Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020

Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020

CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

CLSI AST News Update

Janet A. Hindler, MCLS, MT(ASCP), F(AAM), Editor
Audrey N. Schuetz, MD, MPH, D(ABMM), Editor

The CLSI Outreach Working Group (ORWG) is providing this

Newsletter to highlight some recent issues related to antimicrobial Inside This Issue:
susceptibility testing (AST) and reporting. We are listing links to some
new educational materials and reminding you where you can find New Information for M100..........................3
information about the CLSI AST Subcommittee proceedings. Future CLSI Meetings ....................................4

Feature Article:
CLSI AST Subcommittee Partnerships Ensuring Reliable Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Test (AST) Results When Using an Automated
Representatives with expertise in antimicrobials from the following organizations AST System.. .....................................................5
attend and participate in CLSI AST Subcommittee meetings and aid in dissemination
of information regarding CLSI decisions and AST issues. Case Study:
The Importance of Being Specific:
American College of Clinical Pharmacy Infectious Diseases Practice and Research
Staphylococcus Species-Specific Breakpoints
Network (ACCP INFD PRN)
for Methicillin (Oxacillin) Resistance . . ...........9
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) Practical Tips:
A Short Lesson in Fungal Taxonomy: What is
ASTM International
CLSI’s Stance?. . ...............................................12
College of American Pathologists (CAP)
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Hot Topic:
Oh No, Enterobacterales?? More
Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)
Nomenclature Changes!...............................14
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS)
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA)
Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP)
Susceptibility Testing Manufacturers Association (STMA)

What does the CLSI AST Subcommittee do?

The first edition of the CLSI AST News Update (Vol 1, Issue 1, Spring 2016) described details about the organization and operation of
the CLSI AST Subcommittee.
• You can access that Newsletter here.
• To learn more about upcoming or past meetings, click here.
• CLSI posts meeting minutes and summaries for public access here.
• If you are planning on attending a CLSI AST Subcommittee meeting, check out the Orientation presentation here.

Interested in becoming a CLSI volunteer? Learn more here.

Please remember that CLSI AST Subcommittee welcomes suggestions from you about any aspect of CLSI documents, educational
materials, or this Newsletter.

1
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Webinars
For information on upcoming webinars please go here.

Upcoming Webinar
CLSI 2019 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Update

Wednesday, February 26, 2020 | 1:00–2:30 PM Eastern (US) Time

Thursday, February 27, 2020 | 3:00–4:30 PM Eastern (US) Time
Moderator

Janet A. Hindler, MCLS, MT(ASCP), F(AAM) Los Angeles County Department of Health, Los Angeles, CA
Presenters:

Romney M. Humphries, PhD, D(ABMM) Chief Scientific Officer, Accelerate Diagnostics, Tucson, AZ
Audrey Schuetz, MD, MPH, D(ABMM) Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Microbiology,
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN

Archived and Free On-Demand Webinars:

Recently archived CLSI webinars can be accessed on demand (it is best to search by date) here. Archived on-demand
webinars are available free of charge six months after the scheduled event for CLSI members. Some recent webinars are
listed below:

• Understanding Breakpoint Decisions: CLSI Rationale Documents (FREE, December 2019)

• CLSI-CAP Annual Webinar: “Rational Approach to Antibacterial and Antifungal Breakpoints” (November 2019)
• Understanding Susceptibility Test Data as a Component of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings (July
2019)
• *CLSI-SIDP ACCP Annual Webinar; “Merging Microbiology and Stewardship: Making the most of 2019 CLSI updates
on antimicrobial susceptibility testing for gram positive and negative bacteria in your stewardship activities” (June
2019)
• CLSI 2019 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Update (FREE, February 2019)
• Resources for Implementation of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry
(MALDI-TOF MS) in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory (FREE, November 2018)
• Preparation, Presentation, and Promotion of Cumulative Antibiograms To Support Antimicrobial Stewardship
Programs (FREE, October 2018)
• CLSI Documents for AST: What’s Available for...You! (FREE, May 2018)
* This webinar was not hosted by CLSI, but can be purchased on demand here.

Upcoming Presentation at ASM Microbe 2020, Chicago, IL

If you will be attending the meeting, please check out:

Date/Time: June 22, 2020 | 8:15-10:15 AM

Title: Importance of Reliable Generation and Appropriate Interpretation of AST Results in 2020

Archive of Retired Breakpoints

An archive of breakpoints removed from M100 since 2010 together with the rationale for their removal is available
here.
Similarly, an archive of methods removed from M100 since 2017 is available here.

2
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
New/Updated CLSI AST Documents Are Here!
M100 | Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing,
30th Edition
30th Edition

M100 Major changes include:

Performance Standards for Antimicrobial
Susceptibility Testing
New Breakpoints:
• Cefiderocol investigational disk diffusion breakpoints for Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
• Colistin and polymyxin B MIC breakpoints for Enterobacterales (formerly ECV)
• Daptomycin MIC breakpoints for Enterococcus faecium only
This document includes updated tables for the Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute antimicrobial susceptibility testing
standards M02, M07, and M11.

A CLSI supplement for global application.

