Updated Susceptibility Interpretation Guideline (CLSI 2014) 1 Pattarachai Kiratisin, MD PhD
Transcription
Updated Susceptibility Interpretation Guideline (CLSI 2014) 1 Pattarachai Kiratisin, MD PhD
Updated SusceptibilityInterpretationGuideline (CLSI2014) Important points in current guideline “Breakpoint Changes” ‐Enterobacteriaceae*** ‐Acinetobacter spp. #Based on CLSI Effect of Breakpoint Change Beta‐Lactamases Penicillinases Cephalosporinases for Enterobacteriaceae! Carbapenemases ESBL AmpC New! KPC MBL e.g. IMP, VIM, NDM‐1 Broth dilution Drug conc. 1 New Breakpoint ≤ 2 2 4 8 (ug/mL) Breakpoint ≤ 8 Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae Effect of Breakpoint Change Drug Disk Diffusion New Breakpoint 32 Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) OXA (some) MIC breakpoint <2009 2009 A 16 Susceptible Zone breakpoint 2014 <2009 2009 Cefazolin ≤ 8 ≤ 2 ≥ 18 ≥ 23 Cefotaxime ≤ 8 ≤ 1 ≥ 23 ≥ 26 Ceftriaxone ≤ 8 ≤ 1 ≥ 21 ≥ 23 Ceftazidime ≤ 8 ≤ 4 ≥ 18 ≥ 21 Cefepime ≤ 8 ≤ 8 ≥ 18 ≥ 18 ≤ 2 2014 ≥ 25 Breakpoint Pattarachai Kiratisin,MDPhD ForEducationalUseOnly 1 Updated SusceptibilityInterpretationGuideline (CLSI2014) Cefepime Cefepime Previous breakpoint was based on a higher dose than the normal dose No new drug available, so need to adjust to current drug to be appropriate for treatment Clinical failure was found with MIC 4 and 8 ug/mL, or zone 19‐24 mm MIC breakpoint Zone breakpoint S I R S I R ≤ 8 16 ≥ 32 ≥ 18 15‐17 ≤ 14 REF: CLSI M100‐S24 Susceptible Dose‐Dependent (SDD) Cefepime Year 2013 2014 REF: CLSI M100‐S24 MIC breakpoint Zone breakpoint S S I ≤ 8 16 S SDD (D) ≤ 2 4‐8 R ≥ 32 ≥ 18 R S ≥ 16 ≥ 25 I R 15‐17 ≤ 14 SDD (D) R 19‐24 ≤ 18 In vitro interpretation: not similar to “intermediate (I)” “I” Lower response rate for isolates with MICs at blood/tissue levels. A drug may be used if concentrated at that body site, or at higher dose. “SDD” Susceptibility is dependent on the dosing regimen that is used in the patient. REF: CLSI M100‐S24 Susceptible Dose‐Dependent (SDD) Susceptible Dose‐Dependent (SDD) Clinical interpretation: susceptibility of organism requires “a higher drug exposure” Why SDD? (higher dose and/or more frequent dose up to max dose) This information is based on pharmacokinetics‐pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial drugs related to in vitro testing To make available drugs be used more effectively Doctors often misinterpret “I” as resistant (don’t use!) Increase awareness of antibiotic appropriate us ‐Encourage optimal dose vs. use of broad spectrum ‐Infection control and antimicrobial stewardship Apply to ALL specimens, ALL patient groups REF: CLSI M100‐S24 Pattarachai Kiratisin,MDPhD ForEducationalUseOnly REF: CLSI M100‐S24 2 Updated SusceptibilityInterpretationGuideline (CLSI2014) Cefepime Cefepime Need to communicate with user! If report SDD for cefepime, a comment may be added: The interpretation of “S” is based on a dosage regimen of 1 g q 12 hr, and “SDD” is based on dosage regimens that result in a higher cefepime exposure (higher doses or more frequent doses or both) up to approved maximum dosing regimens. REF: CLSI M100‐S24 REF: CLSI M100‐S24 Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) New! for Enterobacteriaceae ESBL testing is NOT required with new cephalosporin breakpoints! ‐Report cephalosporin testing results as ONLY suggested by CLSI 2014! Other cephalosporins are being evaluated for SDD REF: CLSI M100‐S24 Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12: 1209‐13. Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) The most common enzyme New Delhi Metallo‐beta‐lactamase (NDM) The emerging enzyme KPC 1/2‐KPC 20 reported! (As of Aug 2014) Discovery of “KPC‐13” in Thailand Lascols et al.,JCM 2012;50;1632‐9. Netikul T./Kiratisin P., Int J Antimicrobial Agents, In Press. Pattarachai Kiratisin,MDPhD ForEducationalUseOnly NDM 1‐NDM 12 reported! (As of Aug 2014) Nordman P, et al, Trends Microbiol. 2011;19:588. 3 Updated SusceptibilityInterpretationGuideline (CLSI2014) Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Detection of ESBL / CRE CRE @ Siriraj MIC value Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem Doripenem >32 8 8 8 KPC‐13 #1 16 1 2 4 KPC‐13 #2 >32 1 8 4 KPC‐13 #3 NDM‐1 #1 >32 >32 >32 >32 NDM‐1 #2 >32 >32 >32 >32 NDM‐1 #3 >32 >32 >32 >32 Routine service Infection control Public health No Yes Yes Netikul T./Kiratisin P., J Antimicrobial Chemother, 2014:69;3161‐3. Netikul T./Kiratisin P., Int J Antimicrobial Agents, In Press. New! for Acinetobacter spp. Important notes: Drug Laboratory test results for detection of Carbapenems resistance mechanisms are not perfect! (~10% false negative for ESBL, MHT) Now, recommended not to report! Uses of cephalosporins/carbapenems need a good stewardship MIC breakpoint Zone breakpoint S I 2013 ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 ≥ 16 14‐15 ≤ 13 500 mg q 8 h 2014 ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Meropenem 2013 ≤ 4 8 ≥ 16 ≥ 16 14‐15 ≤ 13 500 mg q 6 hr/ 2014 1 g q 8 hr ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 Imipenem Doripenem 2013 500 mg q 8 h 2014 R ‐ ‐ ‐ ≤ 2 4 ≥ 8 S I R ≥ 22 19‐21 ≤ 18 ≥ 18 15‐17 ≤ 14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ≥ 18 15‐17 ≤ 14 REF: CLSI M100‐S24 New, changing breakpoints need attention… No need to report mechanism (e.g. ESBL, MHT) How to report commonly used antibiotics? How to communicate with customers? Pattarachai Kiratisin,MDPhD ForEducationalUseOnly 4