Suppr超能文献

比较药敏纸片扩散法、Etest 法和琼脂稀释法检测肠杆菌科细菌对黏菌素的敏感性。

Comparison of disc diffusion, Etest and agar dilution for susceptibility testing of colistin against Enterobacteriaceae.

机构信息

Laboratoire de Microbiologie CHU Habib Bourguiba, Sfax, Tunisia.

出版信息

Lett Appl Microbiol. 2011 Nov;53(5):546-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03145.x. Epub 2011 Sep 23.

Abstract

AIMS

In this study, we compared different methods of colistin susceptibility testing, disc diffusion, agar dilution and Etest using a set of Enterobacteriaceae isolates that included colistin-resistant strains.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Susceptibility of 200 clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae to colistin was tested to compare agar dilution (reference method), disc diffusion (50 and 10 μg) and Etest. MICs (minimum inhibitory concentrations) were interpreted using the criteria established by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Colistin exhibited excellent activity against Escherichia coli and E. cloacae (MIC90 = 0·5 mg l(-1)). In contrast, colistin was less active against Klebsiella pneumoniae (MIC90 = 16 mg l(-1)). Resistance rates varied from 0% in E. coli to 1·8% in E. cloacae and 13% in K. pneumoniae. High rates of very major errors were observed in the disc diffusion test using either the criteria of the Comité de l'antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie (CA-SFM) or the criteria of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), respectively, 3·5 and 2·5%. When the criteria of Gales et al. were applied, the number of very major errors was reduced to one (0·5%). The Etest showed good concordance with agar dilution method.

CONCLUSION

Disc susceptibility testing methods are unreliable on detecting colistin resistance. MIC should be determined to confirm the susceptibility results by disc diffusion.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY

We recommend the determination of MIC by Etest for all multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae when colistin is required for the treatment.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了包括耐粘菌素菌株在内的一组肠杆菌科分离株中不同粘菌素药敏检测方法,如纸片扩散法、琼脂稀释法和 Etest。

方法和结果

采用琼脂稀释法(参考方法)、纸片扩散法(50 和 10μg 纸片)和 Etest 比较了 200 株临床肠杆菌科分离株对粘菌素的药敏性。使用欧洲抗菌药物敏感性试验委员会(EUCAST)建立的标准来解释 MIC(最小抑菌浓度)。粘菌素对大肠埃希菌和阴沟肠杆菌显示出极好的活性(MIC90=0.5mg/L)。相比之下,粘菌素对肺炎克雷伯菌的活性较弱(MIC90=16mg/L)。耐药率从大肠埃希菌的 0%到阴沟肠杆菌的 1.8%和肺炎克雷伯菌的 13%不等。使用法国微生物学会药敏委员会(CA-SFM)或临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)的标准进行纸片扩散试验时,观察到非常大的误差率分别为 3.5%和 2.5%。当应用 Gales 等人的标准时,非常大的误差数量减少到 1 个(0.5%)。Etest 与琼脂稀释法具有良好的一致性。

结论

纸片药敏检测方法不可靠,无法检测粘菌素耐药性。应通过纸片扩散法确定 MIC 以确认药敏结果。

意义和研究的影响

当治疗需要粘菌素时,我们建议对所有多药耐药肠杆菌科细菌通过 Etest 测定 MIC。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验