Impact of MALDI‐TOF on AST

Impact of MALDI‐TOF on AST
NATHAN READING
SENIOR BIOMEDICAL SCIENTIST
MICROBIOLOGY
SANDWELL AND WEST BIRMINGHAM HOSPITALS NHS TRUST
[email protected]
@NATHANR999
ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING METHOD USER DAY 8TH JULY 2014
Overview
• Context
• Susceptibility Testing – Implications Of MALDI‐TOF.
• MALDI‐TOF and ART – practicalities
• Influencing Antimicrobial Prescribing
• Faster Sensitivity Testing?
• Conclusions. About us • Large District General Hospital Trust
• c.900 beds (Split across two hospital sites )
• Serves approx 400,000 patients
• Tertiary referral Ophthalmology inc A&E
• Unified microbiology lab on single site
• Previous home of BSAC Standardized Susceptibility Testing Method Development Centre. • Key interest in A.S.T.
Why MALDI‐TOF at City Hospital?
• Efficiency
• Redesign our workflow
• Reconfiguration of service providers locally
• 7 other microbiology laboratories within 10 miles
• 4 within 5 miles!
• Improvement of our service for users.
• Decrease time to detection of pathogens
• Improved decision support
• Standardise our ID methods to a single platform
• Opportunity to get first VITEK – MS in U.K. clinical laboratory.
Why VITEK‐MS MALDI‐TOF at City Hospital?
• Current VITEK 2 User – AST and GN/GP ID
• Easy integration to attach ID to sensitivity testing using MYLA middleware solution.
• MYLA also has connectivity to our automated sample processing and blood culture system
• Middleware is now potentially a powerful management tool
• Smart Incubators/Sample preparation in the future
• Very simple ID protocol
• Minimal extraction (Formic Acid for Yeasts only – done on target)
• Simple sample preparation on disposable targets
Why is MALDI‐TOF important for AST/ART?
• Accurate identification can be used to predict phenotype
• Inducible AmpC production.
• Morganella, Serratia, Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Providencia
• Ampicillin Resistant, Co‐amoxyclav Resistant, 3G ‐Ceph
• Intrinsic Vancomycin Resistance
• Some Enterococci (VanC)
• Colistin Resistance
• Serratia sp
• Stenotrophomonas, Elizabethkingia, Chryseomonas
• Carbapenem = R
Why is MALDI‐TOF important for AST/ART?
• Most breakpoint tables, zone diameter and MIC built using SPECIFIC species.
• BSAC
• EUCAST
• If the species isn’t named or part of a group then there is no specific guidance!
• Use of foot notes and species guidance
• Aminoglycosides, Ciprofloxacin, Cefuroxime and Salmonella sp.
• Vancomycin for Coag Neg Staphs vs S.aureus
Validation. Do we trust the ID provided?
• CE/FDA ‐IVD Only database – reduced need to validate?
• Performance claims assured?
• Non conformity or non performance addressed via regulatory bodies ‐ MHRA?
UKAS/CPA Stds F1.1, F1.2 and ISO 15189
• Non CE‐IVD Database – Extensive and robust validation?
• Implications when using with patients?
Validation
• Approximately 1400 ‘highly characterised’ strains
• 93.8% ‐ 100% Species ID correct
• 97.4% ‐100% Group/Family Level ID Correct
• 98.5% ‐100% Genus Level ID Correct
Reading et al. ECCMID 2012 Poster P2323
Reading et al. ECCMID 2012 Poster P2332
Symonds et al. ECCMID 2012 Abstract R2637
Symonds et al. Microbiology Poster Session, IBMS Congress 2013, Poster 40 Validation ‐ Direct Comparison • 400 further isolates
• Parallel testing with current
• API
• VITEK 2
• Phenotypic/Biochemical/Microscopy
• No misidentification when compared to traditional
• Limitations of database
• Strains not included
• Slash line ID?
Our ROUTINE workflow – time saving?
 When was ID available compared to traditional method?
 Same 400 isolates – ‘REAL WORLD’ performance
Time to Identification
Organism
Traditional (mean/range)/hours
MALDI‐TOF
(mean/range)/hours
19/15‐29
1.5 / 0.3‐4
10 /6‐22 , 13/8‐36
1.5/ 0.3‐3 , 2/ 0.5‐4
Streptococci
8/ 0.1‐32
1.5/ 0.3‐4
HACEK
18 / 17‐39
1.3/ 0.3‐3
Yeasts
34 / 18‐68
1/ 0.3‐5
10 / 9‐27
1.3/ 0.3‐4
Staphylococci
GNB (Ferm/Non Ferm)
Enterococci
Our ROUTINE workflow
• MS is now ‘de‐facto’ first line ID
• No latex for Staphylococci and Streptococcal Grouping
• No Dnase plate
• No Germ Tubes
• API/VITEK 2 only on occasion, Shigella spp, S.typhi.
