Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a comparison of three methods

R.S. Bradbury, S.G. Tristram, L.F. Roddam, D.W. Reid, Tim Inglis, A.C. Champion

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important pathogen in humans, particularly in the context of nosocomial infection and infections of the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. In order to provide clinicians with information about the likely effectiveness of specific antimicrobial treatment for P aeruginosa infections, clinical laboratories employ in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Two commonly employed methods are the CLSI disc-diffusion and Etest methods. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of susceptibility results generated by these two methods against agar dilution as the reference method. Susceptible or non-susceptible (resistant and intermediate) results of the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods are compared with CLSI agar dilution results for a large cohort of clinical cystic fibrosis (n=71) and non-cystic fibrosis (n=83) isolates using CLSI interpretive criteria. An unacceptable number of major and very major errors were observed for various antimicrobials tested against both CF and non-CF isolates when using the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods. The potential for error in standard laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be considered by clinicians when being guided by the results of such tests in the prescription of antimicrobial agents for R aeruginosa infection.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-4
    JournalBritish Journal of Biomedical Science
    Volume68
    Publication statusPublished - 2011

    Fingerprint

    Cystic Fibrosis
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa
    Fibrosis
    Disk Diffusion Antimicrobial Tests
    Dilution
    Agar
    Testing
    Clinical laboratories
    Pathogens
    Anti-Infective Agents
    Laboratory Infection
    Cross Infection
    Infection
    Prescriptions
    Lung

    Cite this

    @article{4844e5806f9541d594811e9bb67d0fe2,
    title = "Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a comparison of three methods",
    abstract = "Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important pathogen in humans, particularly in the context of nosocomial infection and infections of the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. In order to provide clinicians with information about the likely effectiveness of specific antimicrobial treatment for P aeruginosa infections, clinical laboratories employ in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Two commonly employed methods are the CLSI disc-diffusion and Etest methods. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of susceptibility results generated by these two methods against agar dilution as the reference method. Susceptible or non-susceptible (resistant and intermediate) results of the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods are compared with CLSI agar dilution results for a large cohort of clinical cystic fibrosis (n=71) and non-cystic fibrosis (n=83) isolates using CLSI interpretive criteria. An unacceptable number of major and very major errors were observed for various antimicrobials tested against both CF and non-CF isolates when using the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods. The potential for error in standard laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be considered by clinicians when being guided by the results of such tests in the prescription of antimicrobial agents for R aeruginosa infection.",
    author = "R.S. Bradbury and S.G. Tristram and L.F. Roddam and D.W. Reid and Tim Inglis and A.C. Champion",
    year = "2011",
    language = "English",
    volume = "68",
    pages = "1--4",
    journal = "British Journal of Biomedical Science",
    issn = "0967-4845",
    publisher = "Step Publishing Ltd.",

    }

    Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a comparison of three methods. / Bradbury, R.S.; Tristram, S.G.; Roddam, L.F.; Reid, D.W.; Inglis, Tim; Champion, A.C.

    In: British Journal of Biomedical Science, Vol. 68, 2011, p. 1-4.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a comparison of three methods

    AU - Bradbury, R.S.

    AU - Tristram, S.G.

    AU - Roddam, L.F.

    AU - Reid, D.W.

    AU - Inglis, Tim

    AU - Champion, A.C.

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important pathogen in humans, particularly in the context of nosocomial infection and infections of the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. In order to provide clinicians with information about the likely effectiveness of specific antimicrobial treatment for P aeruginosa infections, clinical laboratories employ in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Two commonly employed methods are the CLSI disc-diffusion and Etest methods. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of susceptibility results generated by these two methods against agar dilution as the reference method. Susceptible or non-susceptible (resistant and intermediate) results of the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods are compared with CLSI agar dilution results for a large cohort of clinical cystic fibrosis (n=71) and non-cystic fibrosis (n=83) isolates using CLSI interpretive criteria. An unacceptable number of major and very major errors were observed for various antimicrobials tested against both CF and non-CF isolates when using the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods. The potential for error in standard laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be considered by clinicians when being guided by the results of such tests in the prescription of antimicrobial agents for R aeruginosa infection.

    AB - Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important pathogen in humans, particularly in the context of nosocomial infection and infections of the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. In order to provide clinicians with information about the likely effectiveness of specific antimicrobial treatment for P aeruginosa infections, clinical laboratories employ in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Two commonly employed methods are the CLSI disc-diffusion and Etest methods. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of susceptibility results generated by these two methods against agar dilution as the reference method. Susceptible or non-susceptible (resistant and intermediate) results of the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods are compared with CLSI agar dilution results for a large cohort of clinical cystic fibrosis (n=71) and non-cystic fibrosis (n=83) isolates using CLSI interpretive criteria. An unacceptable number of major and very major errors were observed for various antimicrobials tested against both CF and non-CF isolates when using the Etest and CLSI disc-diffusion methods. The potential for error in standard laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be considered by clinicians when being guided by the results of such tests in the prescription of antimicrobial agents for R aeruginosa infection.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 68

    SP - 1

    EP - 4

    JO - British Journal of Biomedical Science

    JF - British Journal of Biomedical Science

    SN - 0967-4845

    ER -