A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

L M Koeth1, J M DiFranco-Fisher1, E Palavecino2

  • 1Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, Ohio, USA.

PubMed

Insights

The Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol method demonstrated reliable performance for determining cefiderocol minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). This evaluation showed high agreement and minimal errors, especially with the ComASP read, ensuring accurate susceptibility testing for critical pathogens.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical microbiology
  • Antimicrobial susceptibility testing
  • Infectious diseases

Background:

  • Limited commercial methods exist for cefiderocol MIC testing.
  • The ComASP Cefiderocol method uses specialized broth to minimize iron variability.
  • Lyophilized ComASP offers convenient room temperature storage.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the performance of the Liofilchem Compact Antimicrobial Susceptibility Panel (ComASP) Cefiderocol method.
  • To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of cefiderocol MIC testing against key clinical isolates.
  • To provide assurance to clinical microbiologists regarding the ComASP method's reliability.

Main Methods:

  • Multicenter study evaluating ComASP Cefiderocol against Enterobacterales, *Acinetobacter baumannii*, and *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*.
  • Comparison of ComASP testing with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD).
  • Two reading endpoints assessed: CLSI read and ComASP read (100% inhibition).

Main Results:

  • Excellent reproducibility (97.4%) and acceptable quality control results.
  • High essential and categorical agreement for ComASP Cefiderocol, particularly with the ComASP read.
  • No very major errors with ComASP read; minimal errors with CLSI read.

Conclusions:

  • The ComASP Cefiderocol method is reliable for determining cefiderocol MICs against relevant clinical isolates.
  • The ComASP read endpoint offers superior accuracy and fewer errors compared to the CLSI read.
  • This method provides a robust and reproducible alternative for cefiderocol susceptibility testing.