Revised Breakpoints:
• Colistin and polymyxin B MIC breakpoints for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.
• Daptomycin MIC breakpoints for Enterococcus spp. other than E. faecium
New Recommendations: Revised Recommendations:
• Colistin agar test for Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa • Zone diameter criteria that suggests a confirmatory MIC
• Colistin broth disk elution test for Enterobacterales and test should be performed for ceftazidime-avibactam and
P. aeruginosa Enterobacterales

• Mueller-Hinton fastidious agar (MH-F) as an alternative • Disk diffusion QC range for E. coli ATCC® 25922 and
medium for disk diffusion testing of Streptococcus ciprofloxacin
pneumoniae • Minocycline and levofloxacin now in Test/Report Group A
• Preparation of iron-depleted CAMHB for testing cefiderocol for S. maltophilia
and reading MICs for cefiderocol
Revised Terminology:
Expanded/Updated Recommendations: • Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) now referred to
• Definition of “intermediate” (I) and addition of “I^” as “Other Staphylococcus spp.” as more CoNS species (eg,
interpretive category for several agents that have the Staphylococcus pseudintermedius) are being addressed by
potential to concentrate at an anatomical site name in M100

• Definition of “susceptible-dose dependent” interpretive • The family Enterobacteriaceae now listed as the order
category Enterobacterales. See details on page 14 of this News
Update
• Definitions for Test/Report Groups in Table 1
• Issues that should be considered when testing/reporting
colistin and polymyxin B
• Major update and reformatting of Appendix A that suggests
those AST results that should be confirmed prior to reporting

VET09 Report | Understanding Susceptibility Test Data as a Component of Antimicrobial

Stewardship in Veterinary Settings, 1st edition (July 2019)
• Provides veterinarians with the information needed to successfully acquire and interpret antimicrobial susceptibility test
results
• Promotes common understanding between the veterinarian and veterinary microbiologists by providing example culture and
susceptibility reports
• Provides animal species-specific guidance on applying breakpoints to interpret susceptibility test results

For additional information, see archived July 2019 webinar “Understanding Susceptibility Test Data as a Component of
Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings.”

3
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
New Rationale Documents
CLSI publishes rationale documents that provide the scientific reasons behind the subcommittee’s decisions, along with
documentation of the standardized data and methods used to determine breakpoints. To access rationale documents,
click here. To learn more about breakpoint revisions, please check out the archived December 2019 webinar (FREE)
“Understanding Breakpoint Decisions: CLSI Rationale Documents” here.

The newest rationale documents are:

MR03 | Meropenem Breakpoints for Acinetobacter spp. (September 2019)

MR04 | Azithromycin Breakpoint for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (May 2019)

MR05 | Ceftaroline Breakpoints for Staphylococcus aureus (November 2019)

MR06 | Daptomycin Breakpoints for Enterococci (September 2019)

Note: CLSI and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) are continuing to make strides in harmonizing breakpoints
(referred to as Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria [STIC] by FDA) and have now approved meropenem breakpoints for
Acinetobacter spp. as discussed in MR03. To learn more about FDA-recognized breakpoints, please visit here.

Future CLSI AST Meetings

January 26–28, 2020 January 23-26, 2021 June 26-29, 2021

Tempe, Arizona, USA Arlington (Dallas), Texas, USA San Diego, California, USA
June 14–16, 2020
Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Check It Out! Educational Workshops Held at CLSI Meetings

Nicole Scangarella-Oman, GlaxoSmithKline

The June 2019 workshop, held in Dallas, TX, was entitled

“To MIC or Not to MIC; That Is the Question. Molecular
Characterization of Antimicrobial Resistance (AR) for Healthcare
in 2019.” This workshop included presentation and discussion
of three clinical cases from the perspectives of a clinical
microbiologist, a public health microbiologist, and a clinician.
Speakers discussed:
• Molecular testing and reporting for patient diagnosis.
• Molecular testing for surveillance and investigation in
outbreak settings.
• Use of molecular test results in guiding patient management.
In addition, incorporation of results from molecular AR tests into
annual cumulative antibiograms was addressed.
The complete set of slides presented for all cases can be
To coincide with the January and June CLSI Committee Weeks, found here.
the ORWG coordinates a biannual “live” Educational Workshop,
typically held on the Saturday evening prior to the AST
Subcommittee Working Group meetings.

4
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020

Featured Article
Ensuring Reliable Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Results
When Using an Automated AST System
Victoria Anikst, UCLA Health, Los Angeles, CA
Sarah Becket, Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD
Allison Tsan, UCLA Health, Los Angeles, CA

