Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1996 Aug;34(8):1970–1974. doi: 10.1128/jcm.34.8.1970-1974.1996

Reevaluation of interpretive criteria for Haemophilus influenzae by using meropenem (10-microgram), imipenem (10-microgram), and ampicillin (2- and 10-microgram) disks.

L Zerva 1, D J Biedenbach 1, R N Jones 1
PMCID: PMC229164  PMID: 8818892

Abstract

A collection of 300 Haemophilus influenzae clinical strains was used to assess in vitro susceptibility to carbapenems (meropenem, imipenem) by MIC and disk diffusion methods and to compare disk diffusion test results with two potencies of ampicillin disks (2 and 10 micrograms). The isolates included ampicillin-susceptible or- intermediate (167 strains), beta-lactamase-positive (117 strains), and beta-lactamase-negative ampicillin-resistant (BLNAR; 16 strains) organisms. Disk diffusion testing was performed with 10-micrograms meropenem disks from two manufacturers. Meropenem was highly active against H. influenzae strains (MIC50, 0.06 microgram/ml; MIC90, 0.25 microgram/ml; MIC50 and MIC90, MICs at which 50 and 90%, respectively, of strains are inhibited) and was 8- to 16-fold more potent than imipenem (MIC50, 1 microgram/ml; MIC90, 2 micrograms/ml). Five non-imipenem-susceptible strains were identified (MIC, 8 micrograms/ml), but the disk diffusion test indicated susceptibility (zone diameters, 18 to 21 mm). MIC values of meropenem, doxycycline, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone for BLNAR strains were two- to fourfold greater than those for other strains. The performance of both meropenem disks was comparable and considered acceptable. A single susceptible interpretive zone diameter of > or = 17 mm (MIC, < = or 4 micrograms/ml) was proposed for meropenem. Testing with the 2-micrograms ampicillin disk was preferred because of an excellent correlation between MIC values and zone diameters (r = 0.94) and superior interpretive accuracy with the susceptible criteria at > or = 17 mm (MIC, < or = 1 microgram/ml) and the resistant criteria at < or = 13 mm (MIC, > or = 4 micrograms/ml). Among the BLNAR strains tested, 81.3% were miscategorized as susceptible or intermediate when the 10-micrograms ampicillin disk was used, while the 2-micrograms disk produced only minor interpretive errors (12.5%). Use of these criteria for testing H. influenzae against meropenem and ampicillin should maximize reference test and standardized disk diffusion test performance with the Haemophilus Test Medium. The imipenem disk diffusion test appears compromised and should be used with caution for detecting strains for which imipenem MICs are elevated.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (271.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Balfour J. A., Bryson H. M., Brogden R. N. Imipenem/cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections. Drugs. 1996 Jan;51(1):99–136. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199651010-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Jorgensen J. H., Hardy D. J. Reproducibility of disc susceptibility tests with Haemophilus influenzae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Mar;27(3):295–301. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.3.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blumer J. L., Reed M. D., Kearns G. L., Jacobs R. F., Gooch W. M., 3rd, Yogev R., Willims K., Ewing B. J. Sequential, single-dose pharmacokinetic evaluation of meropenem in hospitalized infants and children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Aug;39(8):1721–1725. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.8.1721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dagan R., Velghe L., Rodda J. L., Klugman K. P. Penetration of meropenem into the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with inflamed meninges. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994 Jul;34(1):175–179. doi: 10.1093/jac/34.1.175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doern G. V., Daum G. S., Tubert T. A. Ampicillin disk diffusion susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Sep;25(9):1675–1678. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.9.1675-1678.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Doern G. V. In vitro susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae: review of new National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards recommendations. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Dec;30(12):3035–3038. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.12.3035-3038.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Doern G. V., Jones R. N., Gerlach E. H., Washington J. A., Biedenbach D. J., Brueggemann A., Erwin M. E., Knapp C., Raymond J. Multicenter clinical laboratory evaluation of a beta-lactamase disk assay employing a novel chromogenic cephalosporin, S1. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Jun;33(6):1665–1667. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.6.1665-1667.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Doern G. V., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Snapper H. Disk diffusion susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae using haemophilus test medium. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 May;9(5):329–336. doi: 10.1007/BF01973739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Heelan J. S., Chesney D., Guadagno G. Investigation of ampicillin-intermediate strains of Haemophilus influenzae by using the disk diffusion procedure and current National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Jul;30(7):1674–1677. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.7.1674-1677.