• ID set up and results reviewed by bench readers as cultures read.
• Processed in groups of 16 isolates
• Organism ID ready for choice of sensitivity testing.
Our ROUTINE workflow – Lab Aspects
• Decrease turnaround times
• Bacterial Identification available earlier.
• Standardised identification platform
• Reduction of identification methods
• Reduction of training requirements
• Reduction of reagent requirements
• Reduced transport & packaging ‐ sustainability
• Reduced storage space/refrigeration requirements
• Increased throughput capacity
• Addresses pathology reconfiguration requirements
• Locally and Nationally
Efficient susceptibility testing
• Effective Identification
• Only test appropriate isolates.
• Reduction of wastage
• Non S.aureus strains but Staphylococcal Latex Positive, Dnase equivocal/positive
• Staphylococcus lugdunensis
• Oxidase positive non‐Pseudomonas non‐fermenters
• Only test appropriate antibiotics
• Specific panels based on Genus vs general broad panels
Our workflow savings/improvements
• ?S. aureus
• Latex and DNase
• 2‐3 Isolates per day through Vitek 2 NOT S. aureus
• Cost approximately £5.00 per isolate (Purity plate, Vitek 2 Consumables, Staff Time)
• 1 week study 11 Isolates non S. aureus
• Extrapolated saving £2800 p.a.
• ?S. pneumoniae
• Optochin/Bile Solubility
• Approximately £1.15 per isolate (Plate, Discs, Staff Time)
• Approximately 20% not S.pneumoniae
• Extroplated saving £350 p.a.
Efficient susceptibility testing
• Can choose most appropriate testing method
• Automated – Vitek 2
• Staphylococci, Enterobacteriacae, Pseudomonads, Enterococci
• BSAC Standardized Disc Method
• Streptococci (AHS, BHS, S.pneumoniae)
• Neisseria meningitidis, N. gonorrhoeae
• Moraxella catarrhalis, Haemophilus influenzae
• Gradient Strips / Referral • Everything else!
Workflow – capacity extension
• Prior to MALDI April 2009‐ November 2011
• VITEK 2 at 75%‐ 100% Mon – Fri
• ID and Sensitivity Testing
• Ongoing workload increases
• Post MALDI November 2011 ‐ Present
• Vitek 2 at 75% ‐100% Mon‐Fri
• Sensitivity Testing Only
• Second instrument not required
WORKFLOW EFFICIENCY ‐ STAFFING
• AST Pre Vitek 2
• 1 WTE Senior BMS, 2 WTE Band 6 BMS
• 1 WTE Lab Support Work
• AST Post Vitek 2 Pre MALDI
• 1 WTE Senior BMS, 1 WTE Band 6 BMS
• 0.5 WTE Lab Support Worker
• AST Post Vitek 2 Post MALDI
• 1 WTE Band 6 BMS
• 0.5 WTE Lab Support Worker
Problems? Testing without guidelines/methodology?
• Accurate ID – better characterisation of infecting species
• Increased likelihood of reported isolate
• Needs susceptibility testing
• How?
• Discs x EUCAST/BSAC more for CLSI but zone diameter cut‐offs limited
• Vitek/Phoenix x
• Sensititre/Microscan
• ISO Microbroth? Yes but
• No interpretation
• Off line read?
Problems? Testing without guidelines/methodology?
Agar/Broth MIC ‐ Yes • Need antibiotics
• Adequate controls
• Time consuming
• Specialist equipment/Reference
Gradient Strips ‐ Yes
• Care with some antibiotics
• Cost and Range
Problems? Testing without guidelines/methodology?
• How to interpret?
• Breakpoint tables
• BSAC/EUCAST Anaerobe tables
• EUCAST species non‐specific table
• ECOFF’s – via EUCAST website
• Look at MIC distributions
• Look to Case Reports
How do we speed up advice for Sepsis?
• Sample cultured – 24 hours – ID Set up ‐ 24 hours
• 48 Hours to correct antibiotic guidance
• Sample cultured ‐24 hours –Identification Available
• 24 hours to correct antibiotic guidance
• Blood culture sampled – 24hours – Flags Positive
• Gram Stain 24 hours.
• Subculture ‐48 hrs ID
Extending the use of MALDI TOF.
• ECCMID 2011, Milan
• Poster P1825
• 97.8% Spiked Bottles
• Fothergill A. et.al.
• J.Clin.Microbiol. March 2013;51:3 805‐809
• 72.6% Clinical Samples
Reading et.al. ECCMID 2013 Berlin, E‐Poster eP769
Impact of Direct Blood Culture ID using MALDI TOF.
