Hakvoort Hanna, Bovenkamp Evelyn, Greenwood-Quaintance Kerryl E, Schmidt-Malan Suzannah M, Mandrekar Jay N, Schuetz Audrey N, Patel Robin
Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Sep 22;58(10). doi: 10.1128/JCM.00695-20.
This study aimed to determine whether agar dilution, research-use-only disk diffusion (Mast Group Ltd., Bootle Merseyside, UK), Etest (bioMérieux, Inc., Durham, NC), and MIC test strip (MTS) (Liofilchem, Inc., Waltham, MA) methods yield equivalent results to those of broth microdilution (BMD) for imipenem-relebactam susceptibility testing using a collection of 297 Gram-negative bacilli, including members of the order and , enriched for drug resistance. MIC and disk diameter results were interpreted using United States Food and Drug Administration breakpoints. Overall, 76.8% of the isolates tested were susceptible to imipenem-relebactam by BMD. MIC values for agar dilution, Etest, and MTS were not significantly different from that for BMD, although they tended to be 1 to 2 dilutions higher. Essential agreement was 95.6% for agar dilution, 90.6% for Etest, and 85.2% for MTS. Categorical agreement was 98.0% for agar dilution, 73.1% for disk diffusion, 96.3% for Etest, and 96.6% for MTS. In conclusion, agar dilution and Etest yielded comparable results to BMD for imipenem-relebactam.
本研究旨在确定琼脂稀释法、仅供研究使用的纸片扩散法(英国默西塞德郡布特尔的Mast集团有限公司)、Etest法(美国北卡罗来纳州达勒姆的bioMérieux公司)和MIC测试条(MTS)法(美国马萨诸塞州沃尔瑟姆的Liofilchem公司),对于使用297株革兰氏阴性杆菌(包括 目和 目的成员,且富含耐药菌)进行亚胺培南-瑞来巴坦药敏试验时,是否能产生与肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)等效的结果。使用美国食品药品监督管理局的断点来解释MIC和纸片直径结果。总体而言,通过BMD检测,76.8%的受试分离株对亚胺培南-瑞来巴坦敏感。琼脂稀释法、Etest法和MTS法的MIC值与BMD法的MIC值无显著差异,尽管它们往往高1至2个稀释度。琼脂稀释法的基本一致性为95.6%,Etest法为90.6%,MTS法为85.2%。分类一致性方面,琼脂稀释法为98.0%,纸片扩散法为73.1%,Etest法为96.3%,MTS法为96.6%。总之,对于亚胺培南-瑞来巴坦,琼脂稀释法和Etest法产生的结果与BMD法相当。