ABSTRACT
Context: The modified Hodge test (MHT) is widely used as a screening test for the detection of carbapenemases in Gram‑negative bacteria. This test has several pitfalls in terms of validity and interpretation. Also the test has a very low sensitivity in detecting the New Delhi metallo‑β‑lactamase (NDM). Considering the degree of dissemination of the NDM and the growing pandemic of carbapenem resistance, a more accurate alternative test is needed at the earliest. Aims: The study intends to compare the performance of the MHT with the commercially available Neo‑Sensitabs ‑ Carbapenemases/ Metallo‑β‑Lactamase (MBL) Confirmative Identification pack to find out whether the latter could be an efficient alternative to the former. Settings and Design: A total of 105 isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae resistant to imipenem and meropenem, collected prospectively over a period of 2 years were included in the study. Subjects and Methods: The study isolates were tested with the MHT, the Neo‑Sensitabs ‑ Carbapenemases/MBL Confirmative Identification pack and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detecting the blaNDM‑1 gene. Results: Among the 105 isolates, the MHT identified 100 isolates as carbapenemase producers. In the five isolates negative for the MHT, four were found to produce MBLs by the Neo‑Sensitabs. The Neo‑Sensitabs did not have any false negatives when compared against the PCR. Conclusions: The MHT can give false negative results, which lead to failure in detecting the carbapenemase producers. Also considering the other pitfalls of the MHT, the Neo‑Sensitabs ‑ Carbapenemases/MBL Confirmative Identification pack could be a more efficient alternative for detection of carbapenemase production in Gram‑negative bacteria.
ABSTRACT
The increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant nosocomial pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae poses a great challenge to the treating physicians. The paucity of newer effective antimicrobials has led to renewed interest in the polymyxin group of drugs, as a last resort for treatment of gram-negative bacterial infections. There is a dearth of information on the pharmacological properties of colistin, leading to difficulties in selecting the right dose, dosing interval, and route of administration for treatment, especially in critically-ill patients. The increasing use of colistin over the last few years necessitates the need for accurate and reliable in vitro susceptibility testing methods. Development of heteroresistant strains as a result of colistin monotherapy is also a growing concern. There is a compelling need from the clinicians to provide options for probable and possible colistin combination therapy for multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in the ICU setting. Newer combination drug synergy determination tests are being developed and reported. There are no standardized recommendations from antimicrobial susceptibility testing reference agencies for the testing and interpretation of these drug combinations. Comparison and analysis of these reported methodologies may help to understand and assist the microbiologist to choose the best method that produces accurate results at the earliest. This will help clinicians to select the appropriate combination therapy. In this era of multidrug resistance it is important for the microbiology laboratory to be prepared, by default, to provide timely synergistic susceptibility results in addition to routine susceptibility, if warranted. Not as a favour or at request, but as a responsibility.