• MALDI‐TOF direct identification, would have led to modification of empirical
therapy of 18 patients (12.32%)
• If TNase media not used then potential for a further 47 patients to have been
positively impacted. Total potential impact 67/146 patients (44.5%)
• All 16 bottles of AmpC‐producing Enterobacteriaceae species from 8 patients
were correctly identified at the species level by MALDI‐TOF.
• Direct identification for Enterobacter spp. would have lead to broadening of
antibiotic in 6 patients. In 5 of these patients, there was delay in starting
appropriate antibiotics for 48 hrs.
• One patient with Enterobacter spp. bacteraemia died 24 hrs. after starting
inappropriate antibiotic for sepsis.
• Identification on day 1 likely to have had a definite impact
on patient management.
Impact of Direct Blood Culture ID using MALDI TOF.
• Impact of Matrix‐Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time‐of‐
Flight Mass Spectrometry on the Clinical Management of Patients With Gram‐negative Bacteremia: A Prospective Observational Study
• Clerc. O et al. Clin Infect Dis. (2013) 56. (8):1101‐1107
MALDI‐TOF identification led to a modification of empirical therapy in 71 of all 202 cases (35.1%), and in 16 of 27 cases (59.3%) of monomicrobial bacteremia caused by AmpC‐
producing Enterobacteriaceae.
Extending the use of MALDI in AST.
• Identification of organism in positive blood cultures
• Wider range of organisms vs. FISH Microscopy and CE Marked Multiplexed Molecular SEPSIS Assays
• Cheaper
• Very quick – 30mins!
• Same day effective clinical advice
• Tailored therapy – knowledge based vs. best guess.
• Better patient outcomes?
• Contaminant vs. Pathogen – De‐escalate therapy earlier
• Pharmacy savings?
• Tailored direct sensitivity testing vs. wider range of panels
• Reduces cost.
Resistance testing 6 ‐18 hours
Faster sensitivity testing
• Molecular
• Limited Targets
• Target deviation/Novel variants
• Genotype doesn’t always predict Phenotype
• EUCAST Expert rules for Cephs/Carbs
• If it tests S then in theory can treat…….?????
• Expensive
• Skilled workflow
• GeneXpert, BD‐Max
Faster sensitivity testing
• Digital Microscopy
• Micro‐fluidics
• Sensitivity testing reported down to 1‐2 hours
• ‘Early’ Disc reading
• 6‐8 hours post inoculation
• Needs re‐evaluated zone diameters
• EUCAST Eurostar Rapid Disk Method
• ECCMID 2013 Sundqvist M et al, P1541
• Automated zone reading built into Smart Incubators
• BD Kiestra/ Copan/ Biomerieux
• Driven by smart image software with expert rules?
• Read when ready?
Rapid phenotypic tests?
HMRZ ‐86
BioRad Beta Lacta
Mast Cica Beta
Carba NP Test
Rosco Rapid Carb Screen
Rapidec Carba NP
Antibiotic resistance screening.
MALDI-TOF - Detection of Metabolites produced
after enzyme hydrolysis
+ Enzyme
Antibiotic
E
Enzyme hydrolysis
Studies: • B‐lactam antibiotics • Ampicillin, Ertapenem, Meropenem, 3‐G Cephs
The first useful MALDI-TOF MS
resistance test
MBT_MSBL assay
+ 18 Da
- 44 Da
•
Functional assay, detection of hydrolysis of betalactam antibiotics
•
Rapid: 1-4 hours
•
Simple pipetting protocol
•
Same instrument like for identification
•
A number of publications show performance
05 August 2014
→ get it into rou ne!
33
MBT_MSBL assay
Incubation
1 -4 h, 37°C
Bacterial suspension
in antibiotic
solution
centrifugation
supernatant
Target
preparation
Data interpretation
MALDI Biotyper
05 August 2014
34
[Mhydr+2Na]+
[M+2Na]+
[Mhydr+Na]+
379,1
372,1
6000
[M+Na]+
[Mhydr+H]+
350,1 [M+H]+
Intens. [a.u.]
[Mhydr – CO2+H]+
Ampicillin hydrolysis
394,1
4000
0
1500
412,0
324,2
2000
368,1
2500
DH5
390,0
Intens. [a.u.]
2000
1000
ESBL strain
500
350,1
Intens. [a.u.]
0
x104
1.25
1.00
372,1
0.75
324,2
0.50
0.25
0.00
320
330
05/08/2014
340
350
360
370
ESBL strain/
clavulanic acid
380
390
400
410
m/z
35
MBT_MSBL Publications
Hrabák J, Walková R, Studentová V, Chudácková E, Bergerová T. (2011) Carbapenemase activity detection by
matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol. 49: 3222-7
Burckhardt I, Zimmermann S. (2011) Using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass
spectrometry to detect carbapenem resistance within 1 to 2.5 hours. J Clin Microbiol. 49:3321-4.