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. James P. A., Hossain F. K., Lewis D. A., White D. G. Beta-lactam susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae strains showing reduced susceptibility to cefuroxime. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Aug;32(2):239–246. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.2.239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jones R. N., Barry A. L., Thornsberry C. In-vitro studies of meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Sep;24 (Suppl A):9–29. doi: 10.1093/jac/24.suppl_a.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jones R. N. Review of the in vitro spectrum of activity of imipenem. Am J Med. 1985 Jun 7;78(6A):22–32. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(85)90098-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jordens J. Z., Slack M. P. Haemophilus influenzae: then and now. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995 Nov;14(11):935–948. doi: 10.1007/BF01691374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jorgensen J. H., Maher L. A., Howell A. W. Activity of a new carbapenem antibiotic, meropenem, against Haemophilus influenzae strains with beta-lactamase- and non-enzyme-mediated resistance to ampicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Mar;35(3):600–602. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.3.600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lovering A. M., Vickery C. J., Watkin D. S., Leaper D., McMullin C. M., White L. O., Reeves D. S., MacGowan A. P. The pharmacokinetics of meropenem in surgical patients with moderate or severe infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36(1):165–172. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.1.165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mendelman P. M., Chaffin D. O., Clausen C., Stull T. L., Needham C., Williams J. D., Smith A. L. Failure to detect ampicillin-resistant, non-beta-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae by standard disk susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Aug;30(2):274–280. doi: 10.1128/aac.30.2.274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mendelman P. M., Wiley E. A., Stull T. L., Clausen C., Chaffin D. O., Onay O. Problems with current recommendations for susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Aug;34(8):1480–1484. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.8.1480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pfaller M. A., Jones R. N., Washington J. A., Koontz F. P., Gerlach E. H., Erwin M. E. Interpretive criteria and quality control guidelines for lomefloxacin and meropenem in susceptibility tests of Haemophilus influenzae using Haemophilus test medium. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Feb;15(2):145–150. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(92)90039-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Powell M., Livermore D. M. Selection and transformation of non-beta-lactamase-mediated insusceptibility to beta-lactams in Haemophilus influenzae: lack of cross-resistance between carbapenems and other agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990 Dec;26(6):741–747. doi: 10.1093/jac/26.6.741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Powell M., Seetulsingh P., Williams J. D. In-vitro susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to meropenem compared with imipenem, five other beta-lactams, chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Sep;24 (Suppl A):175–181. doi: 10.1093/jac/24.suppl_a.175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Powell M., Williams J. D. Detection of ampicillin resistant Haemophilus influenzae in United Kingdom laboratories. J Clin Pathol. 1988 Jul;41(7):716–719. doi: 10.1136/jcp.41.7.716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Powell M., Yeo S. F., Seymour A., Yuan M., Williams J. D., Fah Y. S. Antimicrobial resistance in Haemophilus influenzae from England and Scotland in 1991. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992 May;29(5):547–554. doi: 10.1093/jac/29.5.547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rittenhouse S. F., Miller L. A., Kaplan R. L., Mosely G. H., Poupard J. A. A survey of beta-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae. An evaluation of 5750 isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995 Apr;21(4):223–225. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00028-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Scriver S. R., Walmsley S. L., Kau C. L., Hoban D. J., Brunton J., McGeer A., Moore T. C., Witwicki E. Determination of antimicrobial susceptibilities of Canadian isolates of Haemophilus influenzae and characterization of their beta-lactamases. Canadian Haemophilus Study Group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Jul;38(7):1678–1680. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.7.1678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sumita Y., Fukasawa M. Potent activity of meropenem against Escherichia coli arising from its simultaneous binding to penicillin-binding proteins 2 and 3. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36(1):53–64. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.1.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wiseman L. R., Wagstaff A. J., Brogden R. N., Bryson H. M. Meropenem. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy. Drugs. 1995 Jul;50(1):73–101. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199550010-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Yeo S. F., Livermore D. M. Comparative in-vitro activity of biapenem and other carbapenems against Haemophilus influenzae isolates with known resistance mechanisms to ampicillin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994 Apr;33(4):861–865. doi: 10.1093/jac/33.4.861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES