Wild-Type MIC Distributions Must Be Considered To Set Clinically Meaningful Susceptibility Testing Breakpoints for All Bacterial Pathogens, Including Mycobacterium tuberculosis
K. Ängeby,C. Giske,P. Juréen,T. Schön,J. Pasipanodya,Tawando Gumbo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00232-11
IF: 5.938
2011-08-17
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Abstract:We thank Pasipanodya and Gumbo for their comprehensive review on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) for antituberculosis agents (5). Although they summarize a neglected area, we believe that setting susceptibility breakpoints solely using PK/PD data, without considering wild-type MIC distributions and clinical outcome data if available, could lead to susceptibility reporting with considerable problems in clinical interpretation and reproducibility. First, the authors’ suggested susceptibility breakpoints, most notably for the first-line agents isoniazid (INH) and rifampin (RIF), differ significantly from those used successfully for a long time. If suggested breakpoints are compared to MIC distributions of clinical isolates from different geographical regions (Fig. 1) (6), these breakpoints would define large proportions of wild-type isolates (i.e., isolates lacking resistance mechanisms) (2) as resistant and most of the patients as having multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. This contradiction is presumably due to PK/PD data that were derived from studies in which INH or RIF were given in monotherapy, but these findings are hardly relevant for the multidrug regimen used today. Even though the authors have pointed out exceptions, the WHO has concluded after a meta-analysis that patients with pansusceptible strains respond well to the standard short-course regimen used today, with the relapse rate being only 3.1% (9). Second, the suggested susceptibility breakpoints split the wild-type MIC distribution, which introduces serious reproducibility problems since susceptibility results of wild-type strains with MICs around the breakpoint would deviate between susceptible and resistant in strains which by definition do not have an acquired resistance mechanism. According to modern principles for the setting of susceptibility testing breakpoints, splitting the wild-type MIC distribution should be avoided to ensure proper reproducibility (1, 6). Finally, the authors claim that wild-type MIC distributions vary between different regions. The three studies referred to hardly support this notion, as they were not designed for that purpose. Two of them evaluated new methods (Etest and broth microdilution), one of which had an inferior agreement with the reference method, and the third used the radiometric macrodilution method. Additionally, one of them included resistant, non-wild-type isolates and could therefore by definition not define the wild-type for M. tuberculosis. Different phylogenetic groups of M. tuberculosis, being abundant in different regions, could have minor variations in wild-type MIC distributions, but this remains to be proven. For other bacterial pathogens, wild-type isolates have similar MIC distributions regardless of geographical origin or source (human, animal, or environmental) (4, 7), and there is no obvious reason why M. tuberculosis should be different. Just like how wild-type distributions show small variations, which could be dependent on sample size and methodology, there is an intersubject variation in PK variables, which is greater than a 10-fold range for rifampin and which is highly dependent on the distribution of fast and slow acetylators for isoniazid (3, 8). Concisely, the breakpoints for INH and RIF suggested by the authors are not likely to be clinically meaningful for the treatment of tuberculosis, and their use is expected to introduce serious reproducibility problems. All together, bas-