Extended Spectrum
β-Lactamases:
Challenges in Laboratory
Detection and Implications on
Therapy
Dr. Iman M. Fawzy
Clinical Pathology MD, PhD
Mansoura, Egypt
ESBL
Extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing
organisms pose unique challenges to
clinical microbiologists,
clinicians,
infection control professionals and
antibacterial-discovery scientists.
Why we need esbl detection?
• ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae have been
responsible for numerous outbreaks of infection
throughout the world
• ESBL pose challenging infection control issues.
• ESBLs are clinically significant and indicate the
appropriate antibacterial agents.
• Unfortunately, the laboratory detection of ESBLs
can be complex and, at times, misleading.
β-lactam antibiotics
– Penicillin
– Cephalosporin
– Monobactam
– Carbapenem
β lactamases
Beta lactamases are enzymes produced by some
bacteria that hydrolyze beta lactam antibiotics
– Penicillinases, Cephalosporinases
– Extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)
– Metallo β lactamases
– Amp C
– Carbapenemase
Definition of ESBL
• ESBLs are enzymes

– hydrolyzing most penicillins and cephalosporins,
and monobactam (aztreonam).
– but not cephamycins and carbapenems
– Susciptable
to
β-lactamase
inhibitors
(clavulanate, sulbactam and tazobactam)
Clinical significance
• ESBLs destroy cephalosporins, main hospital
antibiotics, given as first-line agents to many
severely-ill patients, including those with intraabdominal infections,
community-acquired
pneumonias and bacteraemias.
• Delayed recognition inappropriate treatment of
severe infections caused by ESBL producers with
cephalosporins  ↑↑mortality .
Clinical significance
• ESBL-mediated resistance is not always obvious to
all cephalosporins in vitro.
• Many ESBL producers are multi-resistant to non-βlactam antibiotics such as
quinolones,
aminoglycosides and trimethoprim, narrowing
treatment options.
Spread
• direct and indirect contact
• with colonized/infected patients and
• contaminated environmental surfaces.
• ESBLs are most commonly spread via unwashed
hands of health care providers.
Risk factors
• Critically ill patients, Immunosuppression
• Prolonged hospital or ICU unit stay
• Invasive procedures: intubation, mechanical
ventillation, catheter
• Long-term dialysis within 30 days
• Family member with multidrug-resistant pathogens
• Prior antibiotic use in last 3 months
• High frequency of antibiotic resistance in the
community or in the specific hospital unit
• Patient who previously had an antibiotic-resistant
organism (e.g., MRSA, VRE)
Major groups of -lactamases
Functi Major Molec
onal subgr ular
group oup
class
1

2

Functional group

Inhibit
ion by
clavula
nate

C

Cephalosporinases, often
chromosomal enzymes in GNB but may
be plasmid-encoded, confer resistance
to all classes of -lactams, except
carbapenems (unless combine with
porin change)

-

2a

A

Penicillinases, confer resistance to all
penicillins, primarily from
Staphylococcus and enterococci

+

2b

A

Broad-spectrum -lactamases
(penicillinases/cephalosporinases) ,
primarily from GNB.

+

2be

A

ESBLs, confer resistance to oxyimino-

+
Major groups of -lactamases
Functi Major Molec
onal subgr ular
group oup
class
2

Functional group

Inhibit
ion by
clavula
nate

Cloxacillin- (oxacillin)- hydrolyzing
enzymes

A

Cephalosporinases, confer resistance
to monobactams

+

2f

4

D

2e

3

2d

+/-

A

Carbapenem-hydrolyzing enzymes
with active site serine (serine based
carbapenemases)

+

3a,
3b,
3c

B

Metallo--lactamases (zinc based
carbapenemases), confer resistance to
carbapenems and all -lactam classes,
except monobactams.