Introduction
Timely and accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is one of the principal tasks of the clinical microbiology laboratory. In
a 2016 survey of clinical laboratories in California, 84/89 (94.4%) of the laboratories surveyed performed AST exclusively with an
automated method.1 As compared to manually performed ASTs, workflow may be significantly improved when using automated
AST systems. Objective interpretation of endpoints coupled with the utilization of result assessing software help to generate
reliable and consistent results with shortened turnaround times.
When using an automated AST system, it is important to understand the key processes that must be strictly adhered to in order
to ensure the system performs as intended. This article will focus on several of these processes, including: preparing the inoculum,
recognizing results that are likely reliable vs those that are unusual and require confirmation, and maintaining QC standards.
Inoculum Preparation, Panel Inoculation, and Purity Check
Appropriate processing of the inoculum is critical for obtaining reliable AST results. As with any AST method, colony age and
appearance must be carefully evaluated before colonies are picked for testing. Various commercial automated AST systems have
developed methods to help standardize the remaining inoculation steps by performing or simplifying one or more of the following:
inoculum standardization, inoculum dilution, and AST panel inoculation. Laboratories should perform all of inoculum preparation
steps precisely according to the AST system manufacturer’s guidelines. It may be tempting to slightly alter one or more of the
recommended steps in order to further streamline a laboratory’s workflow. However, prior to implementation of any modification
of test instructions as provided by the manufacturer, a validation must be performed.2, 3 Examples of such modifications to
inoculum preparation include:
• Picking colonies from agar plates that fall outside the recommended incubation requirements (eg, age of colonies).
• Picking colonies from nonvalidated agar medium types.
• Holding the inoculum suspension longer than recommended prior to AST panel inoculation.
Once the inoculum is prepared and standardized, the panel must be inoculated and incubated within the manufacturer’s defined
timeline. A critical step to ensure reliability of AST results involves performance of a purity check of the inoculum as testing a
contaminated inoculum can lead to erroneous results. The purity plate is prepared by subculturing an aliquot from the inoculum
suspension to a nonselective agar plate (eg, blood agar plate [BAP]) following AST panel inoculation. It is important that the
subculture yields a sufficient number of isolated colonies. For example, if subculturing from a suspension containing
5 x 10^5 CFU/ml, a subculture using a 1 µl loop will reveal approximately 500 colonies, which is usually adequate to detect
contamination. CO2 incubation of the purity plate may improve detection of contaminating organisms.
Ensuring Reliable AST Results and Confirming Unusual Results
Once AST is completed, the technologist must carefully review the purity plate and all results generated prior to releasing the final
report. Each laboratory must develop a protocol that describes both typical AST results for a given species with a list of appropriate
reportable drugs, as well as those AST results that are atypical/unusual and need further action to be taken before reporting.
CLSI provides guidance for results that should be confirmed prior to release in CLSI M100, Appendix A.4 A suggested sequential
workflow for follow up action for confirming unusual results is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure
Figure 1: Sequential
1. Sequential Workflow
Workflow for Confirming
for Confirming UnusualUnusual AST Results
AST Results

2. Transcription
3. CLSI M100 4. Patient Isolate 5. AST and/or ID
1. Purity Plate and
Document AST History Repeat With a
Examination Interpretation
Consult Review Second Method
Confirmation

1. Purity Plate Examination 5

The purity plate should be examined with both transmitted and reflected light while looking for inconsistencies in
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Ensuring Reliable Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Results When Using an Automated AST
System (Continued)
1. Purity Plate Examination
The purity plate should be examined with both transmitted and reflected light while looking for inconsistencies in colony
morphologies including varying colors, sizes, colony edges, and textures that suggest the organisms inoculated into the AST
might have been contaminated. In the case of rapid AST results (<16 hours), purity plate growth may not be sufficient to detect
contamination by the time AST results are available. If an unusual AST result is present, results should not be released until the
purity plate is examined following at least 16 hours incubation, unless otherwise stated by the manufacturer. When it is deemed
necessary to take additional steps to confirm an unusual AST pattern, it is often wise to re-incubate the purity plate for a second
day. This may reveal subtle contamination due to slower growing organisms such as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Monitoring the
rate of contaminated purity plates could be considered as an AST QA monitor.
2. Transcription and Interpretation Confirmation
Most laboratories that use automated AST systems transmit results to the laboratory information system (LIS) using an interface.
However, if AST results are manually transcribed at any stage in the process, a thorough check of all inputted values may help
resolve an unusual result due to a transcription error.
Software provided with automated AST and LIS systems usually includes a feature that allows application of expert rules
to AST results generated on individual isolates. Some of these may be required and others are optional. They generally flag
atypical/inconsistent results, suggest confirmatory tests, enable suppression of certain agents based on the overall phenotype,
and add comments to reports. Expert rules can override “S” or “I” results to “R” consistent with current CLSI AST reporting
recommendations. Some AST systems provide optional expert rules that edit “S” or “I” results to “R” based on a phenotype that
suggests a specific resistance mechanism. Close collaboration with the institution’s antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) is
highly encouraged to determine which of the optional expert rules available with an automated AST system or LIS are appropriate
in their institution.
3. CLSI M100 Document Consult
It is critical for the bench technologist to become familiar with the current CLSI M100 document that contains recommendations
for AST and reporting of microbial species most commonly tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. Table 1 (below) provides an
overview of select tables and appendices within M100 that are particularly useful to help ensure the reliability of AST results
reported on a particular isolate and are often referenced when generating expert rules as discussed above.

Table 1. Select Tables in CLSI M100 That Can Help Ensure Reliable Reporting of AST Results
Table or Appendix Brief Overview of Content
Table 1A and 1B • Lists agents appropriate for reporting on select species and body sites
Suggested Routine and Supplemental • Provides guidance for application of antimicrobial agent suppression rules
Reporting of Specific Agents including
Urine Source Restrictions Important reminder:
• Unexpected resistance must be reported even if suppression rules are in place (eg, report
carbapenem resistance even if an isolate of Enterobacterales is susceptible to extended-
spectrum cephalosporins).
Table 2A-2J • Lists breakpoints and drugs appropriate to report on a given species
Aerobic Organism Specific Important reminders:
Breakpoints
• Breakpoints from a different organism group must not be borrowed if none are listed for
the organism group in question. In rare instances, breakpoints absent from CLSI Tables
2A-2J may be available from FDA.5
• CLSI M45 document provides guidance for testing and breakpoints for fastidious and
other infrequently encountered organisms.6

6
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Ensuring Reliable Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Results When Using an Automated AST
System (Continued)

Table 1 (Continued)
Table Brief Overview of Content
Appendix A • Lists results that should be confirmed before reporting. Confirmation approach will vary
Suggestions for Correlating Organism depending on the type of resistance and frequency of occurrence of the resistance in a
Identification with AST Results and specific facility.
Identification of Novel Resistance • Lists results that require notification of infection preventionists and public health
authorities.
Important reminder:
• Appendix A has been updated in the new M100 30th edition.
Appendix B • Provides intrinsic resistance profiles of commonly encountered species
Intrinsic Resistance Important reminder:
• If an organism-drug result mismatch is observed, a problem with organism identification
or AST must be considered.
Appendix H • Provides recommendations for reporting when there is a mismatch between molecular
Correlation of Molecular AST and and phenotypic results when both methods are used for AST of an isolate.
Phenotypic AST
Abbreviations: AST, antimicrobial susceptiblity testing, FDA, US Food & Drug Administration.

