Objectives: To evaluate the proficiency of Spanish microbiology laboratories with respect to the antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of Acinetobacter spp.
Methods: Eight Acinetobacter spp. with different resistance mechanisms were sent to 48 Spanish centres which were asked to report: (i) the AST system used; (ii) MICs; (iii) breakpoints used (CLSI versus EUCAST); (iv) clinical category; and (v) resistance mechanisms inferred. Minor, major and very major errors (mE, ME and VME, respectively) were determined.
Results: The greatest percentages of discrepancies were: (i) by AST method: 18.5% Etest, 14.3% Vitek 2 and Sensititre; (ii) by breakpoints: 20.5% (CLSI) and 10.8% (EUCAST); and (iii) by antimicrobial agent: ampicillin/sulbactam (56.2% CLSI), minocycline (40.7% CLSI), tobramycin (38.7% CLSI, 16.8% EUCAST), imipenem (27.8% CLSI, 30.0% EUCAST) and meropenem (25.4% CLSI, 20.8% EUCAST). Categorical error rates: (i) by AST method ranged from 30.0% (Phoenix) to 100% (Sensititre and disc diffusion) for mE, 0.0% (Etest, Sensititre, disc diffusion) to 40% (Phoenix) for ME, and 0.0% (Sensititre and disc diffusion) to 30% (Phoenix) for VME; (ii) by breakpoints: mE (80.1% CLSI, 58.4% EUCAST), ME (3.5% CLSI, 12.4% EUCAST) and VME (16.4% CLSI, 29.2% EUCAST); and (iii) by antimicrobial agent: mE (100% levofloxacin/CLSI, 100% levofloxacin and meropenem/EUCAST), ME (35.3% colistin/CLSI, 25.0% colistin/EUCAST) and VME (64.7% colistin/CLSI, 86.7% gentamicin/EUCAST).
Conclusions: Clinical microbiology laboratories must improve their ability to determine antimicrobial susceptibilities of Acinetobacter spp. isolates. Higher discrepancies using CLSI when compared with EUCAST are mainly due to mE and to a much lesser extent to ME or VME.