This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krisher, K K Articles by Linscott, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Krisher, K K Articles by Linscott, A

Comparison of three commercial MIC systems, E test, fastidious antimicrobial susceptibility panel, and FOX fastidious panel, for confirmation of penicillin and cephalosporin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Children's Medical Center of Dallas, Texas 75235.

ABSTRACT

The performances of three commercial broth microdilution MIC assays adapted for use with fastidious organisms--the E test (ET), Fastidious Antimicrobial Susceptibility panel (FAS), and FOX Fastidious panel (FOX)--were compared with a MIC using Mueller-Hinton broth with 5% lysed horse blood (MHLHB) to confirm penicillin and cephalosporin resistance in clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Of the isolates screened for penicillin resistance, 5 (12.8%) were categorized as susceptible, 16 (41.0%) were categorized as intermediate, and 18 (46.2%) were categorized as resistant by MHLHB. Only the isolates exhibiting intermediate-to-resistant MICs were included in the comparison. Agreement within +/- 1 log2 dilution was found in 91, 21, and 76% of the ET, FAS, and FOX MICs, respectively, compared with the MHLHB MIC. No very major or major discrepancies occurred with the ET or FOX; however, two very major interpretive errors occurred with the FAS. Agreement between the ET and MHLHB for cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and cefuroxime was 88, 85, and 100%, respectively. Less than 50% of cephalosporin MICs categorized as > 0.5 microgram/ml by MHLHB were detected by FAS or FOX. Of the methods compared, the ET was the most reliable alternative for susceptibility testing of pneumococci.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Richardson, H., Smaill, F. (1998). Recent advances: Medical microbiology. BMJ 317: 1060-1062 [Full Text]