Woods Gail L, Williams-Bouyer Natalie, Wallace Richard J, Brown-Elliott Barbara A, Witebsky Frank G, Conville Patricia S, Plaunt Marianne, Hall Geraldine, Aralar Priscilla, Inderlied Clark
Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Feb;41(2):627-31. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.627-631.2003.
A multicenter study was conducted to assess the interlaboratory reproducibility of susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) by broth microdilution using two different media (cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth with 5% oleic acid-albumin-dextrose-catalase and 7H9 broth with casein) and by macrodilution using the BACTEC 460TB and 12B media at pH 6.8 and 7.3 to 7.4. Ten well-characterized strains of MAC (four macrolide susceptible, six macrolide resistant) were tested against clarithromycin and azithromycin (the latter only by BACTEC 460TB, pH 6.8). At each site, strains were tested against clarithromycin three times on each of three separate days (nine testing events per isolate) by using a common lot of microdilution trays and BACTEC 12B medium, pH 6.8; strains were tested once on three separate days against clarithromycin in 12B medium at pH 7.3 to 7.4 and against azithromycin. Agreement among MICs (i.e., mode +/- 1 twofold dilution) was 100% for all strains and both drugs when BACTEC 460TB was used, regardless of the pH of the medium, but varied when microdilution with either medium was used, particularly with susceptible strains. Agreement based on interpretive category, with NCCLS-recommended breakpoints, was 100% for all strains with the BACTEC 460TB method (both drugs and both pH values) and with microdilution using 7H9 broth. With microdilution and Mueller-Hinton broth, agreement by interpretive category was 100% for eight isolates and >90% for two; errors occurred only in laboratories where personnel had minimal experience with this technique. MAC susceptibility testing may be performed by broth macrodilution or microdilution at either pH, with NCCLS-recommended interpretive breakpoints. However, because visual interpretation of broth microdilution end points is subjective, it is more prone to reader error; therefore, this method requires greater expertise than the BACTEC 460TB. Both techniques require appropriate validation and continued documentation of proficiency.
开展了一项多中心研究,以评估使用两种不同培养基(含5%油酸 - 白蛋白 - 葡萄糖 - 过氧化氢酶的阳离子调节Mueller - Hinton肉汤和含酪蛋白的7H9肉汤)通过肉汤微量稀释法,以及在pH值为6.8和7.3至7.4时使用BACTEC 460TB和12B培养基通过常量稀释法进行鸟分枝杆菌复合群(MAC)药敏试验的实验室间可重复性。针对克拉霉素和阿奇霉素(后者仅通过pH值为6.8的BACTEC 460TB检测)对10株特征明确的MAC菌株(4株对大环内酯敏感,6株对大环内酯耐药)进行了检测。在每个地点,使用同一批次的微量稀释板和pH值为6.8的BACTEC 12B培养基,针对克拉霉素在三个不同的日子里对菌株各进行三次检测(每个分离株进行9次检测);在三个不同的日子里,针对pH值为7.3至7.4的12B培养基中的克拉霉素以及阿奇霉素对菌株各进行一次检测。当使用BACTEC 460TB时,无论培养基的pH值如何,所有菌株和两种药物的MIC之间的一致性(即众数±1个两倍稀释度)均为100%,但当使用任何一种培养基进行微量稀释时,一致性会有所不同,尤其是对于敏感菌株。基于NCCLS推荐的断点的解释类别一致性,对于所有菌株,BACTEC 460TB方法(两种药物和两种pH值)以及使用7H9肉汤进行微量稀释时均为100%。使用微量稀释法和Mueller - Hinton肉汤时,8个分离株的解释类别一致性为100%,2个分离株的一致性>90%;错误仅发生在人员对该技术经验最少的实验室中。MAC药敏试验可通过常量稀释或微量稀释法在任何一种pH值下进行,并采用NCCLS推荐的解释断点。然而,由于肉汤微量稀释终点的目视判读具有主观性,更容易出现读者误差;因此,该方法比BACTEC 460TB需要更高的专业知识。两种技术都需要进行适当的验证并持续记录熟练度。