4. Patient Isolate AST History Review

Prior to repeating an AST to confirm unusual AST results, it is prudent to check the patient history and note any AST results
reported for the same species previously recovered from the patient. If the isolate with the unusual phenotype had been previously
reported (and presumably confirmed), it is unnecessary to perform additional testing to confirm again.
5. AST and/or ID Repeat With a Second Method
Depending on the type of unusual AST result(s) encountered, it may be necessary to repeat the organism identification and/
or confirm AST results with a second method. For example, any result other than susceptible (S) for antimicrobial agents with
only non-susceptible (NS) breakpoints should be confirmed. A case in point would be a penicillin NS result for a beta-hemolytic
streptococcus which should be retested using a CLSI reference method if an automated method repeatedly reports the same
highly unusual penicillin-NS result. If a second method is not available in the laboratory, send-out testing to a reference laboratory
that uses a CLSI reference method should be considered.
Prompt Notification to Infection Preventionists and Public Health Authorities
CLSI M100 Appendix A lists those types of resistance that have not been reported to date or are highly unusual. When such results
are encountered, laboratories are asked to notify infection preventionists within their facility and public health authorities so
effective measures can be taken to contain the spread of unusual resistance. Although it is important to confirm the unusual
results using a CLSI reference method, it is best to inform the infection preventionists of a “suspect” unusually resistant isolate as
promptly as possible. The laboratory director should be consulted in these cases to determine how best to handle communication
of results to all appropriate stakeholders.
The Value of Routine AST QC
Routine performance of QC is essential for checking reagent quality and instrument function and may also serve to check for
technical consistency between different individuals performing the AST. Manufacturers of automated AST systems provide
recommendations for routine QC to include testing of specific QC strains, which are usually the same as those recommended by
CLSI. It is important to use the QC ranges established by the manufacturer as in some cases they may differ slightly from CLSI QC
ranges. Some QC strains must be tested routinely (daily or weekly) and others are considered supplemental. Supplemental QC
strains can be used to assess a new test system, staff competency, and training. Although routine QC is essential and valuable, it
cannot be assumed that every AST result generated on a patient’s isolate is accurate just because QC is “in control.” AST results
on a patient’s isolate may be erroneous or misleading due to: 1) a contaminated test, 2) transcription errors, 3) technical problems
with the test, 4) reporting inappropriate drugs for the species and/or body site, or 5) failure to report unexpected resistance.

7
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Ensuring Reliable Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Results When Using an Automated AST
System (Continued)
Conclusion
Ensuring reliable AST results is an ongoing process and involves much more than routine testing of QC strains. The minimum
questions that must be considered prior to reporting any AST result are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Essential Questions to Help Ensure Reporting Reliable AST Results on a Patient’s Isolate
Prior to releasing AST results on a patient’s isolate, answer the following questions:
• Do organism identification and AST results correlate?
• Are drugs reported appropriate for the species/specimen source?
• Are results from similar drugs (drug class) reasonable?
• Are any “R” results unusual for the species and warrant confirmation?
• Was this species isolated from another culture on this patient (eg, same day, different body site or previous day)? Were AST
results the same?
• Were appropriate comments added to the report?
If any “R” results are unusual for the species:
• Check transcription.
• Reexamine “test” and purity plate.
• Check previous isolates on patient (recent and/or previous hospitalizations).
IF the above are not revealing, THEN (as appropriate):
• Repeat ID and AST.
• Confirm AST (and possibly ID) with second method.
• Get assistance from reliable reference and/or public health laboratory.
Abbreviations: AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; ID, identification; R, resistant.

Management should work closely with the bench technologists to establish standard operating procedures that explain how to:
perform testing precisely according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, minimize contaminating ASTs; detect and confirm
unusual results; report highly significant results in a timely manner to all stakeholders; ensure that competency is assessed and
maintained; and determine whether the laboratory AST practices are meeting the institution’s goals.

References
1 Humphries RM, Kircher S, Ferrell A, et al. The Continued Value of Disk Diffusion for Assessing Antimicrobial Susceptibility in
Clinical Laboratories: Report from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Methods Development and Standardization
Working Group. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(8):437-18.
2 Patel, JB, Sharp S, Novak-Weekley S. Verification of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods: A Practical Approach. Clinical
Microbiology Newsletter. 2013;35(13):103-109.
3 CLSI. Verification of Commercial Microbial Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Systems. 1st ed. CLSI guideline
M52. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2015.
4 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019.
5 FDA. FDA-Recognized Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Interpretive Criteria.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/fda-recognized-antimicrobial-susceptibility-test-interpretive-criteria.
Accessed 1/14/20.
6 CLSI. Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. 3rd ed. CLSI
guideline M45. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2016.