Sparbier K, Schubert S, Weller U, Boogen C, Kostrzewa M. (2012) MALDI-TOF MS based functional assay for the
rapid detection of resistance against ss-lactam antibiotics. J Clin Microbiol. 50:927-37
Hrabák J, Studentová V, Walková R, Zemlicková H, Jakubu V, Chudácková E, Gniadkowski M, Pfeifer Y, Perry JD,
Wilkinson K, Bergerová T. (2012) Detection of NDM-1, VIM-1, KPC, OXA-48, and OXA-162 carbapenemases by
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol. [Epub ahead of print]
Kempf M, Bakour S, Flaudrops C, Berrazeg M, Brunel JM, Drissi M, Mesli E, Touati A, Rolain JM.
(2012). Rapid detection of carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii using matrix-assisted laser
desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. PLoS One 7:e31676
Álvarez-Buylla A, Picazo JJ, Culebras E. (2013) Optimized method for Acinetobacter species carbapenemase
detection and identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin
Microbiol. 51(5):1589-92
Wang L, Han C, Sui W, Wang M, Lu X. (2013) MALDI-TOF MS applied to indirect carbapenemase detection: a
validated procedure to clearly distinguish between carbapenemase-positive and carbapenemase-negative bacterial
strains. Anal Bioanal Chem. 405(15):5259-66
Lee W, Chung HS, Lee Y, Yong D, Jeong SH, Lee K, Chong Y. (2013) Comparison of matrix-assisted laser
desorption ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry assay with conventional methods for detection of IMP-6,
VIM-2, NDM-1, SIM-1, KPC-1, OXA-23, and OXA-51 carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. [Epub ahead of print]
05 August 2014
36
Web-based MSBL software prototype
STAR_BL
05 August 2014
37
Workflow of the MBT_MSBL assay
from positive blood cultures
1 ml culture
Positive
blood
culture
Modified
Sepsityper
protocol
Resuspension
in antibiotic
solution
Incubation
1 -2 h, 37°C
centrifugation
supernatant
Target
preparation
Data analysis
05 August 2014
MALDI Biotyper
38
MALDI–TOF Mass Spectrometry for Rapid Antibiotic Resistance
Detection - Mirande,C et al




Faropenem
Klebsiella pneumoniae
3hrs incubation @ 37oC + Faropenem
Centrifuge 2 min 13,000g
 Carbapenem-S strains
(Neg controls)
 Carbapenem-R strains
(Carbapenemase producers)
Carbapenemase
E
Inactive Faropenem (hydrolysed)
 Carbapenem-S
 Peaks @ 308.3 & 330.3 m/z
 Carbapenem-R
 Decreased intensity of peaks @ 308.3 & 330.3 m/z
 Additional peaks @ 304.3, 326.3 & 348.3 m/z
MBT MS_RESIST
 Resistance testing with stable isotopes
 Growing cell perform protein biosynthesis
 Integration of labeled amino acids resulting in
peaks shifts
 Monitoring growth in the presence of
antibiotics by analyzing peak shifts
patent allowed & patent pending
05 August 2014
40
Principle of the MS_RESIST
normal Lys
Control 1
Susceptible
heavy Lys
antibiotic
Resistant
heavy Lys
05 August 2014
Control 2
41
MBT MS_RESIST
S. aureus strains, mass spectra – gel view
A: Susceptible strain
05 August 2014
B: resistant strain
„normal“
„normal“
„heavy + Oxa“
„heavy + Oxa“
„heavy“
„heavy“
42
WHAT ELSE?
• Typing • Genus specific
• Some evidence of clustering of similar strains
• Not currently routine
• Many of the studies on small numbers
• Specific resistance markers PBP2’, Van A/B
• Current systems in routine not currently
• Some work on MRSA very early on
• Confounding studies
• Carbapenem Resistance in Bateroides fragilis
• Nagy et al.
• Delineate strains Carbapenem resistant from sensitive CfiA positive vs CfiA negative
Antibiotic resistance screening?
• Sufficiently robust and accurate for ROUTINE?
• Good performance with known isolates and in
‘expert’ labs
• Maybe good, cost effective option in outbreaks
• Delineate ESBL/AMPC + Impermeability vs
Carbapenemases
• Less active enzymes?
• Hydrolysis can be slow
• Labile substrates
• Experience of Carbapenemases and AST?
• Yes/No simplified result.
• Advantages over molecular confirmation?
Conclusions
• Striving for robust ROUTINE identification
• Good quality databases which are CE‐IVD marked
• Enables trust in identification, secure clinical decisions
• Need speed of Resistance Testing to catch up
• New technologies
• Re‐evaluation of existing?
• Ensuring Resistance Testing is performed accurately in context to identification
• Right method for right organisms
THANK YOU!
• [email protected]
• @nathanr999

Download Report