1887

Abstract

The newly developed E test was compared with an extended 1% proportion dilution method for determining the susceptibility of complex (MAC) strains to amikacin, streptomycin, fusidic acid, rifampicin, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin and fleroxacin. For all antibiotics tested except clarithromycin and ciprofloxacin, no more than one strain gave a different susceptibility result with the two methods. The discrepant results occurred near the chosen breakpoint concentration of clarithromycin and outside the concentration range of the E test for ciprofloxacin. For the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values obtained within the range of antibiotic concentrations tested, there was good correlation between the two methods; the MICs differed by more than one two-fold dilution in no more than two strains per antibiotic. It is concluded that the E test is suitable for susceptibility testing of MAC.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-44-3-227
1996-03-01
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/44/3/medmicro-44-3-227.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-44-3-227&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Hawkins J. E., Wallace R. J., Brown B. A. Antibacterial susceptibility tests: mycobacteria. In Balows A., Hausler W., Herrmann K., Isenberg H., Shadomy H. (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology 5th edn American Society for Microbiology; Washington: 1991304–339 1138–1152
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Inderlied C. B., Kemper C. A., Bermudez L. E. M. The Mycobacterium avium complex. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993; 6:266–310
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hoffner S. E., Klintz L., Olsson-Liljequist B., Bolmström A. Evaluation of E test for rapid susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium chelonae and M. fortuitum . J Clin Microbiol 1994; 32:1846–1849
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fabry W., Schmid E. N., Ansorg R. Comparison of the E test and a proportion dilution method for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium kansasii . Chemotherapy 1995; 41:247–252
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DIN 58943, Deutsches Institut für Normierung e. V. Medical microbiology; diagnosis of tuberculosis; methods for the determination of susceptibility of tubercle bacilli to chemotherapeutic agents. 2nd edn Berlin: Koln, Beuth Verlag; 1991264
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Inderlied C. B. Antimycobacterial agents: in vitro susceptibility testing, spectrums of activity, mechanisms of action and resistance, and assays for activity in biological fluids. In Lorian V. (ed) Antibiotics in laboratory medicine 3rd edn Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co; 1991134–197
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fenlon C. H., Cynamon M. H. Comparative in vitro activities of ciprofloxacin and other 4-quinolones against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium intracellulare . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:386–388
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Heifets L., Lindholm-Levy R. Comparison of bactericidal activities of streptomycin, amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin against Mycobacterium avium and M. tuberculosis . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33:1298–1301
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Leysen D. C., Haemers A., Pattyn S. R. Mycobacteria and the new quinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33:1–5
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Rastogi N., Goh K. S. Effect of pH on radiometric MICs of clarithromycin against 18 species of Mycobacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36:2841–2842
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Reeves D. S. The pharmacokinetics of fusidic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20:467–476
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Stone M. S., Wallace R. J., Swenson J. M., Thornsberry C., Christensen L. A. Agar disk elution method for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium marinum and Mycobacterium fortuitum complex to sulfonamides and antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24:486–493
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Wise R., Lister D., McNulty C. A. M., Griggs D., Andrews J. M. The comparative pharmacokinetics of five quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18: Suppl D 71–81
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Klopman G., Wang S., Jacobs M. R., Bajaksouzian S., Edmonds K., Ellner J. J. Anti-Mycobacterium avium activity of quinolones: in vitro activities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:1799–1806
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Meißner G., Schmiedel A. Mykobakterien und mykobakterielle Erkrankungen. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 196859
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee C.-N., Heifets L. B. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations of antituberculosis drugs by radiometric and conventional methods. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987; 136:349–352
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bailey W. C., Bass J. B., Hawkins J. E., Kubica G. P., Wallace R. J. Drug susceptibility testing for mycobacteria. Am Thome Soc News 1984; 10:9–10
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-44-3-227
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-44-3-227
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error