8
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Case Study

The Importance of Being Specific: Staphylococcus Species-Specific

Breakpoints for Methicillin (Oxacillin) Resistance
Katrina Callan and Lars F. Westblade
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY
Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY

A 60 year-old-female presented to the emergency department (ED) with a short history of a severe ecthyma-like lesion (ie, crusted
sores beneath which were ulcers) on her forearm. Initially, a small red mark appeared and rapidly developed into a large eschar (ie,
black-colored dead tissue). A specimen for culture was collected using an Eswab collection and transport device (Copan Diagnostics,
Inc., Murrieta, CA). Specimen Gram stain revealed gram-positive cocci in clusters (2+) and white blood cells (2+). A pure culture (3+)
of white-colored β-hemolytic colonies was observed after incubation for ~24 h at 35°C in an atmosphere of 5% carbon dioxide
on tryptic soy agar with 5% sheep blood (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ) (See Figure 1). Colony Gram stain
showed gram-positive cocci in clusters, and catalase and Staphaurex™ latex agglutination (Remel, Lenexa, KS) tests were positive.
Therefore, the isolate was reported as Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was performed using broth
microdilution (Pos MIC Panel Type 34, MicroScan WalkAway, Beckman Coulter, Inc., Brea, CA) and interpreted according to Clinical
and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommendations.1 AST results are tabulated below (see Table 1).

Table 1 Initial AST Results

Minimal Inhibitory Concentration, µg/mL
Antimicrobial Agent (Interpretation)1
Oxacillin >2 (Resistant)
Cefoxitin 2
≤4 (Susceptible)
Clindamycin >4 (Resistant)
Daptomycin ≤0.25 (Susceptible)
Erythromycin >4 (Resistant)
Gentamicin >8 (Resistant)
Levofloxacin >4 (Resistant)
Linezolid 1 (Susceptible)
Rifampin ≤1 (Susceptible)
Tetracycline >8 (Resistant)
Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole ≤0.5/9.5 (Susceptible)
Vancomycin 0.5 (Susceptible)
1
Interpreted using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M100, 29th edition.
2
Cefoxitin was tested as a surrogate for determining methicillin (oxacillin) resistance.

Based upon a discrepancy between the cefoxitin (susceptible, ≤4 µg/mL) and oxacillin (resistant, >2 µg/mL) MIC interpretations, the
clinical laboratory scientist (CLS) performed a cefoxitin disk diffusion (30 µg disk) test. The cefoxitin zone of growth inhibition was
>=22 mm, implying susceptibility to methicillin (oxacillin) and other β-lactam agents when interpreted using S. aureus/Staphylococcus
lugdunensis breakpoints (see Table 2). At this point, the CLS raised the case to the microbiology director who recommended
confirming the identity of the organism using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-
TOF MS). The isolate was identified as Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and the report was corrected to methicillin (oxacillin)-
resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP) based upon oxacillin MIC interpretations for S. pseudintermedius. (see Table 2). Interestingly,
the isolate tested resistant to several antimicrobial classes (eg, fluoroquinolone, macrolide, and tetracycline), a phenotype observed
previously for MRSP.2 The patient made a full recovery.

9
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
The Importance of Being Specific: Staphylococcus Species-Specific Breakpoints for Methicillin
(Oxacillin) Resistance (Continued)

Table 2. Oxacillin and Cefoxitin Breakpoints Used for Detecting Methicillin (Oxacillin) Resistance Among Various Species of
Staphylococci1
Oxacillin Cefoxitin2
Zone Diameter MIC Zone Diameter MIC
Breakpoints (mm) Breakpoints (µg/mL) Breakpoints (mm) Breakpoints (µg/mL)
Organism Group Susceptible Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible Resistant Susceptible Resistant
S. aureus/S. lugdunensis N/A N/A ≤2 ≥4 ≥22 ≤21 ≤4 ≥8
S. epidermidis ≥18 ≤17 ≤0.25 ≥0.5 ≥25 ≤24 N/A N/A
S. pseudintermedius ≥18 ≤17 ≤0.25 ≥0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S. schleiferi ≥18 ≤17 ≤0.25 ≥0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Other species3 N/A N/A ≤0.25 ≥0.5 ≥25 ≤24 N/A N/A
1
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M100, 30th edition
2
Cefoxitin is tested as a surrogate for determining methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in some species of staphylococci; oxacillin and NOT cefoxitin results should
be reported
3
Other Staphylococcus species, excluding S. aureus, S. lugdunensis, S. epidermidis, S. pseudintermedius, and S. schleiferi
Abbreviations: MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; N/A, not applicable

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, a coagulase-positive member of the Staphylococcus intermedius group, is a zoonotic pathogen
where human infection is presumed to be due to contact with animals, especially dogs,3,4 although contact with animals is not
always recorded.5 In this case, the patient was a dog owner. As observed here, S. pseudintermedius can be misidentified as I using
phenotypic methods.6 There is variability in the accuracy of AST methods for detecting mecA-mediated methicillin (oxacillin)
resistance in S. pseudintermedius, and methods and breakpoints employed for S. aureus can result in very major errors if applied
to S. pseudintermedius; ie, S. pseudintermedius isolates that contain methicillin (oxacillin) resistance determinants (namely,
mecA which encodes penicillin-binding protein 2a [PBP2a]) may demonstrate methicillin (oxacillin) susceptible results using
S.  aureus/S.  lugdunensis breakpoints.7 As such, the CLSI M100-S30 document clearly specifies S. pseudintermedius-specific methods
and breakpoints for detecting methicillin (oxacillin) resistance (see Table 2).8 These include oxacillin MIC methods, such as broth
microdilution, and oxacillin disk diffusion. As expected, and in agreement with the oxacillin MIC result, the isolate tested resistant
using oxacillin disk diffusion (1 µg disk; zone size, <=17 mm; See Figure 2). Although cefoxitin is a reliable surrogate for detecting
methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in some staphylococcal species, neither cefoxitin MIC nor cefoxitin disk diffusion methods perform
reliably for S. pseudintermedius.

