Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1997 Jun;35(6):1311–1315. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.6.1311-1315.1997

Variability in susceptibilities of Haemophilus influenzae to clarithromycin and azithromycin due to medium pH.

A M Nilius 1, J M Beyer 1, R K Flamm 1, S K Tanaka 1
PMCID: PMC229740  PMID: 9163435

Abstract

The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) methods for susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae in Haemophilus test medium allow a pH range of 7.2 to 7.4. However, it is known that bacteria may appear to be less susceptible to macrolides at lower pHs. Forty-four strains of H. influenzae were tested for their susceptibilities to clarithromycin and azithromycin by the disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods. The isolates appeared to be less susceptible at pH 7.2 than at pH 7.4 by both methods. Clarithromycin was less active at pH 7.2 against 43% of the isolates by the disk diffusion method and against 52% of the isolates by the broth microdilution method. Similarly, azithromycin was less active at pH 7.2 against 41 and 45% of the isolates by the disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods, respectively. Forty-two isolates were classified as clarithromycin susceptible and all isolates were classified as azithromycin susceptible by the disk diffusion method, regardless of the medium pH. However, only 21 isolates were clarithromycin susceptible at pH 7.2 and 34 isolates were susceptible at pH 7.4 by the broth microdilution method, even though quality control results indicated valid testing at both pHs. This study indicated that the results of tests of the susceptibility of H. influenzae with clarithromycin and azithromycin are highly dependent on the pH of the medium. Test results and their interpretations varied even when the medium pH was within the NCCLS-approved range and, coupled with the current NCCLS breakpoint of 8 microg/ml in the case of clarithromycin, may explain some of the observed discordances between the disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (165.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Barry A. L., Fernandes P. B., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Hardy D. J., Jones R. N. Variability of clarithromycin and erythromycin susceptibility tests with Haemophilus influenzae in four different broth media and correlation with the standard disk diffusion test. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Nov;26(11):2415–2420. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2415-2420.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Fuchs P. C., Brown S. D. Relative potencies of azithromycin, clarithromycin and five other orally administered antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Apr;35(4):552–555. doi: 10.1093/jac/35.4.552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barry A. L., Schultheiss T. S., Brown S. D., Fuchs P. C. Reassessment of methods for testing the susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to clarithromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Apr;37(4):845–847. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.4.845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Fass R. J. Erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin: use of frequency distribution curves, scattergrams, and regression analyses to compare in vitro activities and describe cross-resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Oct;37(10):2080–2086. doi: 10.1128/aac.37.10.2080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hardy D. J., Hensey D. M., Beyer J. M., Vojtko C., McDonald E. J., Fernandes P. B. Comparative in vitro activities of new 14-, 15-, and 16-membered macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Nov;32(11):1710–1719. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.11.1710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hardy D. J., Swanson R. N., Rode R. A., Marsh K., Shipkowitz N. L., Clement J. J. Enhancement of the in vitro and in vivo activities of clarithromycin against Haemophilus influenzae by 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin, its major metabolite in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jul;34(7):1407–1413. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.7.1407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jones R. N., Doern G. V., Gerlach E. H., Hindler J., Erwin M. E. Validation of NCCLS macrolide (azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) interpretive criteria for Haemophilus influenzae tested with the Haemophilus test medium. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994 Apr;18(4):243–249. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)90027-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Klastersky J., Debusscher L. Effect of adjustment of the pH upon sensitivity of urinary gram-negative bacilli to nine antibiotics. Int Z Klin Pharmakol Ther Toxikol. 1971 Apr;4(3):325–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sabath L. D., Lorian V., Gerstein D., Loder P. B., Finland M. Enhancing effect on alkalinization of the medium on the activity of erythromycin against gram-negative bacteria. Appl Microbiol. 1968 Sep;16(9):1288–1292. doi: 10.1128/am.16.9.1288-1292.1968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES