Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2000, p. 2802-2802, Vol. 38, No. 7
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Use of Urine Cultures in a Novel Filter Paper Dilution System
 |
LETTER |
In a recent issue of the Journal of Clinical
Microbiology, Kunin and Buesching (1) describe a novel
technique to diagnose common urinary pathogens in office-collected
samples. Using a three-layer circular sandwich with filter paper as the
solid-phase dilution device, it was possible to pick up members of the
family Enterobacteriaceae and staphylococci from urine
specimens. The technology was standardized by monitoring the
penetration of microbes through the filter paper onto MacConkey or
Trypticase soy medium seeded onto a template. As a control to the
sandwich technology, serial 10-fold dilutions of various organisms were
cultured on the surfaces of agar plates. The sensitivity and
specificity with 487 urine samples for gram-negative bacteria or with
405 samples for gram-positive bacteria were excellent. There is no
information on any residual antimicrobial (AM) activity in 892 specimens. However, it would be pertinent to standardize the technology
for urine samples with residual AM activity.
Bacteriuria and AM activity are often encountered during clinical
practice. Recent investigations of AM activity in Taiwan pointed to
such an activity in 55.5% of 112 patients on their arrival at an
emergency department (2). Furthermore, AM activity was also
evident in 25.1% of 203 internal medicine outpatients, 7.6% of 471 high school students, and 7.4% of 202 people at a center for senior
citizens. There was no correlation between the bacterial counts and
sterility of a specimen and its AM activity.
Residual AM activity in urine was likely to interfere in the
three-layer sandwich technique during filtration of microbes onto
culture medium. Antibacterial substances block the filter paper pores,
lowering the number of microbes that filter through. The differently
sized AMs may clog the pores in an unspecified manner. Any differential
concentration of an antibacterial agent on the culture medium after
filtration through the clogged filter paper would adversely affect
sensitivity and specificity. Such an effect should be determined by
soaking antibacterial agents and microbes onto filter paper.
Well-designed experiments to address blockage of filter paper pores or
any differential inhibition of bacterial growth are desirable. Such
experiments would guarantee that concurrent bacteriuria and AM activity
in urine would not interfere with a correct diagnosis, even in areas
where AM drugs are freely available and histories of patients tend to
be unreliable (2).
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Kunin, C. M., and W. J. Buesching.
2000.
Novel screening method for urine cultures using a filter paper dilution system.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
38:1180-1190[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Liu, C.-Y.,
W.-K. Huang,
T.-S. Huang, and C. M. Kunin.
1999.
Extent of antibiotic use in Taiwan shown by antimicrobial activity in urine.
Lancet
354:1360[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| | | | |
Subhash C. Arya
Center for Logistical Research and Innovation M-122 (of part 2), Greater Kailash-II New Delhi-11008, India Phone: (91 11) 641-4455 Fax: (91 11) 649-4478 E-mail: subhashji{at}hotmail.com
|
 |
AUTHOR'S REPLY |
Dr. Arya's comments on our report and our studies of antibiotic use in
Taiwan are appreciated. He is quite right to be concerned about whether
the use of antimicrobial drugs might interfere with urine cultures, but
this is a potential problem with all urine culture methods. The
excellent correlation of results from the filter paper with results
from the standard streak plate method strongly indicates that if there
were interference by antimicrobial drugs, it would be essentially the
same with both methods.
There is no reason to believe that "antimicrobial substances block
the filter paper pores." Antibiotics can readily penetrate micron-sized pores large enough to allow passage of bacteria.
| | | | |
Calvin M. Kunin
Department of Internal Medicine The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2000, p. 2802-2802, Vol. 38, No. 7
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0