Skip to main content

Comparison of different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and results of synergy testing

Abstract

Accurate determination of resistance is important to ensure appropriate antimicrobial therapy in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections. This study was undertaken to evaluate the susceptibility results obtained by disc diffusion, E-test, Phoenix system, and reference agar dilution method and also to evaluate the in vitro activity of various antimicrobial combinations against multidrug-resistant S. maltophilia. Susceptibilities to several antimicrobial agents were determined by agar dilution, disc diffusion, and E-test according to the US Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Results were also evaluated in the in Phoenix system for available agents. Twelve different antibiotic combinations were tested for synergy by the E-test method. Most synergic combinations were confirmed by microdilution checkerboard assay. Tigecycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP–SMX) and doxycycline were the most effective drugs against S. maltophilia. Poorest agreement was determined by disc diffusion and E-test against ticarcillin/clavulanate and ciprofloxacin (κ < 0.4), by disc diffusion against colistin (κ < 0.4), and by the Phoenix system against piperacillin/tazobactam (κ < 0.4). Based on these data, disc diffusion seems to be unreliable for ticarcillin/clavulanate, ciprofloxacin, and colistin; E-test for ticarcillin/clavulanate and ciprofloxacin; and the Phoenix system for piperacillin/tazobactam for S. maltophilia susceptibility testing. Synergistic activity was detected predominantly with TMP–SMX + ticarcillin/clavulanate and TMP–SMX + ceftazidime. TMP–SMX + ceftazidime synergy was also supported by the checkerboard method. However, TMP–SMX + ticarcillin/clavulanate combination revealed indifferent effect by the checkerboard assay. As ticarcillin/clavulanate and ciprofloxacin E-test results were beyond the acceptable correlation limits, synergy testing performed with these agents was considered as unreliable. Further studies are required to standardize susceptibility testing, especially for colistin, ticarcillin/clavulanate, and ciprofloxacin for S. maltophilia. TMP–SMX-containing drug combinations seemed to be more synergistic on multidrug-resistant S. maltophilia; however, these results merit further evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Denton M, Kerr KG. Microbiological and clinical aspects of infection associated with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998;11:57–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gales AC, Jones RN, Forward KR, Linares J, Sader HS, Verhoef J. Emerging importance of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter species and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as pathogens in seriously ill patients: geographic patterns, epidemiological features, and trends in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997–1999). Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(Suppl 2):S104–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang L, Li XZ, Poole K. Multiple antibiotic resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: involvement of a multidrug efflux system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:287–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Li XZ, Zhang L, Poole K. SmeC, an outer membrane multidrug efflux protein of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:333–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Nineteenth information supplement, CLSI document M100-S19. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2009.

  6. Carroll KC, Cohen S, Nelson R, Campbell DM, Claridge JD, Garrison MW, et al. Comparison of various in vitro susceptibility methods for testing Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;32:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Joyanes P, del Carmen Conejo M, Martinez-Martinez L, Perea EJ. Evaluation of the VITEK 2 system for the identification and susceptibility testing of three species of nonfermenting gram-negative rods frequently isolated from clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:3247–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stefaniuk E, Baraniak A, Gniadkowski M, Hryniewicz W. Evaluation of the BD Phoenix automated identification and susceptibility testing system in clinical microbiology laboratory practice. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003;22:479–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Winn W Jr, Allen S, Janda W, Koneman E, Procop G, Schreckenberger P, Woods G. Koneman’s color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippinncott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

  10. Gulmez D, Hascelik G. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: antimicrobial resistance and molecular typing of an emerging pathogen in a Turkish university hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11:880–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Persing DH, et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:2233–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Seventeenth information supplement. CLSI Document M100-S17. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007.

  13. Pachon-Ibanez ME, Jimenez-Mejias ME, Pichardo C, Llanos AC, Pachon J. Activity of tigecycline (GAR-936) against Acinetobacter baumannii strains, including those resistant to imipenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:4479–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Insa R, Cercenado E, Goyanes MJ, Morente A, Bouza E. In vitro activity of tigecycline against clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:583–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. BD White RL, Manduru M, Bosso JA. Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time-kill, checkerboard and E-test. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1996;40:1914–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Satish KP, MR, Eliopulos GM. Antimicrobial combinations. In: Lorien V, editor. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p. 365–440.

  17. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards N. Development of ın vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters: approved standard M23-A2. Wayne: NCCLS; 2000.

  18. FDA. Class II special controls guidance document: antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) systems; guidance for ındustry and FDA. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2007.

  19. Betriu C, Sanchez A, Palau ML, Gomez M, Picazo JJ. Antibiotic resistance surveillance of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, 1993–1999. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48:152–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Valdezate S, Vindel A, Loza E, Baquero F, Canton R. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of unique Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1581–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Koseoglu O, Sener B, Gulmez D, Altun B, Gur D. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as a nosocomial pathogen. New Microbiol. 2004;27:273–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoban DJ, Bouchillon SK, Johnson BM, Johnson JL, Dowzicky MJ. In vitro activity of tigecycline against 6792 gram-negative and gram-positive clinical isolates from the global tigecycline evaluation and surveillance trial (TEST Program, 2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;52:215–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. JM Pankuch GA, Rittenhouse SF, Appelbaum PC. Susceptibilities of 123 strains of Xanthomonas maltophilia to eight beta-lactams (including beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations) and ciprofloxacin tested by five methods. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1994;38:2317–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tatman-Otkun M, Gurcan S, Ozer B, Aydoslu B, Bukavaz S. The antimicrobial susceptibility of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates using three different methods and their genetic relatedness. BMC Microbiol. 2005;5:24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Krueger TS, Clark EA, Nix DE. In vitro susceptibility of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to various antimicrobial combinations. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;41:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tan TY, Ng SY. Comparison of Etest, Vitek and agar dilution for susceptibility testing of colistin. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13:541–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Galani I, Kontopidou F, Souli M, Rekatsina PD, Koratzanis E, Deliolanis J, et al. Colistin susceptibility testing by Etest and disk diffusion methods. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;31:434–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nicodemo AC, Araujo MR, Ruiz AS, Gales AC. In vitro susceptibility of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates: comparison of disc diffusion, Etest and agar dilution methods. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53:604–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Falagas ME, Valkimadi PE, Huang YT, Matthaiou DK, Hsueh PR. Therapeutic options for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections beyond co-trimoxazole: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:889–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Poulos CD, Matsumura SO, Willey BM, Low DE, McGeer A. In vitro activities of antimicrobial combinations against Stenotrophomonas (Xanthomonas) maltophilia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:2220–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Liaw SJ, Teng LJ, Hsueh PR, Ho SW, Luh KT. In vitro activities of antimicrobial combinations against clinical isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. J Formos Med Assoc. 2002;101:495–501.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Hacettepe University Research Foundation (Project No: 060 D03 101 003).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dolunay Gülmez.

About this article

Cite this article

Gülmez, D., Çakar, A., Şener, B. et al. Comparison of different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and results of synergy testing. J Infect Chemother 16, 322–328 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-010-0068-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-010-0068-2

Keywords

  • Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
  • Drug resistance
  • Synergy test
  • E-test
  • Comparative study