Back

resaCPE: A Rapid, Low-Cost Colourimetric Assay for the Detection of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales

Jeffs, M. A.; Chalmers, G.; Sheth, P. M.; Ricker, N.; Lohans, C. T.

2025-07-14 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.07.10.25331115 medRxiv
Show abstract

The use of carbapenem antibiotics is threatened by the global spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), bacterial pathogens which hydrolyze these last-resort antimicrobials. Rapid detection of CPE is vital to ensure timely administration of antimicrobial therapy to infected patients, as well as the implementation of infection control measures to prevent outbreaks in healthcare settings. In this study, we report the development of resaCPE, a rapid, low-cost CPE detection method that couples the inactivation of an imipenem disk with a cell viability assay employing a carbapenem-hyper-susceptible Escherichia coli strain. Results are interpreted by a simple colourimetric readout in which CPE-positive samples turn pink, while CPE-negative samples remain purple. The assay was validated with a panel of 91 CPE and non-CPE isolates, and its performance compared to two widely used CPE detection strategies, the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and the CARBA-NP test. The resaCPE test demonstrated the same level of performance as the mCIM (100 % sensitivity and specificity), while providing results in significantly less time (3.5 h vs. 20-24 h, respectively). We also observed that the resaCPE test outperformed the CARBA-NP test (95.3 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity), specifically when applied to the detection of CPE isolates producing carbapenemases with weaker hydrolytic activity. Due to the rapid turnaround time, minimal setup requirements, and low cost ([~]$1 USD/sample), the resaCPE test is a potentially attractive option for primary CPE screening, particularly in lower resource settings.

Published in Journal of Clinical Microbiology (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.