-

Miscellaneous unsequenced enzymes
that do not fit into other groups

-
Selected -lactamases of gram-negative bacteria
lactam
ase

Examples

Broad- TEM- , TEM- ,
spectru SHVm

OXA family

Extend TEM family, SHV
edfamily
spectru
m

Substrates

Penicillin G,
aminopenicillins,
carboxypenicillins,
piperacillin, narrowspectrum
cephalosporins
Broad-spectrum
group plus
cloxacillin,
methicillin, and
oxacillin

Inhibiti
on by
clavula
nate*

Ambler’s
class /
Bush’s
class

+++

A / 2b

+

D / 2d

Broad-spectrum
++++
A / 2be
group plus oxyiminocephalosporins, and
Peterson DL. Am J Med 2006; 119 (6 Suppl 1):S20-8.
monobactam
Selected -lactamases of gram-negative bacteria
lactamas
e

Examples

Substrates

Inhibiti Ambler’
on by s class/
clavula Bush’s
nate*
class

AmpC

ACC- , ACT- , CFE-

Expandedspectrum group
CMY family, DHA- , plus
FOX
cephamycins
family, LAT family,
MIRMOX- , MOX-

0

C/ 1

Carbapen
emase

IMP family, VIM
family,
GIM- , SPM(metallo-enzymes)

0

B/3

+++

A / 2f

Expandedspectrum group
plus
cephamycins and
carbapenems

KPC- , KPC- , KPC- Same as for IMP

Peterson DL. Am J Med 2006; 119 (6 Suppl 1):S20-8.
Common ESBL producers
• Klebsiella
pneumoniae
• Escherichia coli
• Proteus mirabilis
• Enterobacter cloacae
• Non-typhoidal
Salmonella (in some
countries)

15
Common ESBL producers
Type
TEM, SHV

Major sources
E. coli, K. pneumoniae

Cefotaxime hydrolyzing S. Typhimurium, E. coli, K. pneumoniae
(CTX-M)
Oxacillin hydrolyzing
(OXA)

P. aeruginosa

PER-1
PER-2

P. aeruginosa, A. baumanii, S. Typhimurium
S. Typhimurium

VEB-1

E. coli, P. aeruginosa
Mechanisms of resistance
• The majority of ESBLs are acquired enzymes,
encoded by plasmids.
• Different resistance phenotypes to:
– Different expression levels
– Different biochemical characteristics such as
activity against specific β-lactams
– co-presence of other resistance mechanisms
(other β-lactamases, efflux, altered permeability)
Survival of the fittest
Resistant bacteria survive, susceptible ones die

Mutant emerges
slowly

Sensitive cells
killed by antibiotic

Mutant’s progeny
overrun
The Fight
PG

O

N

cell

LYSIS
The Fight
PG

β-lactamase

O

N

cell
The Fight
PG

β-lactamase

O

N

Inhibitor

cell
The Fight
PG

β-lactamase
Inhibitor

O

N

cell

LYSIS
Sites of infection
Intra abdominal
infections
6%

Others
5%

Pneumonia
11%
Skin and soft
tissues
12%

Bactremia
11%

UTI
55%
Laboratory Detection of ESBL

Phenotypic
Methods

Screening
methods

Genotypic
Methods

Confirmatory
Methods
CLSI 2013
CLSI 2013
Confirmatory methods
• 1- Combination disk
– Uses 2 disks of 3rd cephalosporin alone and
combined with clavulanic acid
– An increase of ≥5 mm in zone inhibition with use
of the combination disk
Disc with cephalosporin
+ clavulanic acid

Disc with
cephalosporin
alone
CLSI 2013
CLSI 2013
Positive ESBL

Cefotaxime/CA

Ceftaz
Cefotax

Ceftaz/CA

Ceftaz/CA

Difference > 5 mm
Positive ESBL

Ceftaz

Cefotax/CA

Cefotax
Cefotaxime/CA

Negative ESBL

Ceftaz/CA
Ceftaz
Cefotax
Difference > 5 mm

Cefotaxim

Ceftazidim

Cefotaxim +
Clav

Ciftazidim +
Clav
Difference > 5 mm
Difference > 5 mm
Phenotypic conformation
2- Double disk approximation or double disk
synergy
– Disk of 3rd cephalosporin placed 30 mm from amoxicillinclavulanic acid

– Result: Enhanced inhibition (A keyhole or ghost zone)
Ceftriaxone

Amox-clav
Ceftazidime

Azteonam

Cefotaxime
Ceftazidim

Augmentin

Cefotaxim
Augmentin
Ceftazidime

Cefotaxime
Ceftriaxone

Cefotaxime

Augmentin
AMC

AMC

AMC
30 mm distance between
discs (center to center)

20 mm distance between
discs (center to center)

AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanate; CAZ, ceftazidime; CTX, cefotaxime; CRO, ceftriaxone; FEP, cefepime;
CPO, cefpirome.
30 mm distance between
discs (center to center)