Figure 1. Colony morphology of the Staphylococcus Figure 2. Cefoxitin and oxacillin disk diffusion testing of the
pseudintermedius isolate after growth on tryptic soy agar with methicillin (oxacillin)-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius
5% sheep blood (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin isolate. The cefoxitin (FOX) zone size is >=22 mm and the
Lakes, NJ) at 35°C in an atmosphere of 5% carbon dioxide for oxacillin (OX) zone size is <=17 mm. The discrepancy between
~24 h. these two β-lactams is not unusual for S. pseudintermedius and
cefoxitin methods are not recommended for this species.

10
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
The Importance of Being Specific: Staphylococcus Species-Specific Breakpoints for Methicillin
(Oxacillin) Resistance (Continued)
The necessity for accurate identification of S. aureus and S. lugdunensis and application of species-specific breakpoints for oxacillin
and cefoxitin is well established. However, development of species-specific breakpoints for other Staphylococcus species is more
recent. A CLSI ad hoc group is in the process of systematically evaluating the performance of methods and breakpoints for
detecting mecA/C-mediated methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in staphylococci. These studies have resulted in the implementation
of additional species-specific breakpoints (see Table 2).8 Notably, Staphylococcus schleiferi behaves in the same manner as
S. pseudintermedius with respect to AST and identical oxacillin and cefoxitin breakpoints are used for both species. However,
Staphylococcus epidermidis has been shown to perform differently during susceptibility testing and not all oxacillin and cefoxitin
tests are reliable for this species. In conclusion, it is becoming increasingly apparent that species-specific AST methods and
breakpoints are required for reliable detection of methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in staphylococci and these are likely to expand.
The clinical microbiology laboratory must use accurate methods for identifying staphylococci to the species level when clinically
relevant.
Clinical Pearls
• Identify staphylococci to the species level using accurate identification platforms (eg, MALDI-TOF MS) when clinically relevant so
species-specific methods and breakpoints can be used to reliably detect methicillin (oxacillin) resistance.
• Perform additional identification and/or susceptibility tests on staphylococcal isolates using reliable methods in cases of discrep-
ant methicillin (oxacillin) and cefoxitin results.
• Use the current version of CLSI M100 that contains the most up-to-date recommendations for detecting methicillin (oxacillin)
resistance in staphylococci.
• If using a commercial AST system, verify the capabilities of that system for detecting methicillin (oxacillin) resistance for specific
staphylococcal species.

References
1 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019.
2 Humphries RM, Wu MT, Westblade LF, et al. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolates of
human and animal origin. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(5):1391-1394.
3 Sasaki T, Kikuchi K, Tanaka Y, Takahashi N, Kamata S, Hiramatsu K. Reclassification of phenotypically identified Staphylococcus
intermedius strains. J Clin Microbiol. 2007; 45(9):2770-2778.
4 Murray AK, Lee J, Bendall R, et al. Staphylococcus cornubiensis sp. nov., a member of the Staphylococcus intermedius group (SIG).
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68(11):3404-3408.
5 Lee J, Murray A, Bendall R, Gaze W, Zhang L, Vos M. Improved detection of Staphylococcus intermedius group in a routine
diagnostic laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(3):961-963.
6 Börjesson S, Gómez-Sanz E, Ekström K, Torres C, Grönlund U. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius can be misdiagnosed as
Staphylococcus aureus in humans with dog bite wounds. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(4):839-844.
7 Wu MT, Burnham CA, Westblade LF, et al. Evaluation of oxacillin and cefoxitin disk and MIC breakpoints for prediction of
methicillin resistance in human and veterinary isolates of Staphylococcus intermedius group. J Clin Microbiol.
2016;54(3):535-542.
8 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 30th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2020.

11
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020

Practical Tips

A Short Lesson in Fungal Taxonomy: What is CLSI’s Stance?

