Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is a group of Gram-negative bacteria that cause opportunistic infections, most notably in people with cystic fibrosis (CF), and have been associated with outbreaks caused by contaminated medical products. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often used to guide treatment for BCC infections, perhaps most importantly in people with CF who are being considered for lung transplant. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with AST methods. Here, we address limitations from previous studies to further evaluate BCC AST methods. We assessed the performance of reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD) using Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) from three manufacturers, agar dilution (AD), and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for ceftazidime (CAZ), levofloxacin (LVX), meropenem (MEM), minocycline (MIN), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) on a set of 205 BCC isolates. The isolate set included 100 isolates from people with CF and 105 isolates from people without CF from a variety of sources, which enabled us to systematically evaluate whether specimen source impacts AST performance. For all BCC isolates, BMD reproducibility was 93%, 98%, 99%, 98%, and 96% for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX, respectively. Using BMD as the comparator method, we show that DD, AD, and ETEST perform poorly, with neither MHA manufacturer nor specimen source significantly impacting method performance. Based on our data, we recommend that routine AST should not be performed for BCC isolates. If a provider requests AST, clinical microbiology laboratories should perform Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference methodology for BMD (stored frozen) and report MIC only. IMPORTANCE Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for the Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is often used to determine eligibility for lung transplant in people with cystic fibrosis. However, problems with method performance have been reported. Here, we systematically evaluate the performance of reference broth microdilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, and gradient diffusion (ETEST) for BCC organisms isolated from people with and without cystic fibrosis. We show that broth microdilution reproducibility is acceptable for levofloxacin, meropenem, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while ceftazidime was just below the acceptability cut-off. Regardless of specimen source, the results from disk diffusion, agar dilution, and ETEST do not correlate with broth microdilution. Based on these findings, we recommend that antimicrobial susceptibility testing should not be routinely performed for BCC, and if requested by the provider, only broth microdilution following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines should be used. Providers should be aware of the significant limitations of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for BCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".