20 mm distance between
discs (center to center)

AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanate; CAZ, ceftazidime; CTX, cefotaxime; CRO, ceftriaxone; FEP, cefepime;
CPO, cefpirome.
Phenotypic conformation
• 3- Broth Microdilution
MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic
acid
>3-two fold serial dilution decrease in MIC of either cephalosporin in the
presence of clavulanic acid compared to its MIC when tested alone.
Ceftazidim MIC =8 μg/mL
Ceftazidime + Clavulanate= 1 μg/mL
Or MIC ratio≥8

4- MIC broth dilution
MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic
acid
MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic acid
A decrease in the MIC of the combination of > 3-two fold dilutions
Phenotypic conformation
• 5- E-test (MIC ESBL strips)
• Two-sided strip containing cephalosporin on one side
and cephalosporin -clavulanic acid on the other
• MIC ratio ≥8
•>8 fold reduction in MIC in presence of CA= ESBL
• or Phantom zone (deformed ellipse)
Cefotaxime

Cefotaxime
+
clavulanate
MIC =16

Ceftaz

MIC= 0.25

Ceftaz/CA
Other confirmatory methods
Cica -Test
uses the chromogenic cephalosporin HMRZ-86,4,5 + inhibitors to determine rapidly
whether an isolate has a metallo-β-lactamase (MBL), ESBL, or hyperproduced AmpC
enzyme , a control strip with no inhibitor, to detect hydrolysis of extended-spectrum
cephalosporins

No inhibitor
Mercaptoacetic acid to inhibit MBL
Clavulanate to inhibit ESBL

Boronic acid to inhibit AmpC
Other confirmatory methods
Brilliance ESBL agar
• identification of ESBLproducing E.
coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter,
Serratia and Citrobacter
group, directly from clinical
samples.
• two chromogens that
specifically target enzymes
green and blue colonies
• Negative pink.
• Proteus, Morganella and
Providencia  tan-coloured
colonies with a brown halo
Other confirmatory methods
6- Automated instruments
• Measure MICs and compare the growth of bacteria in
presence of cephalosporin vs. cephalosporin clavulanic acid
Vitek ESBL
confirmatory test

Phoenix ESBL test
(BD)

Microscan
ESBL Panel
Genotypic confirmation
• Molecular detection
– PCR
– RFLP
– gene sequencing
– DNA microarray-based method
• Targets specific nucleotide sequences to detect
different variants of TEM and SHV genes
Control strains
Pitfalls in ESBL tests
AmpC β-lactamases
• third-generation cephalosporins: resistance ,
• cephamycins, e.g. a cefoxitin: resistance
• Cefepime: sensitive.
Carbapenemases
The presence of ESBLs may also be masked by
carbapenemases
ESBLs vs AmpCs
ESBLs

AmpCs

Inhibitors (pip/tazo,
amp/sulbactam, amox/clav)

S

R

Cefoxitin, cefotetan

S

R

Ceftazidime,
ceftriaxone

R

R

S/R

S

Cefepime
Pitfalls in ESBL tests
ESBL+ AmpC β -lactamases:
• Especially
in
Enterobacter
spp., Citrobacter, Morganella, Providencia and
Serratia.
• The AmpC enzymes may be induced by
clavulanate (which inhibits them poorly) and
may then attack the cephalosporin, masking
synergy arising from inhibition of the ESBL.
Pitfalls in ESBL tests
• Screening criterion for ESBL presence among
AmpC-producing Enterobacter, C. freundii and
Serratia is Cefepime MIC > 1 ug/ml (inhibition
zone<
26 mm).
• Use of Cefepime is more reliable to detect
these strains because high AmpC production
has little effect on cefepime activity.
ESBL+ AmpC

Amox-Clav
Cefepime
ESBL+ AmpC
ESBL+ AmpC
Cefotaxime

Cefipime

Cefoxitin

Augmentin
Cefpodoxime +
Clavulanic

Ceftazidime

Cefpodoxime
ESBL+ AmpC
ESBL and AmpC
ESBL positive
clavulanate
enhancement present
AmpC positive
cefepime: S
cefoxitin: R
ESBL+ AmpC
AmpC
Fox: R
Clav: R

ESBL
Zone
enhancement
AmpC
AmpC
cefepime : S
cefoxitin : R
no clavulanate
enhancement=