Shawn R. Lockhart
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Fungal taxonomy is a confusing subject for clinical and public health microbiologists, and a frequently posed question is, “Why do
the names keep changing?”
In the past, fungal taxonomy was based primarily on morphology; fungi which resembled each other on routine morphologic
assessments (eg, slide culture) were grouped together within the same genus. However, reliance on morphology alone has been
found to be inaccurate, due in part to the fact that many fungi have two growth phases which are often morphologically different:
an asexual (anamorph) and a sexual (teleomorph) growth phase. The anamorph phase is the form of the organism most commonly
seen growing on microbiologic media in the laboratory. The teleomorph phase is often attained by fungi when growing in their
natural state, such as within the environment (eg, soil). Thus, the same organism can look dramatically different depending upon
the environment within which it is grown and this has led to the assignment of two different names to a single fungus. One
example is Candida krusei (anamorph) and Pichia kudriavzevii (teleomorph); both refer to of the same organism.
Clinical microbiology reference books mostly use the anamorph name because it is the name most familiar to clinicians.
Sequencing and some matrix-assisted laser desorption/ ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) databases
use the teleomorph name, because that is the name often assigned by fungal taxonomists. Molecular phylogeny, which is the
grouping of organisms based on DNA sequencing, has revealed similarities among organisms which differ morphologically, and has
revealed differences among morphologically comparable organisms. For example, phylogenetic studies support the renaming of
Bipolaris spp. which are now classified with Curvularia, despite significant morphologic differences between these two genera.1
Finally, for some fungi, DNA sequencing has revealed that a single species may in fact consist of multiple “cryptic” species.
Cryptic species are those that appear morphologically similar but can only be distinguished by DNA sequencing (and sometimes
MALDI-TOF MS). An example of this is Cryptococcus gattii which has been divided into four species based on molecular typing:
Cryptococcus gattii (formerly Cryptococcus gattii molecular type VGI), Cryptococcus deuterogattii (formerly Cryptococcus gattii VGII),
Cryptococcus bacillisporus (formerly Cryptococcus gattii VGIII), and Cryptococcus tetragattii (formerly Cryptococcus gattii VGIV).2 This
example is clinically relevant as the cryptic species display distinct epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs), but unfortunately they
can only be distinguished by DNA sequencing.3 The CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Tests has not yet established
guidance for laboratories that do not have the ability to distinguish between these closely related species.
The CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Tests has chosen to use the more common, clinically recognized anamorph
names and to avoid teleomorph names until (and if) they become more clinically established in the literature (see Table 1). This
CLSI Subcommittee suggests that laboratories use the anamorph names for reporting. In the clinical laboratory, isolates may
be resulted by an instrument using either the anamorph or teleomorph name, as there is no guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) as to which fungal name (anamorph or teleomorph) to report. Suggested steps are listed below:
• If the anamorph name is resulted, laboratories should use that name for reporting.
• If the teleomorph name is resulted, laboratories may choose to only report the anamorph name, or to report the anamorph
name, followed by the teleomorph name in parentheses. Failure to report the name of a fungus in a clinically meaningful format
may lead to a missed opportunity for treatment, if the clinician fails to recognize the organism name.

12
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
A Short Lesson in Fungal Taxonomy: What is CLSI’s Stance? (Continued)
Current and past names can be searched in MycoBank.5 After navigating to the website, use the function “Fungal Name Search” to
search the fungus of interest. Once the species page comes up, old names can be found under “Synonymy” and other names can
be found under either “anamorph synonyms” or “teleomorph synonyms.” Fungal names can be confusing enough for clinicians.
Laboratories can play a key role in ensuring clinical teams receive results using names that are recognized and can be acted upon.

Table 1. Examples of Genus and Species Names Used in CLSI Supplements M59 and M60 are on the Left While the Alternative
Names are Shown on the Right3,4
Anamorph name (used by CLSI) Teleomorph name
Candida krusei Pichia kudriavzevii
Candida guilliermondii Meyerozyma guilliermondii
Candida lusitaniae Clavispora lusitaniae
Scedosporium Pseudallescheria
Penicillium Talaromyces, Eupenicillium*
Aspergillus Neosartorya, Eurotium, Emericella*
Fusarium Gibberella*
Curvularia, Bipolaris Cochliobolus
Trichophyton, Microsporum Arthroderma
Blastomyces, Histoplasma Ajellomyces
Scopulariopsis Microascus
Candida Wickerhamomyces, Kluyveromyces, Kodamaea, Yarrowia, Debaromyces*
*There are other teleomorph names for these genera; only the most commonly encountered are listed here.

References
1 Manamgoda DS, Cai L, McKenzie EHC, et al. A phylogenetic and taxonomic re-evaluation of the Bipolaris – Cochliobolus –
Curvularia complex. Fungal Divers. 2012;56(1):131-144.
2 Hagen F, Khayhan K, Theelen B, et al. Recognition of seven species in the Cryptococcus gattii/Cryptococcus neoformans species
complex. Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;78(5):16-48.
3 CLSI. Epidemiological Cutoff Values for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing. 2nd ed. CLSI supplement M59. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018.
4 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts. 1st ed. CLSI supplement M60. Wayne, PA: Clinical
and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017.
5 MycoBank. MycoBank database: Fungal databases, nomenclature, and species banks. http://www.mycobank.org/.
Accessed January 13, 2020.

13
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020
Hot Topic

Oh No, Enterobacterales?? More Nomenclature Changes!

April M. Bobenchik
Lifespan Academic Medical Center, Providence, RI
Two nomenclature changes that you may have come across recently are: 1) the change from Enterobacter aerogenes to Klebsiella
aerogenes and 2) the change from referring to the family Enterobacteriaceae to the new order Enterobacterales. These changes
are reflected in the newest edition of the Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 12th ed., chapter 401 as well as in the 2019 European
Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoint tables.2
So why the change?
In 2017 the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) published a taxonomic note confirming
the name K. aerogenes for the former organism E. aerogenes. In 1971, it was proposed that E. aerogenes be placed in the Klebsiella
genus based on biochemical and physical properties of the bacteria. At that time, however, the name K. aerogenes was thought
to already be validly published and therefore a new name, Klebsiella mobilis, was proposed. But the proposed name K. mobilis was
determined (and continues) to be illegitimate according to the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.
Upon further investigation it was found that the name K. aerogenes was actually never validly published, and could therefore be
used, hence the recent name change to K. aerogenes.3
In 2016 IJSEM published a comprehensive comparative genomic analysis of the order Enterobacteriales using data from 1548
core proteins, 53 ribosomal proteins and 4 multilocus sequence analysis proteins.4 Based on phylogenetic analyses and conserved
molecular characteristics, a proposal was made to rename the order Enterobacteriales to order Enterobacterales ord. nov. which
consists of seven families: Enterobacteriaceae, Erwiniaceae fam. nov., Pectobacteriaceae fam. nov., Yersiniaceae fam. nov., Hafniaceae
fam. nov., Morganellaceae fam. nov., and Budviciaceae fam. nov. see Figure (below).

