ABSTRACT
The use of molecular identification panels has advanced the diagnosis for blood stream infections with fast turnaround time and high accuracy. Yet, this technology cannot completely replace conventional blood culture and standardized antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) given its limitations and occasional false results. Here we present two cases of bacteremia caused by Kluyvera. Its identification and antibiotic resistance were at least partially mispresented by blood culture molecular identification panels on ePlex, Verigene, and Biofire. The detection of CTX-M resistance marker did not align with the susceptibility to the third generation cephalosporins among a wide range of antibiotics for this organism. Conventional extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) testing was used to confirm the absence of ESBL. Caution should be taken when managing cases with CTX-M or ESBL detection in blood culture caused by uncommon pathogens. Conventional culture with microbial identification and standardized AST should continue to be the gold standard for routine patient care. IMPORTANCE: This is the first report that highlights the limitations of blood culture molecular identification panels on identifying Kluyvera and its associated antibiotic resistance patterns. Both the false identification and overreporting of antibiotic resistance could mislead the treatment for bacteremia caused by this pathogen. Patient isolation could have been avoided due to the lack of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) activity of the organism. This report emphasizes the importance of confirming rapid identification and antibiotic resistance by molecular technologies with standardized methods. It also provides insight into the development of new diagnostic panels.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Bacteremia , Blood Culture , Kluyvera , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , beta-Lactamases , Female , Humans , Male , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Bacteremia/microbiology , Bacteremia/diagnosis , Bacteremia/drug therapy , beta-Lactamases/genetics , Blood Culture/methods , Cephalosporins/pharmacology , Cephalosporins/therapeutic use , Diagnostic Errors , Drug Resistance, Bacterial/genetics , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/microbiology , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/diagnosis , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/drug therapy , Kluyvera/genetics , Kluyvera/drug effects , Kluyvera/isolation & purification , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is one of the most common health care-associated infections, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Diagnosis of CDI relies on the assessment of clinical presentation and laboratory tests. We evaluated the clinical performance of ultrasensitive single-molecule counting technology for detection of C. difficile toxins A and B. Stool specimens from 298 patients with suspected CDI were tested with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT; BD MAX Cdiff assay or Xpert C. difficile assay) and Singulex Clarity C. diff toxins A/B assay. Specimens with discordant results were tested with the cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA), and the results were correlated with disease severity and outcome. There were 64 NAAT-positive and 234 NAAT-negative samples. Of the 32 NAAT+/Clarity- and 4 NAAT-/Clarity+ samples, there were 26 CCNA- and 4 CCNA- samples, respectively. CDI relapse was more common in NAAT+/toxin+ patients than in NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT-/toxin- patients. The clinical specificity of Clarity and NAAT was 97.4% and 89.0%, respectively, and overdiagnosis was more than three times more common in NAAT+/toxin- than in NAAT+/toxin+ patients. The Clarity assay was superior to NAATs for the diagnosis of CDI, by reducing overdiagnosis and thereby increasing clinical specificity, and the presence of toxins was associated with negative patient outcomes.
