Comparison of ertapenem non-susceptibility with 2-mercaptopropionic acid phenotypic tests in predicting NDM-1 and IMP-1 production in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli

Caspian J Intern Med. 2020 Fall;11(4):426-431. doi: 10.22088/cjim.11.4.426.


BACKGROUND: A routine phenotypic test has not been recommended for the detection of metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) producing Enterobacteriaceae species such as Escherichia coli. The current study was conducted to compare the 2-mercaptopropionic acid (2-MPA) phenotypic method and ertapenem non-susceptibility test with polymerase chain reaction in predicting the production of MBLs in clinical isolates of E. coli.

METHODS: Antimicrobial susceptibility test for beta-lactam antibiotics were performed by disk diffusion method. All isolates which showed inhibition zones of ≤ 22 mm for CAZ and ≤ 27 mm for CTX were considered potential MBLs producing isolates. The production of MBLs was confirmed using 2-MPA compound. Also, susceptibility to ertapenem was evaluated in all isolates. Conventional PCR was performed to detect blaIMP-1 and/or blaNDM-1 genes in all potential MBLs producing E. coli isolates.

RESULTS: Of 259, 138 (53.3%) isolates were potential MBLs producing bacteria. One hundred and fifteen out of 138 (83.3%) isolates were susceptible to ertapenem. MBLs production was confirmed in 75/138 (54.4%) isolates by 2-MPA phenotypic method. The blaNDM-1 or/and blaIMP-1 genes were found in 30/75(40%) and 39/115(33.9%) isolates which were confirmed by 2-MPA and were susceptible to ertapenem, respectively. The sensitivity of 2-MPA method and ertapenem non-susceptibility test compared with PCR were 65.2% and 15.2%, and the specificity was 52.1% versus 82.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the 2-MPA phenotypic method does not have acceptable sensitivity and specificity in comparison with PCR, but its results are more reliable for the detection of MBL producing E. coli isolates compared with non-susceptibility to ertapenem.

PMID:33680385 | PMC:PMC7911768 | DOI:10.22088/cjim.11.4.426