Koritnik, Tom, Cvetkovikj, Iskra, Zendri, Flavia 
ORCID: 0000-0002-7776-9278, Blum, Shlomo Eduardo, Chaintoutis, Serafeim Christos, Kopp, Peter A, Hare, Cassia, Štritof, Zrinka, Kittl, Sonja, Gonçalves, José et al (show 8 more authors)
(2024)
Towards harmonized laboratory methodologies in veterinary clinical bacteriology: outcomes of a European survey
Frontiers in Microbiology, 15.
1443755-.
ISSN 1664-302X, 1664-302X
|
PDF
fmicb-15-1443755.pdf - Open Access published version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
IntroductionVeterinary clinical microbiology laboratories play a key role in antimicrobial stewardship, surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and prevention of healthcare associated-infections. However, there is a shortage of international harmonized guidelines covering all steps of veterinary bacterial culture from sample receipt to reporting.MethodsIn order to gain insights, the European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment (ENOVAT) designed an online survey focused on the practices and interpretive criteria used for bacterial culture and identification (C&ID), and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of animal bacterial pathogens.ResultsA total of 241 microbiology laboratories in 34 European countries completed the survey, representing a mixture of academic (37.6%), governmental (27.4%), and private (26.5%) laboratories. The C&ID turnaround varied from 1 to 2 days (77.8%) to 3–5 days (20%), and 6– 8 days (1.6%), with similar timeframes for AST. Individual biochemical tests and analytical profile index (API) biochemical test kits or similar were the most frequent tools used for bacterial identification (77% and 56.2%, respectively), followed by PCR (46.6%) and MALDI-TOF MS (43.3%). For AST, Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (DD) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination were conducted by 43.8% and 32.6% of laboratories, respectively, with a combination of EUCAST and CLSI clinical breakpoints (CBPs) preferred for interpretation of the DD (41.2%) and MIC (47.6%) results. In the absence of specific CBPs, laboratories used human CBPs (53.3%) or veterinary CBPs representing another body site, organism or animal species (51.5%). Importantly, most laboratories (47.9%) only report the qualitative interpretation of the result (S, R, and I). As regards testing for AMR mechanisms, 48.5% and 46.7% of laboratories routinely screened isolates for methicillin resistance and ESBL production, respectively. Notably, selective reporting of AST results (i.e. excluding highest priority critically important antimicrobials from AST reports) was adopted by 39.5% of laboratories despite a similar proportion not taking any approach (37.6%) to guide clinicians towards narrower-spectrum or first-line antibiotics.DiscussionIn conclusion, we identified a broad variety of methodologies and interpretative criteria used for C&ID and AST in European veterinary microbiological diagnostic laboratories. The observed gaps in veterinary microbiology practices emphasize a need to improve and harmonize professional training, innovation, bacterial culture methods and interpretation, AMR surveillance and reporting strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ENOVAT, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, bacterial culture, bacterial identification, harmonization, methodologies, veterinary clinical bacteriology |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Health & Life Sciences Faculty of Health & Life Sciences > Inst. Infection, Vet & Ecological Sciences |
| Depositing User: | Symplectic Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 17 Oct 2024 07:27 |
| Last Modified: | 21 Jan 2026 18:24 |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1443755 |
| Related Websites: | |
| URI: | https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3185137 |
| Disclaimer: | The University of Liverpool is not responsible for content contained on other websites from links within repository metadata. Please contact us if you notice anything that appears incorrect or inappropriate. |
Altmetric
Altmetric