Figure. Schematic of the Phylogeny and Taxonomy of the New Order Enterobacterales
Domain: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gammaproteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales Enterobacterales ord. nov.
Family: Enterobacteriaceae Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Escherichia, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Shigella, etc.
Erwiniaceae fam. nov.
Genus: Erwinia, Pantoea, etc.
Pectobacteriaceae fam. nov.
Genus: no human pathogens
Yersiniaceae fam. nov.
Genus: Yersinia, Ewingella, Serratia, etc.
Hafniaceae fam. nov.
Genus: Hafnia, Edwardsiella, etc.
Morganellaceae fam. nov.
Genus: Morganella, Proteus, Providencia, etc.
Budviciaceae fam. nov.
Genus: Leminorella
Phylogenetic tree showing the change from former order Enterobacteriales consisting of only one family Enterobacteriaceae, to the
new order Enterobacterales consisting of six new families plus the former Enterobacteriaceae family. Listed genera are commonly
encountered human pathogens.
Abbreviations: ord. nov. = ordo novus (new order); fam. nov. = familia nova (new family)

What does this mean for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST)?

In 2018 Klebsiella (formerly Enterobacter) aerogenes replaced E. aerogenes in the CLSI document M100 28th ed.5 The same
characteristics such as intrinsic resistance patterns and higher tendency to develop resistance to third-generation cephalosporins
as applied to E. aerogenes likewise apply to K. aerogenes. But rules for extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) testing and use of
cefazolin as a surrogate for oral cephalosporins for urinary isolates do not apply to K. aerogenes, as these have not applied to
E. aerogenes in the past.

14
 Volume 5, Issue 1 January 2020

Oh No, Enterobacterales?? More Nomenclature Changes! (Continued)

Currently in CLSI document M100 29th ed., breakpoints are listed for Enterobacteriaceae (Table 2A) and Non-Enterobacteriaceae
(Table 2B-5).6 Organisms such as Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Serratia marcescens all belong to the former Enterobacteriaceae
family and therefore all have the same breakpoint listed in Table 2A. However, with the creation of six additional families within the
order of Enterobacterales, some of the organisms that once belonged to the family Enterobacteriaceae now belong to new families;
ie, P. mirabilis belongs to the Morganellaceae family and S. marcesens belongs to the Yersiniaceae family. Since these organisms
no longer belong to the family Enterobacteriaceae but remain appropriate for inclusion in Table 2A with other members of the
Enterobacteriaceae family, the name of Table 2A had to change to Enterobacterales. Referring to this Table as the order Enterobacterales
captures all the organisms for which these breakpoints apply. This change will be included in the upcoming CLSI document M100
30th ed. with the replacement of “Enterobacteriaceae” with “Enterobacterales” throughout the document.
Tips for the bench:
• When you identify Klebsiella aerogenes, think “Enterobacter aerogenes” and apply the same AST rules that you applied to
Enterobacter spp.
• When you see Enterobacterales, think of the old family “Enterobacteriaceae” which included all of the members of the
Enterobacterales order.

References
1 Forsythe SJ, Pitout J, Charnot-Katsikas A, Alby K, Frank KM. Klebsiella and Selected Enterobacterales. In: Carroll KC and Pfaller
MA eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Washington D.C.: ASM Press; 2018:724-750.
2 European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Clinical breakpoints-bacteria (v 9.0)
http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/. Accessed September 30, 2019.
3 Tindal BJ, Sutton G, Garrity GM. Enterobacter aerogenes Hormaeche and Edwards 1960 (Approved Lists 1980) and Klebsiella
mobilis Bacscomb et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980) share the same nomenclature type (ATCC 13048) on the Approved Lists
and are homotypic synonyms, with consequences for the name Klebsiella mobilis Bascombe et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980).
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017; 67(2):502-504.
4 Adeolu M, Alnajar S, Naushad S, Gupta RS. Genome-based phylogeny and taxonomy of the ‘Enterobacteriales’: proposal for
Enterobacterales ord. nov. divided into the families Enterobacteriaceae, Erwiniaceae fam. nov., Pectobacteriaceae fam. nov.,
Yersiniaceae fam. nov., Hafniaceae fam. nov., Morganellaceae fam. nov., and Budviciaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol.
2016; 66(12):5575-5599.
5 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 28th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018.
6 CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019.

Outreach Working Group (ORWG) Members:

Janet Hindler (Co-Chairholder), Los Angeles County Department Graeme Forrest, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland,
of Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA OR, USA
Audrey Schuetz (Co-Chairholder), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, Romney Humphries, Accelerate Diagnostics, Tucson, AZ, USA
USA Shawn Lockhart, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,
April Abbott, Deaconess Health System, Evansville, IN, USA Atlanta, GA, USA
Stella Antonara, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, Nicole Scangarella-Oman, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, USA
USA Paula Snippes Vagnone, Minnesota Department of Health, St.
April Bobenchik, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, Providence, Paul, MN, USA
RI, USA Lars Westblade, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
Angella Charnot-Katsikas, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

950 West Valley Road, Suite 2500, Wayne, PA 19087 USA | www.clsi.org
Toll Free (US): 877.447.1888 | P: +1.610.688.0100 | E: customerservice@clsi.org
15