ESBL negative
ESBL+ Carbapenemase
ESBL +
carbapenemases
ESBL positive
clavulanate
enhancement
present
carbapenemase
production
resistance to
carbapenem agents
ESBLs and the inoculum effect
• In vitro: the MICs of cephalosporins rise as the
inoculum of ESBL- producing organisms
increases.
• In vivo: Intra-abdominal abscesses and
pneumonia are some of the clinical settings
where organisms are present in highinoculum,
physicians
should
avoid
cephalosporins if risk of ESBL-producing
organism is suspected.
• Two antibiograms of ESBL producing strain. Note the
difference in zones and synergistic effect around the
amoxicillin-clavulanate pills due to different
inoculum concentration.
Reporting
If ESBL:
Resistant, for all penicillins, cephalosporins, and
monobactams
Report beta lactam inhibitor drugs as they test.
If ESBL is not detected, report drugs as tested.
Treatment
Carbapenems are the drugs of choice.
Unfortunately, use of carbapenems has been
associated with the emergence of carbapenemresistant bacterial species
It may be advisable to use non carbapenem
antimicrobials as the first line treatment in the less
severe infections with ESBL producing strains.
-lactam/-lactamase inhibitor on
treatment of ESBL-producing organisms
• Most ESBLs are susceptible to clavulanate and
tazobactam in vitro,
• nevertheless some ESBL producers are resistant to
-lactamase inhibitor due to
– Hyperproduction of the ESBLs → overwhelm inhibitor
– Co-production of inhibitor-resistant penicillinases or
AmpC enzyme
– Relative impermeability of the host strain

• -lactam/-lactamase inhibitor should not be used
to treat serious infections with ESBL-producing
organisms.
Summary of cephamycins on treatment
of ESBL-producing organisms
• Limited clinical data
• Generally effective against Enterobacteriaceae
producing TEM-, SHV-, and CTX-M-derived ESBLs
• Reports of cephamycins resistance development
during prolonged therapy
– Loss of outer membrane porin (porin deficient
mutant)
– Acquisition of plasmid-mediated AmpC lactamase (ACT-1)
ESBL are Emerging Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

multiple enzymes
High-Risk clones
globally disseminated
hospital, community acquired
High rates
Challenge of intestinal carriage
extra-human reservoirs
ESBL are more complex
• Antibacterial choice is often complicated by multiresistance.
– Many ESBL producing organisms also express
AmpC β-lactamases
– may be co-transferred with plasmids mediating
aminoglycoside resistance.
– there is an increasing association between ESBL
production and fluoroquinolone resistance
Prevention
– ICU is hot spot
– Hands of healthcare workers, family, visitors
– thermometer
– Ultrasound gel
– Flag records
– Education
– Contact precautions
– Transfer between wards & hospitals
Still the best way to prevent spread of
infections and drug resistance is ……
Prevention
Individual patient level
•Avoid use of cephalosporins, aztreonam
•Avoid unnecessary use of invasive devices
•Ensure good hand hygiene before and after patient-care activities

Institutional level
•Restrict use of 3rd-generation cephalosporins
•Isolation of patient
•Investigate environmental contamination
Recommendations
• Older agents such as aminoglycosides need
reappraisal to spare the selective pressures of a
carbapenem.
• new trials of cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitors
can be predicted
• oral carbapenems are urgently needed
Recommendations
• Empirical treatment strategies may need to be rethought where there is a significant risk.
• Use a carbapenem until the infection has been
proved NOT to involve an ESBL producer, then to step
down to a narrower- spectrum ab .
Recommendations
• Optimize appropriate use of antimicrobials
– The right agent, dose, timing, duration, route
• Help reduce antimicrobial resistance
– The combination of effective antimicrobial
supervision and infection control has been shown
to limit the emergence and transmission of
antimicrobial-resistant bacteria

Dellit TH et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(2):159–177; . Drew RH. J Manag Care Pharm.
2009;15(2 Suppl):S18–S23; Drew RH et al. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(5):593–607.
Take Home Messages
• ESBL-producing bacterial infection is an emerging
problem worldwide.
• These organisms are associated with multi-drug
resistance causing high rate of mortality and treatment
failure.
• The significant risk factors for ESBL-producing bacterial
infection are prior use of antibiotics, especially 3rd
generation cephalosporins, and critically ill or debilitated
patients.
• Need the ESBL-laboratory testing for establish the
problem.
• Carbapenems is the drug of choice for serious ESBLproducing bacterial infection.
• Avoiding overuse or misuse of 3rd generation
cephalosporins and implementing isolation and contact
precaution to prevent and control the ESBL outbreak.
THANK YOU

