Search

OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of pAmpC beta-lactamases in community-acquired Gram negative bacteria in the Netherlands, and to identify possible risk factors for carriage of these strains. METHODS:Fecal samples were obtained from community-dwelling volunteers. Participants also returned a questionnaire for analysis of risk factors. Screening for pAmpC was performed with selective enrichment broth and a selective screening agar. Confirmation of AmpC-production was performed with two double disc combination tests: cefotaxime and ceftazidime with either boronic acid or cloxacillin as inhibitor. Multiplex PCR was used as gold standard for detection of pAmpC. 16S rRNA PCR and AFLP were performed as required, plasmids were identified by PCR-based replicon typing. Questionnaire results were analyzed with SPSS, version 20.0. RESULTS:Fecal samples were obtained from 550 volunteers; mean age 51 years (range: 18-91), 61% were females. pAmpC was present in seven E. coli isolates (7/550, 1.3%, 0.6-2.7 95% CI): six CMY-2-like pAmpC and one DHA. ESBL-encoding genes were found in 52/550 (9.5%, 7.3-12.2 95% CI) isolates; these were predominantly blaCTX-M genes. Two isolates had both ESBL and pAmpC. Admission to a hospital in the previous year was the only risk factor we identified. CONCLUSIONS:Our data indicate that the prevalence of pAmpC in the community seems still low. However, since pAmpC-producing isolates were not identified as ESBL producers by routine algorithms, there is consistent risk that further increase of their prevalence might go undetected.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the current screening methods and to evaluate confirmation tests for phenotypic plasmidal AmpC (pAmpC) detection. METHODS: For this evaluation we used 503 Enterobacteriaceae from 18 Dutch hospitals and 21 isolates previously confirmed to be pAmpC positive. All isolates were divided into three groups: isolates with 1) reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and/or cefotaxime; 2) reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin; 3) reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and/or cefotaxime combined with reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin. Two disk-based tests, with cloxacillin or boronic acid as inhibitor, and Etest with cefotetan-cefotetan/cloxacillin were used for phenotypic AmpC confirmation. Finally, presence of pAmpC genes was tested by multiplex and singleplex PCR. RESULTS: We identified 13 pAmpC producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates among the 503 isolates (2.6%): 9 CMY-2, 3 DHA-1 and 1 ACC-1 type in E. coli isolates. The sensitivity and specificity of reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and/or cefotaxime in combination with cefoxitin was 97% (33/34) and 90% (289/322) respectively. The disk-based test with cloxacillin showed the best performance as phenotypic confirmation method for AmpC production. CONCLUSIONS: For routine phenotypic detection of pAmpC the screening for reduced susceptibility to third generation cephalosporins combined with reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin is recommended. Confirmation via a combination disk diffusion test using cloxacillin is the best phenotypic option. The prevalence found is worrisome, since, due to their plasmidal location, pAmpC genes may spread further and increase in prevalence.