Search

Objectives Performance evaluation of routine laboratory methods to determine the susceptibility of Enterobacterales urinary isolates to fosfomycin (oral administration) and mecillinam. Methods We collected 347 Enterobacterales isolates from monomicrobial midstream urine samples from women with significant bacteriuria and leukocyturia. Mostly non- Escherichia coli isolates (i.e. Klebsiella spp. Citrobacter koseri , Enterobacter cloacae complex and Proteus mirabilis) were included (n  = 298). Performance of VITEK®2, ETEST®, and disc diffusion to determine fosfomycin and mecillinam susceptibility was evaluated following International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 20776-2:2021 (or 20776-2:2007 for disc diffusion) in comparison with the agar dilution reference method. Results For fosfomycin testing, VITEK®2 and ETEST® were close to reaching ISO requirements (essential agreement  ≥ 90%; bias  ±30%) for C. koseri , E. coli and P. mirabilis. Categorical agreement (CA) and major error rates were acceptable for disc diffusion. Fosfomycin displayed lower activity against E. cloacae complex and Klebsiella spp. with MIC50 (minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit the growth of 50% of tested isolates) equal to the E. coli EUCAST breakpoint (8 mg/L). For these species, the three alternative techniques overestimated MICs and resistance, and did not meet performance criteria. For mecillinam testing of Enterobacterales isolates, apart from P. mirabilis , ETEST® nearly fulfilled ISO requirements, and CA rates were acceptable for disc diffusion. ISO criteria were reached for C. koseri and E. coli testing with VITEK®2, apart from too high rates of very major errors. For P. mirabilis, performances were unacceptable, whatever the routine method used. Conclusions Commercially available tests may serve as alternatives to agar dilution to assess fosfomycin (oral) and mecillinam susceptibility of Enterobacterales urinary isolates, with important interspecies variabilities. Additional studies comprising more fosfomycin- and mecillinam-resistant isolates are needed to strengthen our conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]