Esbl

  • 1.
    Extended Spectrum β-Lactamases: Challenges inLaboratory Detection and Implications on Therapy Dr. Iman M. Fawzy Clinical Pathology MD, PhD Mansoura, Egypt
  • 2.
    ESBL Extended spectrum β-lactamase(ESBL)-producing organisms pose unique challenges to clinical microbiologists, clinicians, infection control professionals and antibacterial-discovery scientists.
  • 3.
    Why we needesbl detection? • ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae have been responsible for numerous outbreaks of infection throughout the world • ESBL pose challenging infection control issues. • ESBLs are clinically significant and indicate the appropriate antibacterial agents. • Unfortunately, the laboratory detection of ESBLs can be complex and, at times, misleading.
  • 4.
    β-lactam antibiotics – Penicillin –Cephalosporin – Monobactam – Carbapenem
  • 5.
    β lactamases Beta lactamasesare enzymes produced by some bacteria that hydrolyze beta lactam antibiotics – Penicillinases, Cephalosporinases – Extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) – Metallo β lactamases – Amp C – Carbapenemase
  • 6.
    Definition of ESBL •ESBLs are enzymes – hydrolyzing most penicillins and cephalosporins, and monobactam (aztreonam). – but not cephamycins and carbapenems – Susciptable to β-lactamase inhibitors (clavulanate, sulbactam and tazobactam)
  • 7.
    Clinical significance • ESBLsdestroy cephalosporins, main hospital antibiotics, given as first-line agents to many severely-ill patients, including those with intraabdominal infections, community-acquired pneumonias and bacteraemias. • Delayed recognition inappropriate treatment of severe infections caused by ESBL producers with cephalosporins  ↑↑mortality .
  • 8.
    Clinical significance • ESBL-mediatedresistance is not always obvious to all cephalosporins in vitro. • Many ESBL producers are multi-resistant to non-βlactam antibiotics such as quinolones, aminoglycosides and trimethoprim, narrowing treatment options.
  • 9.
    Spread • direct andindirect contact • with colonized/infected patients and • contaminated environmental surfaces. • ESBLs are most commonly spread via unwashed hands of health care providers.
  • 10.
    Risk factors • Criticallyill patients, Immunosuppression • Prolonged hospital or ICU unit stay • Invasive procedures: intubation, mechanical ventillation, catheter • Long-term dialysis within 30 days • Family member with multidrug-resistant pathogens • Prior antibiotic use in last 3 months • High frequency of antibiotic resistance in the community or in the specific hospital unit • Patient who previously had an antibiotic-resistant organism (e.g., MRSA, VRE)
  • 11.
    Major groups of-lactamases Functi Major Molec onal subgr ular group oup class 1 2 Functional group Inhibit ion by clavula nate C Cephalosporinases, often chromosomal enzymes in GNB but may be plasmid-encoded, confer resistance to all classes of -lactams, except carbapenems (unless combine with porin change) - 2a A Penicillinases, confer resistance to all penicillins, primarily from Staphylococcus and enterococci + 2b A Broad-spectrum -lactamases (penicillinases/cephalosporinases) , primarily from GNB. + 2be A ESBLs, confer resistance to oxyimino- +
  • 12.
    Major groups of-lactamases Functi Major Molec onal subgr ular group oup class 2 Functional group Inhibit ion by clavula nate Cloxacillin- (oxacillin)- hydrolyzing enzymes A Cephalosporinases, confer resistance to monobactams + 2f 4 D 2e 3 2d +/- A Carbapenem-hydrolyzing enzymes with active site serine (serine based carbapenemases) + 3a, 3b, 3c B Metallo--lactamases (zinc based carbapenemases), confer resistance to carbapenems and all -lactam classes, except monobactams. - Miscellaneous unsequenced enzymes that do not fit into other groups -
  • 13.
    Selected -lactamases ofgram-negative bacteria lactam ase Examples Broad- TEM- , TEM- , spectru SHVm OXA family Extend TEM family, SHV edfamily spectru m Substrates Penicillin G, aminopenicillins, carboxypenicillins, piperacillin, narrowspectrum cephalosporins Broad-spectrum group plus cloxacillin, methicillin, and oxacillin Inhibiti on by clavula nate* Ambler’s class / Bush’s class +++ A / 2b + D / 2d Broad-spectrum ++++ A / 2be group plus oxyiminocephalosporins, and Peterson DL. Am J Med 2006; 119 (6 Suppl 1):S20-8. monobactam
