Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing
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 ana...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PAGEPress Publications
2023-07-01
|
| Series: | Microbiologia Medica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://pagepressjournals.org/index.php/mm/article/view/11056 |
| _version_ | 1797770201956089856 |
|---|---|
| author | Karin Puechler Katia Scalzo Maira Nicoletti Stefanie Wieser Richard Aschbacher Elisabetta Pagani |
| author_facet | Karin Puechler Katia Scalzo Maira Nicoletti Stefanie Wieser Richard Aschbacher Elisabetta Pagani |
| author_sort | Karin Puechler |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
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.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:19:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-88a501012e3c445a8c905b454e22569c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2280-6423 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:19:49Z |
| publishDate | 2023-07-01 |
| publisher | PAGEPress Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microbiologia Medica |
| spelling | doaj.art-88a501012e3c445a8c905b454e22569c2023-07-28T22:53:26ZengPAGEPress PublicationsMicrobiologia Medica2280-64232023-07-0138110.4081/mm.2023.11056Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testingKarin Puechler0Katia Scalzo1Maira Nicoletti2Stefanie Wieser3Richard Aschbacher4Elisabetta Pagani5Scuola Provinciale Superiore di Sanità, Claudiana, Bolzano, ItalyLaboratorio Aziendale di Microbiologia e Virologia, BolzanoLaboratorio Aziendale di Microbiologia e Virologia, BolzanoScuola Provinciale Superiore di Sanità, Claudiana, BolzanoLaboratorio Aziendale di Microbiologia e Virologia, BolzanoLaboratorio Aziendale di Microbiologia e Virologia, Bolzano 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. https://pagepressjournals.org/index.php/mm/article/view/11056anaerobesbacteroidesclostridiumEtestSensititreagreement |
| spellingShingle | Karin Puechler Katia Scalzo Maira Nicoletti Stefanie Wieser Richard Aschbacher Elisabetta Pagani Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing Microbiologia Medica anaerobes bacteroides clostridium Etest Sensititre agreement |
| title | Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| title_full | Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| title_short | Comparison of the Etest and Sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| title_sort | comparison of the etest and sensititre methods for anaerobe susceptibility testing |
| topic | anaerobes bacteroides clostridium Etest Sensititre agreement |
| url | https://pagepressjournals.org/index.php/mm/article/view/11056 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT karinpuechler comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting AT katiascalzo comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting AT mairanicoletti comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting AT stefaniewieser comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting AT richardaschbacher comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting AT elisabettapagani comparisonoftheetestandsensititremethodsforanaerobesusceptibilitytesting |