Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, particularly those that produce carbapenemases, pose a significant public health concern due to very limited treatment options. The timely identification of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is essential for putting in place efficient infection control measures and selecting appropriate antimicrobial therapies, thereby improving the clinical outcome of the patient. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy and practicality between two phenotypic tests, namely the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and carbapenemase Nordmann-Poirel (Carba NP) test, in detecting carbapenemase production by Enterobacterales and thereby aiding the clinician in making a decision to choose an appropriate test for their phenotypic detection.
This systematic review involved combining sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CIs), Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity, and plotting suitable summary receiver operating characteristic curve with the area under the curve.
Of the 20 studies included in this review, the overall effect sizes of Carba NP and mCIM with 95% CIs were as follows: sensitivity, 91% (86-96%) and 97% (95-99%); specificity, 93% (88-97%) and 97% (93-100%); PPV, 97% and 98%; NPV, 79% and 90%; accuracy, 93% and 97%; diagnostic odds ratio, 1487.8879 and 8527.5541; and AUC, 0.85 and 1, respectively.
In conclusion, the mCIM method showed superior sensitivity (97%), specificity (97%), and accuracy compared to the Carba NP test in detecting carbapenemase production, even though both these methods had a few technical limitations. The Carba NP test is rapid, affordable, and dependable, whereas mCIM is more accurate and cost-effective but time-consuming. We propose that both tests can be reliably used for screening of carbapenemase production in Enterobacterales, as endorsed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute even in resource-limited clinical laboratories, in the order of prioritizing the mCIM method first and then followed by the Carba NP test when situation demands expedited results.