  • 14.
    Selected -lactamases ofgram-negative bacteria lactamas e Examples Substrates Inhibiti Ambler’ on by s class/ clavula Bush’s nate* class AmpC ACC- , ACT- , CFE- Expandedspectrum group CMY family, DHA- , plus FOX cephamycins family, LAT family, MIRMOX- , MOX- 0 C/ 1 Carbapen emase IMP family, VIM family, GIM- , SPM(metallo-enzymes) 0 B/3 +++ A / 2f Expandedspectrum group plus cephamycins and carbapenems KPC- , KPC- , KPC- Same as for IMP Peterson DL. Am J Med 2006; 119 (6 Suppl 1):S20-8.
  • 15.
    Common ESBL producers •Klebsiella pneumoniae • Escherichia coli • Proteus mirabilis • Enterobacter cloacae • Non-typhoidal Salmonella (in some countries) 15
  • 16.
    Common ESBL producers Type TEM,SHV Major sources E. coli, K. pneumoniae Cefotaxime hydrolyzing S. Typhimurium, E. coli, K. pneumoniae (CTX-M) Oxacillin hydrolyzing (OXA) P. aeruginosa PER-1 PER-2 P. aeruginosa, A. baumanii, S. Typhimurium S. Typhimurium VEB-1 E. coli, P. aeruginosa
  • 17.
    Mechanisms of resistance •The majority of ESBLs are acquired enzymes, encoded by plasmids. • Different resistance phenotypes to: – Different expression levels – Different biochemical characteristics such as activity against specific β-lactams – co-presence of other resistance mechanisms (other β-lactamases, efflux, altered permeability)
  • 18.
    Survival of thefittest Resistant bacteria survive, susceptible ones die Mutant emerges slowly Sensitive cells killed by antibiotic Mutant’s progeny overrun
  • 19.
  • 20.
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
    Sites of infection Intraabdominal infections 6% Others 5% Pneumonia 11% Skin and soft tissues 12% Bactremia 11% UTI 55%
  • 24.
    Laboratory Detection ofESBL Phenotypic Methods Screening methods Genotypic Methods Confirmatory Methods
  • 25.
  • 26.
  • 27.
    Confirmatory methods • 1-Combination disk – Uses 2 disks of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic acid – An increase of ≥5 mm in zone inhibition with use of the combination disk Disc with cephalosporin + clavulanic acid Disc with cephalosporin alone
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.
    Positive ESBL Cefotaxime/CA Ceftaz Cefotax Ceftaz/CA Ceftaz/CA Difference >5 mm Positive ESBL Ceftaz Cefotax/CA Cefotax Cefotaxime/CA Negative ESBL Ceftaz/CA Ceftaz Cefotax
  • 32.
    Difference > 5mm Cefotaxim Ceftazidim Cefotaxim + Clav Ciftazidim + Clav
  • 33.
    Difference > 5mm Difference > 5 mm
  • 36.
    Phenotypic conformation 2- Doubledisk approximation or double disk synergy – Disk of 3rd cephalosporin placed 30 mm from amoxicillinclavulanic acid – Result: Enhanced inhibition (A keyhole or ghost zone)
  • 37.
  • 40.
  • 42.
  • 44.
  • 45.
  • 46.
    30 mm distancebetween discs (center to center) 20 mm distance between discs (center to center) AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanate; CAZ, ceftazidime; CTX, cefotaxime; CRO, ceftriaxone; FEP, cefepime; CPO, cefpirome.
  • 47.
    30 mm distancebetween discs (center to center) 20 mm distance between discs (center to center) AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanate; CAZ, ceftazidime; CTX, cefotaxime; CRO, ceftriaxone; FEP, cefepime; CPO, cefpirome.
  • 48.
    Phenotypic conformation • 3-Broth Microdilution MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic acid >3-two fold serial dilution decrease in MIC of either cephalosporin in the presence of clavulanic acid compared to its MIC when tested alone. Ceftazidim MIC =8 μg/mL Ceftazidime + Clavulanate= 1 μg/mL Or MIC ratio≥8 4- MIC broth dilution MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic acid MIC of 3rd cephalosporin alone and combined with clavulanic acid A decrease in the MIC of the combination of > 3-two fold dilutions
  • 49.
    Phenotypic conformation • 5-E-test (MIC ESBL strips) • Two-sided strip containing cephalosporin on one side and cephalosporin -clavulanic acid on the other • MIC ratio ≥8 •>8 fold reduction in MIC in presence of CA= ESBL • or Phantom zone (deformed ellipse)
