Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing

K. Puechler, Katia Scalzo, Maira Nicoletti, S. Wieser, R. Aschbacher, E. Pagani
{"title":"Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing","authors":"K. Puechler, Katia Scalzo, Maira Nicoletti, S. Wieser, R. Aschbacher, E. Pagani","doi":"10.4081/mm.2023.11056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic clinical isolates is of paramount importance for patient therapy and resistance monitoring. In our laboratory the MIC gradient Etest method and broth microdilution with Sensititre trays are used for susceptibility testing of anaerobes and the aim of this study was to compare the two methods on a panel of anaerobes routinely isolated from patients in the province of Bolzano, Italy. Materials and Methods: Totally, 74 non-repetitive Gram-positive and Gram-negative patient isolates were tested with Etest strips on Fastidious Anaerobe Agar (F.A.A.) and with Sensititre trays, according to manufacturer’s instructions. Interpretation of MICs was by EUCAST or CLSI criteria, resistance percentages were calculated and Categorical Agreement (CA) and Essential Agreement (EA) between the two methods were determined. Results: Of the 74 isolates, 68 (91.9%) grew on both systems and agreement for these was compared in the study. CA for all isolates was ≥90% for all tested antibiotics except moxifloxacin, whereas EA was generally lower. Resistance was generally low, except for clindamycin in all isolates and tigecycline in Gram-negatives. In our study Etest was a superior and more handy method. Conclusions: To conclude, we believe the Etest method is more suitable for routine diagnostic laboratory usage. Nevertheless, multicenter studies are required to evaluate the two methods for anaerobic susceptibility testing.","PeriodicalId":422034,"journal":{"name":"Microbiologia Medica","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/mm.2023.11056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic clinical isolates is of paramount importance for patient therapy and resistance monitoring. In our laboratory the MIC gradient Etest method and broth microdilution with Sensititre trays are used for susceptibility testing of anaerobes and the aim of this study was to compare the two methods on a panel of anaerobes routinely isolated from patients in the province of Bolzano, Italy. Materials and Methods: Totally, 74 non-repetitive Gram-positive and Gram-negative patient isolates were tested with Etest strips on Fastidious Anaerobe Agar (F.A.A.) and with Sensititre trays, according to manufacturer’s instructions. Interpretation of MICs was by EUCAST or CLSI criteria, resistance percentages were calculated and Categorical Agreement (CA) and Essential Agreement (EA) between the two methods were determined. Results: Of the 74 isolates, 68 (91.9%) grew on both systems and agreement for these was compared in the study. CA for all isolates was ≥90% for all tested antibiotics except moxifloxacin, whereas EA was generally lower. Resistance was generally low, except for clindamycin in all isolates and tigecycline in Gram-negatives. In our study Etest was a superior and more handy method. Conclusions: To conclude, we believe the Etest method is more suitable for routine diagnostic laboratory usage. Nevertheless, multicenter studies are required to evaluate the two methods for anaerobic susceptibility testing.
厌氧药敏试验的est和Sensititre方法的比较
背景与目的:临床厌氧分离菌的药敏试验对患者治疗和耐药性监测至关重要。在我们的实验室中,MIC梯度测试法和肉汤微稀释法与敏感托盘用于厌氧菌的药敏试验,本研究的目的是在意大利博尔扎诺省常规分离的厌氧菌组上比较这两种方法。材料和方法:根据制造商的说明,用厌氧琼脂(F.A.A.)上的测试条和敏品托盘对74株非重复性革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性患者进行检测。采用EUCAST或CLSI标准对MICs进行解释,计算耐药百分比,并确定两种方法之间的分类一致性(CA)和基本一致性(EA)。结果:74株分离株中,68株(91.9%)在两种系统上均能生长,比较了两者的一致性。除莫西沙星外,所有菌株的CA均≥90%,而EA普遍较低。除革兰氏阴性菌株对克林霉素和替加环素耐药外,耐药性普遍较低。在我们的研究中,Etest是一种更优越、更方便的方法。结论:综上所述,我们认为Etest方法更适合常规诊断实验室使用。然而,需要多中心的研究来评估这两种方法的厌氧敏感性试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信