Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1995 Jul;33(7):1760–1764. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.7.1760-1764.1995

Evaluation of Etest for susceptibility testing of rapidly growing mycobacteria.

J R Biehle 1, S J Cavalieri 1, M A Saubolle 1, L J Getsinger 1
PMCID: PMC228264  PMID: 7665643

Abstract

MICs of amikacin, cefoxitin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, doxycycline, and imipenem were determined by Etest for 100 clinical strains of rapidly growing mycobacteria and compared with MICs determined by a reference agar dilution method. Etest MICs were also determined by an alternative inoculum application (agar overlay) method and compared with MICs determined by the inoculum application method recommended by the manufacturer (swabbing). Agreement between Etest and agar dilution MICs within +/- 1 log2 dilution was 85% (511 of 600), and agreement within +/- 2 log2 dilutions was 97% (580 of 600). The rate of complete category agreement was 88%, and rates of major and minor errors were 2.2 and 11.7%, respectively. No very major errors were detected for Etest MICs. Interlaboratory agreement between MICs determined at two separate laboratories was 81% (121 of 149) within +/- 1 log2 dilution and 92% (137 of 149) within +/- 2 log2 dilutions. Agreement between laboratories by interpretive category was 92%. Exact agreement between agar overlay and swab application MICs was 52.3%, and agreement within +/- 1 log2 dilution was 82.3%. Diffuse ellipse edges and trailing growth were still a problem with the overlay method, and in some cases results were more difficult to interpret than they were with the corresponding swab-prepared plate. In summary, our data suggest that Etest may be an accurate and reproducible method for determining susceptibility of rapidly growing mycobacteria.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (178.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker C. N., Stocker S. A., Culver D. H., Thornsberry C. Comparison of the E Test to agar dilution, broth microdilution, and agar diffusion susceptibility testing techniques by using a special challenge set of bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Mar;29(3):533–538. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.3.533-538.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Garcia F., Thrupp L. D. An improved single-disk method for testing the antibiotic susceptibility of rapidly-growing pathogens. Am J Clin Pathol. 1970 Feb;53(2):149–158. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/53.2.149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown B. A., Wallace R. J., Jr, Onyi G. O., De Rosas V., Wallace R. J., 3rd Activities of four macrolides, including clarithromycin, against Mycobacterium fortuitum, Mycobacterium chelonae, and M. chelonae-like organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992 Jan;36(1):180–184. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.1.180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown D. F., Brown L. Evaluation of the E test, a novel method of quantifying antimicrobial activity. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Feb;27(2):185–190. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.2.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Casal M. J., Rodriguez F. C., Benavente M. C. In vitro susceptibility of Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonei to cefmetazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Feb;27(2):282–283. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.2.282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hoel T., Casals J. B., Eng J. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of rapidly growing mycobacteria using the tablet diffusion method: resistance pattern of Norwegian Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonae isolates. APMIS. 1993 Jan;101(1):27–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hoffner S. E., Klintz L., Olsson-Liljequist B., Bolmström A. Evaluation of Etest for rapid susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium chelonae and M. fortuitum. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Aug;32(8):1846–1849. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.8.1846-1849.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Koontz F. P., Erwin M. E., Barrett M. S., Jones R. N. Etest for routine clinical antimicrobial susceptibility testing of rapid-growing mycobacteria isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994 Jul;19(3):183–186. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)90065-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Stone M. S., Wallace R. J., Jr, Swenson J. M., Thornsberry C., Christensen L. A. Agar disk elution method for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium marinum and Mycobacterium fortuitum complex to sulfonamides and antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Oct;24(4):486–493. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.4.486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Swenson J. M., Thornsberry C., Silcox V. A. Rapidly growing mycobacteria: testing of susceptibility to 34 antimicrobial agents by broth microdilution. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Aug;22(2):186–192. doi: 10.1128/aac.22.2.186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Swenson J. M., Wallace R. J., Jr, Silcox V. A., Thornsberry C. Antimicrobial susceptibility of five subgroups of Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Dec;28(6):807–811. doi: 10.1128/aac.28.6.807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wallace R. J., Jr, Brown B. A., Onyi G. O. Susceptibilities of Mycobacterium fortuitum biovar. fortuitum and the two subgroups of Mycobacterium chelonae to imipenem, cefmetazole, cefoxitin, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Apr;35(4):773–775. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.4.773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wallace R. J., Jr, Dalovisio J. R., Pankey G. A. Disk diffusion testing of susceptibility of Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonei to antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Nov;16(5):611–614. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.5.611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES