Medical Microbiology Research Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr;50(4):1153-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05397-11. Epub 2012 Jan 11.
The new M.I.C. Evaluator strip uses test methodology and the recording of results that are similar to those of Etest. For this first assessment, 102 clinical strains of anaerobic bacteria from 12 genera and 155 strains from 7 genera and 8 species of fastidious bacteria were tested by M.I.C. Evaluator, Etest, and agar dilution or broth microdilution as a reference standard. Ampicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, imipenem, levofloxacin, metronidazole, penicillin, and tetracycline were tested depending on the species. Agar dilution for anaerobes was performed according to CLSI document M11-A7. For the fastidious bacteria, CLSI document M45-A2 was followed. For the anaerobes, essential and categorical agreement between M.I.C. Evaluator and Etest was >90%. Compared to agar dilution, essential agreement was low for both strip tests, and many very major errors were observed for metronidazole (13 to 14%) and penicillin (8 to 9%) with isolates from the Bacteroides fragilis group and Clostridium species. For fastidious species, essential agreements for M.I.C. Evaluator and Etest plus or minus one doubling dilution were >95%. Compared to broth microdilution, essential agreements were low (40 to 90%) plus or minus one dilution and were >90% plus or minus two dilutions, with high overall category agreement (CA). Major and minor errors were within established parameters for all strains tested. The M.I.C. Evaluator strips were equivalent to Etest for anaerobes and fastidious species. These observations require further investigation to determine which methods provide the most accurate MIC for clinical utility. The further evaluation of additional M.I.C. Evaluator agents will be performed as they become available.
新的 M.I.C. Evaluator 条带使用与 Etest 相似的测试方法和结果记录。在这项初步评估中,使用 M.I.C. Evaluator、Etest 以及琼脂稀释法或肉汤微量稀释法作为参考标准,对来自 12 个属的 102 株临床厌氧菌株和来自 7 个属和 8 个种的 155 株苛养菌进行了测试。根据物种,测试了氨苄西林、阿莫西林、阿莫西林克拉维酸、头孢噻肟、环丙沙星、红霉素、亚胺培南、左氧氟沙星、甲硝唑、青霉素和四环素。厌氧菌的琼脂稀释法按照 CLSI 文件 M11-A7 进行。对于苛养菌,遵循 CLSI 文件 M45-A2。对于厌氧菌,M.I.C. Evaluator 和 Etest 之间的主要和类别一致性>90%。与琼脂稀释法相比,两种条带测试的主要一致性都较低,对于来自脆弱拟杆菌组和梭菌属的分离株,甲硝唑(13%至 14%)和青霉素(8%至 9%)观察到许多非常大的误差。对于苛养菌种,M.I.C. Evaluator 和 Etest 加或减一个两倍稀释的主要一致性>95%。与肉汤微量稀释法相比,加或减一个稀释度的主要一致性较低(40%至 90%),加或减两个稀释度的主要一致性>90%,总类别一致性(CA)较高。所有测试菌株的主要和次要误差均在既定参数范围内。M.I.C. Evaluator 条带与厌氧菌和苛养菌种的 Etest 相当。这些观察结果需要进一步研究,以确定哪种方法为临床应用提供最准确的 MIC。随着更多 M.I.C. Evaluator 试剂的推出,将对其进行进一步评估。