  • 50.
  • 51.
  • 53.
    Other confirmatory methods Cica-Test uses the chromogenic cephalosporin HMRZ-86,4,5 + inhibitors to determine rapidly whether an isolate has a metallo-β-lactamase (MBL), ESBL, or hyperproduced AmpC enzyme , a control strip with no inhibitor, to detect hydrolysis of extended-spectrum cephalosporins No inhibitor Mercaptoacetic acid to inhibit MBL Clavulanate to inhibit ESBL Boronic acid to inhibit AmpC
  • 54.
    Other confirmatory methods BrillianceESBL agar • identification of ESBLproducing E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Serratia and Citrobacter group, directly from clinical samples. • two chromogens that specifically target enzymes green and blue colonies • Negative pink. • Proteus, Morganella and Providencia  tan-coloured colonies with a brown halo
  • 55.
    Other confirmatory methods 6-Automated instruments • Measure MICs and compare the growth of bacteria in presence of cephalosporin vs. cephalosporin clavulanic acid
  • 56.
    Vitek ESBL confirmatory test PhoenixESBL test (BD) Microscan ESBL Panel
  • 57.
    Genotypic confirmation • Moleculardetection – PCR – RFLP – gene sequencing – DNA microarray-based method • Targets specific nucleotide sequences to detect different variants of TEM and SHV genes
  • 58.
  • 59.
    Pitfalls in ESBLtests AmpC β-lactamases • third-generation cephalosporins: resistance , • cephamycins, e.g. a cefoxitin: resistance • Cefepime: sensitive. Carbapenemases The presence of ESBLs may also be masked by carbapenemases
  • 60.
    ESBLs vs AmpCs ESBLs AmpCs Inhibitors(pip/tazo, amp/sulbactam, amox/clav) S R Cefoxitin, cefotetan S R Ceftazidime, ceftriaxone R R S/R S Cefepime
  • 62.
    Pitfalls in ESBLtests ESBL+ AmpC β -lactamases: • Especially in Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter, Morganella, Providencia and Serratia. • The AmpC enzymes may be induced by clavulanate (which inhibits them poorly) and may then attack the cephalosporin, masking synergy arising from inhibition of the ESBL.
  • 63.
    Pitfalls in ESBLtests • Screening criterion for ESBL presence among AmpC-producing Enterobacter, C. freundii and Serratia is Cefepime MIC > 1 ug/ml (inhibition zone< 26 mm). • Use of Cefepime is more reliable to detect these strains because high AmpC production has little effect on cefepime activity.
  • 64.
  • 65.
  • 66.
  • 67.
    ESBL+ AmpC ESBL andAmpC ESBL positive clavulanate enhancement present AmpC positive cefepime: S cefoxitin: R
  • 68.
    ESBL+ AmpC AmpC Fox: R Clav:R ESBL Zone enhancement
  • 69.
    AmpC AmpC cefepime : S cefoxitin: R no clavulanate enhancement= ESBL negative
  • 70.
    ESBL+ Carbapenemase ESBL + carbapenemases ESBLpositive clavulanate enhancement present carbapenemase production resistance to carbapenem agents
  • 71.
    ESBLs and theinoculum effect • In vitro: the MICs of cephalosporins rise as the inoculum of ESBL- producing organisms increases. • In vivo: Intra-abdominal abscesses and pneumonia are some of the clinical settings where organisms are present in highinoculum, physicians should avoid cephalosporins if risk of ESBL-producing organism is suspected.
  • 72.
    • Two antibiogramsof ESBL producing strain. Note the difference in zones and synergistic effect around the amoxicillin-clavulanate pills due to different inoculum concentration.
  • 74.
    Reporting If ESBL: Resistant, forall penicillins, cephalosporins, and monobactams Report beta lactam inhibitor drugs as they test. If ESBL is not detected, report drugs as tested.
  • 75.
    Treatment Carbapenems are thedrugs of choice. Unfortunately, use of carbapenems has been associated with the emergence of carbapenemresistant bacterial species It may be advisable to use non carbapenem antimicrobials as the first line treatment in the less severe infections with ESBL producing strains.
  • 76.
