mg/L) • 33 studies identified Mortality Mavros et al. (2012) IJAA. 40: 496

  6. Is there an association between high MICs below BP and poor outcome? • Meta-analysis • high-VMIC • ≥1 mg/l by BMD • ≥1.5 mg/l by Etest • 20 studies identified Treatment failure Jacob et al. (2013) IJID. 17: e93

  7. What should we aim to identify? • Vanc MIC >2mg/L (ie BP) • ?Vanc MIC ≥1.5mg/L • Caution about method • ?hVISA • PAP analysis can help to define resistance Wootton et al (2005) AAC 49(9): 3982

  8. What should we aim to identify? • Vanc MIC >2mg/L (ie BP) • ?Vanc MIC ≥1.5mg/L • Caution about method • ?hVISA • PAP analysis can help to define resistance Wootton et al (2005) AAC 49(9): 3982

  9. Disc testing Pennsylvania VRSA (vanA +ve) MIC 32 mg/L Tenover et al. AAC (2004) 48: 275.

  10. Disc testing 14 VSSA 49 hVISA 20 VISA tested by disc Davies LE et al. ICAAC (2009). D803.

  11. MIC testing • “Gold Standard”: • Microbroth dilution MIC • ISO 20776 • MH broth • Ease of use standard: • Gradient strips • (Etest, MICE, MICtest)

  12. Replicate testing (x15) of QC strains by MICE & Etest gradient strips CLSI QC Range: 0.5 – 2 mg/L Richards J et al. ECCMID (2012). P1652.

  13. 8 VISA, 59 VSSA(MRSA) • MIC determination by • Etest (BioMerieux) • MICE (Oxoid) • MIC test (Liofilchem/Launch diagnostics) • ISO MBD. Richards J et al. ECCMID (2012). P1652.

  14. “Etest tends to give slightly higher MICs” • 182 pts with SAB • Related vancomycin AUC/MIC to outcome (target >400) • Median AUC/MIC • MBD – 436.1 • Etest - 271.5 • CART analysis • AUC/MIC (MBD) >373 assoc with ↓mortality Holmes et al AAC (2013) epub.doi:10.1128/AAC.01485-12

  15. Commercial systems • Vitek2 undercalls resistance • Phoenix overcalls resistance Swenson et al. (2009) JCM 47: 2013

  16. Screening tests • Screening agars • BHI/MHA • V/T – 4/5/6 • MHA5T best • MacroEtest (2 McF) • Good performance • GRD Etest (0.5 McF) • Good performance Walsh et al (2001) JCM 39: 2439 Wootton et al (2007) JCM 45: 329 Wootton et al (2008) ICAAC D2214

  17. Conclusions • Aim to identify MIC >2mg/L • Closeness of BP to MICs of wild population challenges all methods • Disc testing not reliable • MIC methods require close attention to QC/QA • Automated systems struggle • Population analysis can confirm reduced susceptibility • Screening methods may have a role but lack sensitivity

  18. Current recommendations • Do not use disc testing • Use MIC method • BMD gold standard • Control all tests with QC strains (monitor QC results for trends even within appropriate QC range) • Consider targeted testing

  19. Acknowledgements Dr Mandy Wootton Leanne Davies Jennifer Richards Prof Tim Walsh Jenny Andrews BSAC AST Working Group

More Related