    -lactam/-lactamase inhibitor on treatmentof ESBL-producing organisms • Most ESBLs are susceptible to clavulanate and tazobactam in vitro, • nevertheless some ESBL producers are resistant to -lactamase inhibitor due to – Hyperproduction of the ESBLs → overwhelm inhibitor – Co-production of inhibitor-resistant penicillinases or AmpC enzyme – Relative impermeability of the host strain • -lactam/-lactamase inhibitor should not be used to treat serious infections with ESBL-producing organisms.
  • 77.
    Summary of cephamycinson treatment of ESBL-producing organisms • Limited clinical data • Generally effective against Enterobacteriaceae producing TEM-, SHV-, and CTX-M-derived ESBLs • Reports of cephamycins resistance development during prolonged therapy – Loss of outer membrane porin (porin deficient mutant) – Acquisition of plasmid-mediated AmpC lactamase (ACT-1)
  • 78.
    ESBL are EmergingChallenges • • • • • • • multiple enzymes High-Risk clones globally disseminated hospital, community acquired High rates Challenge of intestinal carriage extra-human reservoirs
  • 79.
    ESBL are morecomplex • Antibacterial choice is often complicated by multiresistance. – Many ESBL producing organisms also express AmpC β-lactamases – may be co-transferred with plasmids mediating aminoglycoside resistance. – there is an increasing association between ESBL production and fluoroquinolone resistance
  • 80.
    Prevention – ICU ishot spot – Hands of healthcare workers, family, visitors – thermometer – Ultrasound gel – Flag records – Education – Contact precautions – Transfer between wards & hospitals
  • 81.
    Still the bestway to prevent spread of infections and drug resistance is ……
  • 82.
    Prevention Individual patient level •Avoiduse of cephalosporins, aztreonam •Avoid unnecessary use of invasive devices •Ensure good hand hygiene before and after patient-care activities Institutional level •Restrict use of 3rd-generation cephalosporins •Isolation of patient •Investigate environmental contamination
  • 83.
    Recommendations • Older agentssuch as aminoglycosides need reappraisal to spare the selective pressures of a carbapenem. • new trials of cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitors can be predicted • oral carbapenems are urgently needed
  • 84.
    Recommendations • Empirical treatmentstrategies may need to be rethought where there is a significant risk. • Use a carbapenem until the infection has been proved NOT to involve an ESBL producer, then to step down to a narrower- spectrum ab .
  • 85.
    Recommendations • Optimize appropriateuse of antimicrobials – The right agent, dose, timing, duration, route • Help reduce antimicrobial resistance – The combination of effective antimicrobial supervision and infection control has been shown to limit the emergence and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria Dellit TH et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(2):159–177; . Drew RH. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(2 Suppl):S18–S23; Drew RH et al. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(5):593–607.
  • 86.
    Take Home Messages •ESBL-producing bacterial infection is an emerging problem worldwide. • These organisms are associated with multi-drug resistance causing high rate of mortality and treatment failure. • The significant risk factors for ESBL-producing bacterial infection are prior use of antibiotics, especially 3rd generation cephalosporins, and critically ill or debilitated patients. • Need the ESBL-laboratory testing for establish the problem. • Carbapenems is the drug of choice for serious ESBLproducing bacterial infection. • Avoiding overuse or misuse of 3rd generation cephalosporins and implementing isolation and contact precaution to prevent and control the ESBL outbreak.
  • 87.

Editor's Notes

  • #7 Intrinsic resistance = inherent or innate (not acquired) resistance, which is reflected in wildtype antimicrobial patterns of all or almost all representatives of a species. Intrinsic resistance is so common that susceptibility testing is unnecessary.• Acquired resistance = antimicrobial resistancein a bacterium that was previously susceptiblethat occurs as a result of:– Chance gene mutation– Acquisition of R genes from another bacterium